From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Value of Stats
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 03:28:52 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.192601.10342@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> 
91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (roger maynard) writes:
>In <3832@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> dtate+@pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:

>>>>       Bonds:          48.6 + 5.1 = 53.7 marginal runs
>>>>       Puckett:        25.2 + 0.3 = 25.5 marginal runs
>>>>       Salazar:         4.5 - 1.8 =  2.7 marginal runs

>>>Go one step further and tell me 
>>>what percentage of each team's total offensive
>>>production each player made.  That is the issue here.

>>I thought you wanted to know total contribution.  The value of those 54 runs
>>that Bonds contributed DOES NOT DEPEND on how many runs the rest of his team
>>did or did not produce.  Barry's contribution can be accurately summarized as
>>"about 54 more runs than they would have scored with an average player in his
>>place".  What possible relevance is there in what fraction of the team's
>>production this represents?  That's information about how good Bonds's team-
>>mates were, not about Bonds himself.

>It would tell us what percentage of a division-winning offence Bonds is
>repsonsible for.  Likewise Puckett.  

Excuse me, but offenses don't win divisions.  

TEAMS win divisions.  Offense and defense together.  A team can have a
lousy offense and still win if hte pitching is awesome; likewise,
mediocre pitching and good hitting can win.

Then there's the problem that some divisions require more wins than
others.  

And finally, what does division-winning have to do with it?  The goal of
a TEAM is to win divisions, that of an offense to score runs at a high
rate.

Period.  

And what we're looking at is The players' run-scoring contributions.  

Period.  

>It would tell us who carried the 
>biggest load, that is, it could be a measure of MVP.  

Non-sequitur.  For one thing, the team might still have won with
substantially less production from that player -- say, if the team won
the division by 10 or 15 games -- so, in terms of "biggest load," this
would then have to be weighted by the strength of the second-place team,
too....???!!!???

>And forget about guys like Griffey playing for bad teams.  

Why?  Seems like a pretty crucial issue.  

>Tell us what percentage of
>the load was carried by Bonds or Puckett or the much maligned Joe Carter
>as they drove towards their pennants.  

Sorry, try again.  Those weren't THEIR pennants.  The TEAM won the
pennant.  (Not the Pirates, either, come to think of it.  Or the Jays.)

>It might not be a "true" indication 
>of a players talent level but it would be more meaningful than RBI's and it
>might be interesting.  How would you make such a calculation?

In what way would it be interesting?  If a team wins because of great
pitching, the best hitter, no matter how weak, is a great player?
REasoning like that is quite uninteresting to me.

>>How can you get a measure of individual value by dividing by what a bunch of
>>other people did?  All that would tell you is how much better than the rest of
>>the team these guys are, using your definition of 'better'.  Or, equivalently,
>>how much worse than these guys the rest of the team was.

>Yes but if we are talking about the "best" teams it might be interesting to
>see how large the individual contributions were to the winning effort.

But hitters don't contribute to the overall winning effort! They
contribute to the offense alone, so the fact that the team won the
whatever (pennant, WS, division) doesn't mean anything in particular
about the offense!  If you divide by total offense, you then have to
compare the offense's contribution to that of the defense to see how
much of the total it provided.  

And how do you suppose you do that?  Why, you compare to league numbers!
In other words, you multiply back in what you just divided out...

>>>>Greg's original claim, that Puckett's stats are closer to Salazar's than they
>>>>are to Bonds's, still holds true when you look at total contribution over the
>>>>season.  Had Salazar played full-time, it would be even closer.
>>>
>>>Well then show us the percentage of the teams offensive production that each
>>>each player ACTUALLY MADE!  
>
>>Why?  I've already showed you the players total (offensive) value.  Who cares
>>what percentage of the team offense that is?  The contribution is an absolute
>>one, not a relative one.  Nobody is going to say "Well, the Brewers only won
>>82 games, but Paul Molitor produced 42% of their offense, so we're giving the
>>Brewers the pennant."  Contribution toward winning comes in increasing the
>>chance of winning individual games, which comes from scoring as many runs as
>>possible.  (And, of course, preventing as many as possible on defense.)

>ok then what percentage of total LEAGUE production did the three players make?
>This business of saying so many runs above average is skirting the issue. 

Ah, right.  Here we have the crux of the issue: arithmetic.  What's the
relationship between league production and average league production?  

Yup, that's right; a constant.  Number of games played by the league.
Which is the same across all players...

>What was the average?  Lets add that in and then compare the three.

>>>Furthermore I suggest that the number of players
>>>whose MLV lies between Salazar and Puckett is FAR greater than the number of 
>>>players between Bonds and Puckett.  

>>Roughly double.

>Double?  You say further down that there were only 18 or 20 players better
>than Puckett in the AL.  Salazar is almost dead-on average by your reckoning.
>Does this mean that there are only 54-60 players better than average in the 
>AL assuming AL average is approximately the same as NL?

Sounds about right to me.  After all, Salazar is a few rtuns *above*
average; a whole lot of minor players are probably clustered within a
run or so of the mean.

>>>Bonds had outstanding stats and Puckett 
>>>had very good stats.  They are both among the elite.  Salazar is totally 
>>>average.

>>My point is that, last year, Puckett was *not* among the elite.  He was about
>>the 18th or 20th best player in the AL, but was only *half* as valuable as
>>Bonds.  The ordinal ranking isn't important; it just shows that talent thins
>>out as you get up into the elite classes.

>The 18th or 20th could become #1.  

So could Terry Pendleton.  What's your point?

>And many teams don't even have a player
>of that calibre.  Salazar's are a dime a dozen.  

REally? Then how come so many worse players play?

>The fact that ordinal ranking is not important works against your argument.

Ordinal ranking is pretty important when one wishes to talk about an
MVP, which I think you once did.  It also gives the lie to your
dime-a-dozen argument, so let's not dismiss it too hastily.

>>>>Now, if you think that Barry Bonds's attitude costs his teams more than the
>>>>difference between Kirby Puckett last year and Luis Salazar last year, you're
>>>>welcome to believe that.  I see no reason to agree with you, though.
>>>
>>>No, I am saying that the sum of Bond's "attitude" + individual performance
>>>COULD be less that the sum of Puckett's "attitude" + individual performance
>>>when looked at as a percentage of team production as a whole.  
>
>>And I still don't understand why you would look at it as a percentage of team
>>production, rather than in absolute runs.  Total runs win pennants.  Percent
>>of team production is just a measure of how unbalanced the team offense is.

>Yes but it might be enlightening to find out what Minny's chances would have
>been without Puckett and likewise for Bonds, Carter and Gant.

Which you can do with subtraction, and without any messing with
percentages.  Simply replace his numbers (and his intangibles, of
coursE) with those of an average or replacement-level CF, depending on
which way you swing.  This will tell you.  PErcentages will not.

Roger
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball