Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site csd2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!csd2!dimitrov
From: dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky)
Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: New Statistic?
Message-ID: <3900008@csd2.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7-Jun-85 16:54:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: csd2.3900008
Posted: Fri Jun  7 16:54:00 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Jun-85 21:34:24 EDT
References: <3900007@csd2.UUCP>
Organization: New York University
Lines: 81

[]
David Rubin writes about my suggestion for a runs saved statistic:
> While the intentions are noble, I have some objections to such a
> statistic.  First, it is situational.  Unless someone can demonstrate
> the existance of "clutch" fielding, it would appear to me that a great
> fielding play would occur at both critical and non-critical junctures
> of a game with equal likelihood.  Thus the statistic would to a large
> degree measure random factors (who got the ball hit at them at the
> critical juncture) rather than skill, which is what we are presumably
> trying to measure.

I think clutch fielding is actually a lot easier to demonstrate than
clutch hitting. In a situation where the game is on the line, fielders
will clearly try to make plays that they wouldn't ordinarily. For
example, imagine the following situation: second inning, one out,
noone on, batter hits a blooper to short right field. What are the
chances that the right fielder will let it drop? Now, imagine:
man on third, score tied, bottom of the eighth inning. What are the
chances that the right fielder will dive for the ball now?
Also, see my answer to your next point.

> Second, it is heavily dependent upon the team the player plays on,
> especially the pitching staff.  It favors players who play on teams
> with poor pitching, as they will have more fielding opportunites and
> more of those opportunities will occur with runners on base and in
> scoring position.  It would favor first basemen on teams with
> predominately right-handed staffs, for example.  It would favor
> infielders on teams with a few sinkerballers.  It would favor center
> fielders who play in big ballparks. Etc.

There certainly is some randomness about who gets the ball hit
to him in the crucial situation, but I think it would even out
to some extent over the course of the season, at least for each
individual position (i.e. the number of times the ball gets hit
to first base in a runs saved situation should be *roughly*
constant from year to year).  What you say about the pitching
staff affecting the number of opportunities a fielder gets for
runs saved is also true, although I could point out that this
is true of errors as well. Also, note that errors which directly
allow runs to score are deducted from a players runs saved total,
so there is no way for a bad fielder to run up a good runs saved
total just because he's on a team with a bad pitching staff.
I think this is the strongest objection you raise to the statistic.

> Third, it is judgmental.  I assume the official scorer would be
> responsible for deciding if and how many run saved are to be awarded,
> and I donfavoritism, as there is now in judging hits and errors.  However,
> since there will supposedly be relatively few runs saved awarded, such
> biasedness will be tremendously magnified.

This is true in part. However, I think you're mistaken about how many
runs saved would be awarded. It's my impression that two or three in
a game would not be uncommon. Let's try an experiment along the lines
of watching three or four games and seeing how many occur.

> Fourth, it will encourage hot-dogging.  As the league leaders will be
> rewarded financially for their accomplishment, there will be a
> financial incentive to make plays look hard.  Rather than making a
> routine running catch, an outfielder may attempt to time his approach
> to the ball so as to make a diving catch, for example.

I don't think this is true at all. I just don't buy the idea that a
fielder will, for example, try to make a diving catch and risk missing
the ball altogether instead of making the play as well as he can and
risking not getting a run saved. This is especially true in the
situations where doing so might allow runs to score, which is
presumably when a run saved might be awarded.

> Fifth (this is the most critical, but also the most opinionated), I
> believe it will punish true defensive excellence.  We already see this
> in fielding percentage, where a Hernandez is charged an error on a
> ball where a Garvey would never have been able to even attempt a play.

This I disagree with the most. The whole idea behind this statistic
would be to recognize the fielder who makes the game saving plays,
as opposed to the one who has the range of a carrot but never drops
the ball once he catches it. I would be willing to bet a six month
vacation for two in Bora Bora that Hernandez would have more runs
saved in a season than Garvey.

Isaac Dimitrovsky