From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: Cecil signs :-( :-( :-(
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:03:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.165541.28118@athena.mit.edu> frisch1@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan Katz) writes:
>
>Now, wait a minute.  It seems to me that you value Avg way too much.

Do we really?  A home run will drive in (on the average) 1.5 runs, and
will (on the average :-) score 1 run.  A single (for an average
cleanup hitter) will drive in about .33 runs and score about .25 runs.
So by using R+RBI, you might value a HR at about 4 singles.  But this
method accounts for the *full* value of home runs, while it only
accounts for part of the value of singles.  A single will often move
the runner from first to second or third.  Since runner-on-first-base
is as common a situation as runner-in-scoring-position, this
contribution is non-trivial.  Making a single worth about 1/3 of a HR.

So does that mean we would prefer a .150 hitter who always hits a home
run to a .450 singles hitter?  No.  Because while the .150 hitter will
produce as much *positive* contribution, he will also use more outs!
Outs hurt the team, by preventing batters later in the lineup from
driving in runs.  (Okay, so those batters might not be *great* at
driving in runs.  They might only be Rob Deer or Candy Maldonado.  But
Deer and Maldonado each drove in over 60 runs last year, so they
clearly aren't a total loss.)

An out costs about 1/4 of a run.  Seem high?  Consider the impact of
inning-extending-errors.  Even if nobody crosses the plate on the
error, having the extra chance to get that RBI single can really help.

>There's just no way that Palmeiro and Olerud were better than Fielder,

So let's compare Palmeiro and Fielder.  I will use the linear weights
system, which uses the following values:
1B =  .46 runs
2B =  .80 runs
3B = 1.02 runs (we won't be seeing enough of these to matter)
HR = 1.41 runs
SB =  .30 runs (again, this will be irrelevant)
CS = -.60 runs (again, this will be irrelevant)
BB =  .33 runs
Out = .25 runs

BATTERS        BA   SLG   OBP   G  AB   R   H  TB 2B 3B HR RBI  BB  SO SB CS  E
PALMEIRO,R   .268  .434  .352 159 608  84 163 264 27  4 22  85  72  83  2  3  7
FIELDER,C    .244  .458  .325 155 594  80 145 272 22  0 35 124  73 151  0  0 10

Palmeiro vs. Fielder?	Runs
1B: 22 more		 10.12
2B:  5 more		  4.00
3B:  4 more		  4.08
HR: 13 fewer		-18.33
SB:  2 more		   .60
CS:  3 more		 -1.80
BB:  1 fewer		  -.33
Out: 4 fewer		  1.00
Total:			  -.66 (a trivial quantity)

So, yes.  I would say that Palmeiro was about as valuable as Fielder
last year.  I think you undervalue hits that advance runners without
necessarily driving them in.

Olerud, Hrbek, and Sorrento are harder cases to analyze.  While
Palmeiro and Fielder got the same amount of PT, these three got only
about 450 AB each.  Consider Olerud (as he is the best of the three).
Fielder got 25% more PA than did Olerud.  Naturally, it is going to be
nearly impossible for Olerud to make as many positive contributions as
Fielder, given the difference in PT.  But he also used fewer outs in
the process.

No matter *how* you compare them, it will be unfair to one or the
other in some sense.  It isn't Olerud's fault that his idiot manager
had him platooned with Pat Tabler!  Yet he *didn't* play 650 PA, and
*didn't* hit the 20 HR that he might have.  And it is unfair to give
him credit for what he didn't do.  Let's just look at what Fielder did
with the extra PT....

BATTERS        BA   SLG   OBP   G  AB   H  TB 2B 3B HR  BB  SO SB CS  E
FIELDER,C    .244  .458  .325 155 594 145 272 22  0 35  73 151  0  0 10
OLERUD,J     .284  .450  .375 138 458 130 206 28  0 16  70  61  1  0  7
Difference:  .110  .485  .129  17 136  15  66 -6  0 19   3  90 -1  0  3

Now clearly we aren't going to be able to find a replacement who hits
like this.  :-) I'm not sure how one would hit a negative double in
any case.  But if the replacement for Olerud hit for similar *value*
to this performance, then Olerud+replacement would produce more than
Fielder.  And it simply isn't a particularly valuable performance.
So, yes.  Fielder was better than an Olerud/Tabler platoon.  But if
Olerud had gotten the extra PT, he almost certainly would have
outproduced Fielder.  Fewer HR, for sure, but a *lot* more hits,
doubles, and walks.  And HRs are only a small part of the game.

Cheers,
-Valentine
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball