From: mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones)
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 17:09:46 GMT
Reply-To: mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Corp. Kingston NY

In article <1992Sep11.020617.899@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep09.175729.37031@watson.ibm.com>, mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep8.124713.852@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>>>In article <5463@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:
>>>> Thus spake z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu:
>>>>>	Yes and no. True, he does hurt his team's chances of scoring
>>>>>*additional* runs in that inning. However, the object of the games is to score
>>>>>runs. However Fielder manages to get Phillips across the plate is (in general)
>>>>>good, because it means the Tigers have scored a run. 
>>>> 
>>>> Not quite.  This misses a key factor, which is the same key factor missed by
>>>> the mediots (who tend to make this same argument).  
>>>	Ah, so it is bad to score a run? Also, note that I added 'in general'.
>> 
>> Steeerike one. Strawman argument, low and outside but catching the corner.
>> No one, particularly Dr. Dave, said it was bad to score a run. Tell me, if
>> you have a runner on third, is it better to score him by a sac fly or a
>> single? In that situation, I think even you would have to admit that while a
>> sac fly is better than a K, it's not as good as a single. I find it hard to
>> accept that making an out is (in general) good, even if it scores a run.
>
>	I would hardly call one line an 'argument'. I *never* said a single is
>worse than a sac fly. Some outs are better than other sorts of outs. Dr. Dave
>*was* insinuating that trading an out for a run is not good.

1. It was clearly part of an argument about the worth of going for the
immediate run. Don't whine.
2. I didn't say you did. It was a rhetorical question. I even said,
literally, that I thought you would believe that a single was better.
3. Dr. Dave was in fact insinuating that, and he's absolutely right, except
in some relatively rare situations (bottom of the 9th, tie game, for
instance).

>>>> In other words, 90% of the work in getting that run for the team had already
>>>> been done by the time the RBI man came to the plate.
>>>> If you always play to get that particular runner home at any cost, you'll 
>>>> tend to never score more than one run per inning.  Translation: you'll lose
>>>> a whole lot.
>>>	Okay, Mr. Obnoxious Baseball Guru, of the 90% of the time that the
>>>runner on third scores, how often is it the result of a groundout or a hit?
>>>I was NEVER saying that a groundout is better than a hit -- what I was saying
>>>was that it's important that the run is scored. I don't want that other 10% to
>>>occur.
>> Steerike two, uncalled-for personal attack. Dr. Dave is almost unfailingly
>> polite, practically never obnoxious. You, on the other hand.... There are a
>	Oh, being nice like comparing me to a mediot? That's *not* insulting?

1. No one compared you to a mediot. Dave observed that you had made the same
mistake as many mediots. The reason the "mediots" come in for such abuse
here is that they are both a) self-proclaimed "experts" and b) frequently
provably WRONG.

>>>>>A groundout RBI is better than a popout or strikeout.
>>>> But a walk is better than either.
>>>	Not really. The batter has failed to drive in the run, and you can't
>>>assume the next batter will. And there is now a chance for a DP grounder.
>> Oh my! A chance for a DP grounder! Guess we'd just better not put anybody on
>> base at all! 
>	Yep, I'm the only sarcastic person in this group...

Not by a long shot, bub. Don't flatter yourself. Fact is, you can assume
(based on statistics, which is to say collected observations), that a runner
on third with less than 2 out will score something like 90% of the time.
That's on average. With above average hitters (which is what you tend to
find in the 3-4-5 spots in lineups) coming up, the odds are probably higher.
So, if your man walks rather than drives in the run with a sac fly and
the probability of scoring the man from first is as large as 10%, then
you've come out ahead in the long run with the walk. Now, what's wrong with
this line of reasoning?
 
>> C'mon, think of the general case, say second inning, score 0-0,
>> Phillips at third, one out, Fielder batting. Which would you prefer as
>> Tettleton steps to the plate:
>>    a) one run in, two out, no one on.
>>    b) no runs in, one out, runners at first and third.
>> I'll give you a hint. You're probably going to score more runs in situation
>> b). 
>	Considering that Tettleton strikes out about 3-4 times as much as he
>hits HRs, he's more likey to whiff than to park one. Tettleton is also as slow
>as hell, so a grounder has a good chance to be a DP. If he singles, you'll have
>one run in, and Fielder *might* be on third. You'll need a *second* hit to
>score Fielder. Who's after Tettleton, Deer? Well, there's out two, swinging.
>This leaves it up to Whoevers Next to drive in that coveted second run with two
>out.

OK, assume best case then. Phillips on third, none out. Fielder flies to
center, Phillips scores. Tettleton flies out (he hits more fly balls than
ground balls, I'll bet). Deer whiffs. 1 run, inning over.
But what if Fielder walks? Which does Tettleton do more, hit HRs or ground
into DP's? I don't know, but I'll bet it's close since he almost certainly
hits more fly balls than ground balls (most HR hitters do). Would you trade,
over the long run, 10 DP's for 20 3 run HR's? That's a trade I'd make, at 3
runs/out. That doesn't even take into effect the times that Phillips would
score from third on the DP. If Tettleton K's, the odds actually go up since
Deer hardly ever grounds into DP's (he had 0 GIDP last year), and certainly
does hit HR's. If Tettleton neither K's, HR's, or GIDP's, then he probably
flies out (which would likely score the run, so Fielder's walk didn't hurt
in this case and Deer gets to bat with a runner on) or gets a hit, which
scores the run and lets Deer hit with two men on. Knowing this, why would
you rather have Fielder make an out?


Look, people are disagreeing with you, sometimes stridently, because there's
a fair bit of evidence supporting the opposing viewpoint. Mostly, they're
being polite. Even when they're not, there's nothing here that would be
classed as more than a mild flame on a lot of newsgroups. Don't be so thin
skinned and debate the issues, not the people.

   Mike Jones  |  AIX/ESA Development  |  mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com

Measures of productivity are like statistics on accidents: they tell you all
about the number of accidents in the home, on the road, and at the work
place, but they do not tell you how to reduce the frequency of accidents.
	- W. Edwards Deming, "Out of the Crisis"