From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: Cecil signs :-( :-( :-(
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:06:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.164717.29452@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>
>so then i went and looked at the numbers. Olerud beats Fielder by 40 points
>on AVG and 50 on OBA. but the slugging percentage really surprised me. they
>are about the same!

There are three major *real* reasons for the Surprise(!) element here,
and one which shouldn't be a reason but probably is.  First, Olerud
has yet to be allowed to play a full season.  He has never played more
than 139 games in a season.  (Corollary: Cito is an idiot.  Olerud is
young, sturdy, and his backup is Pat Tabler.)  Second, Olerud beats
Fielder by a *wide* margin in batting average and doubles.  Those may
not have the glamour of a HR, but they contribute to the team and to
the slugging average.  Finally, Olerud walks more and so has fewer AB
in which to hit the HRs.  Those walks are more valuable than the
average Fielder AB, and so this is a *plus* in real life.  But when
looking at the HR and RBI totals, they hurt Olerud.

Look at Olerud's numbers projected to Fielder's PA, AB, and Out totals:

BATTERS        BA   SLG   OBP  AB   R   H  TB 2B 3B HR RBI  BB  SO SB CS
OLERUD,J     .284  .450  .375 458  68 130 206 28  0 16  66  70  61  1  0
OLERUD,J->PA                  579  86 164 260 35  0 20  83  88  77  1  0  
OLERUD,J->AB                  594  88 169 267 36  0 21  86  91  79  1  0
OLERUD,J->Out                 627  93 178 282 38  0 22  90  96  84  1  0
FIELDER,C    .244  .458  .325 594  80 145 272 22  0 35 124  73 151  0  0

Admittedly these are merely projections, but I am of the opinion that
Olerud's numbers would not suffer from full-time play.  Which
projection would be the most appropriate for comparing value?  If we
had a team of nine clones, the "Out" projection would clearly be the
correct one.  But we don't.  However the PA projection doesn't
properly devalue the "out eater", even on a *real* team.  Somewhere in
between the two is probably best...

But the *real* reason why the media is ga-ga over Fielder and hasn't
yet noticed Olerud?  You hear a lot of talk about Fielder of the type
"his stats don't look like much, but he gets the job done".  In other
words, he has amazing RBI totals (and his R totals don't look so bad
either).

Part of this is because he bats cleanup on a strong team.  Olerud
*should* be batting third on the Jays, but so far Cito has him buried
in the five or six hole.  This naturally makes it harder for him to
get RBIs and less likely to get driven in.

But this only makes up for part of the difference.  The rest?  A home
run is fully valued by R+RBI.  But a walk, single, or double will
often advance a baserunner (eventually resulting in a run) without
giving the batter either a R or an RBI.  And so singles, doubles, and
walks are undervalued by R+RBI.  There *is* value in moving a runner
into scoring position, and that simply is not one of Fielder's skills.

>third, after the '91 season, when i believe Cecil was bitching about not
>being named MVP, i believe i saw one of the big baseball book people (i forget
>who) make a case that Devon White deserved the MVP more than Fielder
>based on overall contribution. it was quite interesting.

Fielder's bid for the MVP in '91 was a *ridiculous* joke.  He was
somewhere between 10th and 20th in the league in *offense*.  When you
also consider defense, he drops even further.  He was a good player
with a flashy style and a *lot* of playing time.  But he wasn't one of
the best in the league, and wasn't even the MVP of his team.  The
Tigers would (will?) have a much harder time replacing Tettleton than
they would replacing Fielder.

-Valentine
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball