Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 11/03/84 (WLS Mods); site fisher.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!david From: david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball Subject: Re: The DH Message-ID: <620@fisher.UUCP> Date: Mon, 20-May-85 08:31:21 EDT Article-I.D.: fisher.620 Posted: Mon May 20 08:31:21 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 21-May-85 07:19:42 EDT References: <2204@decwrl.UUCP> Organization: Princeton University Department of Statistics Lines: 114 [Sigh. Against my better judgment, I'm going to make just a FEW more remarks on the subject. Much has been edited out for brevity's sake, and this does NOT aspire to be a point-by-point refutation, as earlier postings have.] > .................................. Perhaps it will suffice to reply to the > second statement: major league baseball is a spectator sport, and the > AL's spectators' numbers were declining. This is why the DH was instituted. > It WAS successful for this very reason. I'm not sure if the fans would > leave the parks if the DH was eliminated, but at this point it is irrelevant. While I realize that economics are the ultimate arbiter of what major league baseball does and does not do, I have two immediate reactions: one serious and one semi-serious. (1) AL fluctuations in attendence vis a vis the NL, especially in the late '60s and early '70s, were subject to other substantial influences, such as the fact that the AL was far slower in assimilating black talent, and for a substantial period was drawing talent from a smaller pool. Another thing to consider: the only teams to win pennants during the period 1969-1974 (the period immediately preceding the adoption of the DH) were Baltimore and Oakland, both small markets. During the same period, pennants were won in the NL by New York, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and Los Angeles; the senior circuit was more competitive. Add to this the best cumulative record for the Cubs since WWII, and one begins to wonder if the relative differences weren't simply due to the NL's superior appeal in the larger markets during this period. (2) Gad! How crude! Popular taste a basis for adjusting the game?!? What next - cheer leaders?!? > Its an interesting paradox, but one usually (when its correctly used) > reserved for "connected" trains. To approach this statistically let's > think about the number of standard deviations the pitcher's BA is from > rest of the league, then the shortstop's, etc., etc. The "caboose" > paradox is irrelevant when the problem is looked upon by an unbiased eye. First, standard deviations are an inappropriate measure of "connectedness" for such a distinctly non-normal population (it is both heavy-tailed and skewed). Second, I am now deriving average positional contribution by team to offensive production for the 1984 NL (where we can still get pitcher batting records) so we can discuss the facts rather than our suppositions. For us to do this, we need some portmanteau measure of production; I am using both James's Runs Created and Palmer's Linear Weights, though if the two don't differ substantially, I will post only the former to keep the discussion simpler and because the former is more widely known. One thing is for certain: we better not average across teams, or we will be unduly influenced by the Pittsburgh and San Diego rotations, Ozzie Smith, or Arghenius Salazar. > The issue of free-substitution is irrelevant. Let's move on to more > interesting issues. For instance when I first began following baseball > Roy White was my favorite player. One year he hit .270 and I calculated > that it only required one hit more about every three weeks for him to > be a .300 hitter. One hit a game difference? Do you see what a HUGE > variance the pitcher represents to other batters? I'll repeat it because > I like the sound of it: Every time the pitcher bats it is a sacrifice. It's pretty neat ledgerdomain to answer a question regarding whether a change in the game is significant by concentrating that change in one player (and thus multiplying it nine-fold). Of course, a typical DH hits significantly better than a typical pitcher. That does not necessarily imply that the extra contribution, ONCE IT IS CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF A NINE MAN LINEUP, is significant. Another way of putting this is that if Roy White were to have batted .300 instead of .270, he would have substantially improved himself, but that by itself would NOT substantially improve the Yankees. > Rebuttal to "The fair claim": How about greater competition between the > batter and the pitcher? With the DH we see two athletes working harder > than we would otherwise. This is what we pay for. How about the > chance to see Hank Aaron return to Milwaukee, Al Kaline to strut > his stuff for another year? How about AL fans finally getting to see > players like Billy Williams, Orlando Cepeda, Jim Ray Hart? How about > getting the chance to see what Dave Kingman CAN do? How about > getting to see an injured player perform in a limited role, rather > than not at all unless he pinch-hits? This all applies to having a DH bat for ANY weak hitter, or having a DF (to improve competition between batter and fielder) or a DR (to improve the competition between catcher and runner). 'Nuff said. > Your use of the dead-ball era is remote and incorrect. I'll go into it > upon request. You seem to be taking the position here that phony-turf > has not altered the game "that" much, but I think you'll find > yourself in a TINY minority. Find out what the ballplayers themselves > have to say about it if you need convincing. I hypothesized that > the DH preserved some careers which would have come to a premature > end by a truly drastic change. If you wish to go into it, fine. It's my contention that today's game bears a far closer resemblence to that of 1970 (after the mound lowering and before Astroturf became widespread) than the game of 1930 does with that of 1915. But we probably should split it off from the DH into its own discussion: "(Turf vs. Grass) vs. (Live Ball vs. Dead Ball)". Remote? Perhaps. Incorect? Make my day. > I'm not sure what I should rebut, the specifics of your argument or its > direction. The fundamental actions of baseball are: the pitcher > pitches the ball, the batter bats it, the fielders field it. The > fundamentals are the same whether the batter is a DH or a pitcher. Again, you could argue similarly for more DH's, the DR, and the DF. The only "fundamental" affected by any of them is the fundamental PRINCIPLE that only nine men can play the game at one time: the ones listed on the lineup card, to which a player cannot be reinstated once removed. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david