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!decvax!bellcore!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!david
From: david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin)
Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Suprising Starts
Message-ID: <624@fisher.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-May-85 09:19:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: fisher.624
Posted: Wed May 22 09:19:28 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 22-May-85 14:43:34 EDT
References: <618@fisher.UUCP> <361@h-sc1.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Princeton University Department of Statistics
Lines: 32

> > ARE THE PHILLIES THIS BAD?
> > 
> > Piece of cake.  No, the Phillies aren't this bad.  
> 
> Come on, any team averaging more than an error a game is in pretty bad
> shape

Thorn and Palmer have suggested the following decomposition of
baseball influence:

		Hitting:  48%
		Pitching: 44%
		Fielding:  6%
		Running:   2%.

This is based on the supposition that baseball is 50% offense and
50% defense ("every run scored is a run allowed, and vice versa");
that 88% of all runs scored (allowed) are earned, and therefore the
pitcher's responsibility (with the 12% of runs attributed to poor
fielding); that stolen bases simply don't produce many runs (fans and
managers (except Earl Weaver) often see the the direct benefits of a
stolen base, but underestimate the indirect cost of a caught stealing
(head this, Tanner!)).  Thus, poor fielding is not FATAL, and a poor
fielding team with good hitting and fair pitching (the Phillies, e.g.) 
ought to still perform respectably.

Now we needn't interpret those numbers as the Truth to accept the
lesson that fielding pales in importance when compared to hitting and
pitching.

					David Rubin
			{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david