+- Sons of Ivy (https://sonsofivy.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Chicago Cubs (https://sonsofivy.com/forum/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Friendly Confines (https://sonsofivy.com/forum/forum-8.html)
+--- Thread: Hates stats/Likes stats (/thread-6239.html)
Hates stats/Likes stats - kbwsb - 10-01-2009
I guess that there will always be room for both.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Gelf Magazine: I am always and everywhere for the advancement of things that help us understand the world better, but there's a stubborn <b>part of me that finds advanced stats kind of a bummer.</b> As the human element recedes from the broader sports narrative—the players become more guarded, journalists critical in new ways, the sports-media climate (and that of the culture in general) slipping perhaps into a crueler and angrier mode—the idea of reducing baseball-playing humans to ever-more-nuanced data points doesn't seem to solve the bigger problem in the discourse. (Doesn't mean I don't love me some OPS+, I'm just saying.) What do you think explains the mushrooming of new-style statistical analysis, especially at the pro bono/hobbyist level, as at such places as FanGraphs? Also, what do you think makes certain people so ridiculously unfriendly to this sort of thing?
Joe Posnanski: Well, we do love our myths.<b> I guess I can see why some people are averse to stats: Because they can pop balloons.</b> Stats can tell you that "clutch hitting" is awfully difficult to find in the numbers. Stats can tell you that starting pitchers cannot really pitch to the score. Stats can tell you that a hot streak may not be due to a player getting new contact lenses or the discovery of a hitch in his swing, but may instead be due to the vagaries of luck and chance.
But I love advanced stats because I think for every myth they pierce, there's a new, even more compelling theme they create. I don't need to believe in the consistency of clutch hitting to appreciate when a guy hits a two-run homer in the bottom of the ninth. I don't need to believe in some mystical talents of a pitcher to appreciate when he wins a game 1-0. I think the stats can get us a little closer to what's real, and I like what's real. I don't think there's any question that on-base percentage does a better job of capturing a player's contribution to his team than batting average. That doesn't mean I can't admire Joe Mauer's .370 average. It means that I constantly long for something that gets me closer to the heart of things.
But I also know some people disagree. Our myths are powerful and pleasant, and maybe we don't want to believe Derek Jeter has been a below-average shortstop. He looks good out there. Don't give me stats that tell me otherwise.
<b>The funny thing about people are who bothered by stats is that they (almost without fail) tend to use other stats as a battering ram</b>. They will rage about the lunacy of VORP while talking about how many RBIs a player has. They will rant about UZR while saying that Player X has only made three errors. And so on. For me, well, I've looked pretty closely at the stats (because I love that sort of thing), and I think the advanced stats tell a more complete and more enjoyable story. They have added to my enjoyment of the game, and I constantly try to use them to add to other people's enjoyment of the game.
I fully appreciate that for some people, the advanced stuff takes some of the humanity out of the game. It doesn't for me. People should enjoy baseball any way they want to enjoy baseball. But they should also appreciate that these advanced stats may tell a more complete and deeper story about the game, and that liking the stats doesn't make you dislike baseball or any less appreciative of the beauty of the game.<b> And of course any baseball team that does not make full use of the statistics and theories that are out there is simply fighting stealth bombers with clubs</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hates stats/Likes stats - rok - 10-02-2009
If stats told you everything you needed to know, there would be no need to play the games. We would have won the WS on paper in 2008.
No offense, KB, but I don't need to be told that I hate stats. I use them EVERY day in my job. I rely on them, but they only go so far because no formula is ever perfect. You have to take into account for the human element. These aren't robots we're observing.
Also, certain stats are wonderful for the hard sciences, but not so much when observing social sciences and sports. You have to have a healthy amount of skepticism regardless of whether people claim that their hypotheses are sound. Again, sports are not a hard science.
Hates stats/Likes stats - veryzer - 10-02-2009
stats are great, but they don't always tell the whole story.
if a player has a .750 ops, you think that he's not all that good. but if his average is .300 and his obp is .400, and he steals 50 bases and is caught 5 times, and he's good at taking extra bases, and scores 120 runs, and drives in 60, and is a good fielder, and a leader, and takes walks, and gives to charity, then isn't it safde to conclude that this player is good and that ops doesn't give you the full picture?
Hates stats/Likes stats - Butcher - 10-02-2009
<!--quoteo(post=64959:date=Oct 2 2009, 09:40 AM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Oct 2 2009, 09:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->stats are great, but they don't always tell the whole story.
if a player has a .750 ops, you think that he's not all that good. but if his average is .300 and his obp is .400, and he steals 50 bases and is caught 5 times, and he's good at taking extra bases, and scores 120 runs, and drives in 60, and is a good fielder, and a leader, and takes walks, and gives to charity, then isn't it safde to conclude that this player is good and that ops doesn't give you the full picture?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Any team would love to have that guy at the top of the lineup.
Hates stats/Likes stats - 1060Ivy - 10-02-2009
<!--quoteo(post=64959:date=Oct 2 2009, 09:40 AM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Oct 2 2009, 09:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->stats are great, but they don't always tell the whole story.
if a player has a .750 ops, you think that he's not all that good. but if his average is .300 and his obp is .400, and he steals 50 bases and is caught 5 times, and he's good at taking extra bases, and scores 120 runs, and drives in 60, and is a good fielder, and a leader, and takes walks, and gives to charity, then isn't it safde to conclude that this player is good and that ops doesn't give you the full picture?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You used one stat to say the player sucked and then 5 other stats to prove that he's a stud.
Maybe the point is that you can't rely on an single stat to decide the value of a player?
Hates stats/Likes stats - ColoradoCub - 10-02-2009
<!--quoteo(post=64964:date=Oct 2 2009, 08:54 AM:name=1060Ivy)-->QUOTE (1060Ivy @ Oct 2 2009, 08:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=64959:date=Oct 2 2009, 09:40 AM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Oct 2 2009, 09:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->stats are great, but they don't always tell the whole story.
if a player has a .750 ops, you think that he's not all that good. but if his average is .300 and his obp is .400, and he steals 50 bases and is caught 5 times, and he's good at taking extra bases, and scores 120 runs, and drives in 60, and is a good fielder, and a leader, and takes walks, and gives to charity, then isn't it safde to conclude that this player is good and that ops doesn't give you the full picture?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You used one stat to say the player sucked and then 5 other stats to prove that he's a stud.
Maybe the point is that you can't rely on an single stat to decide the value of a player?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly what I was thinking [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif[/img]
Hates stats/Likes stats - leonardsipes - 10-02-2009
The reason for the popularity of Moneyball and all the advanced stats, is that the sell the fantasy that a regular guy can know just as much or more about baseball than MLB managers, GMs, Scouts etc.
Most of the conclusions in Moneyball and most of the advanced stats do not stand up to real scrutiny. The problem is, that when a guy with the credentials of Joe Morgan (HOF, living greek god of walks) is based for questioning them, the rest of the media gets the message.
Guys have been writing that same article for years, and every time it is eaten up. The new stats are now a big industry like (but probably not as deadly) cigarettes. For years, studies should no danger. Finally someone decided to put a stop to it, and did a study that showed they caused cancer. For now, nobody wants to cook the golden goose.
For example
Statistically, OPS has no merit. As a number, it has some uses (like RBI or HR), but it is not inherently better than some counting stat because it is an advanced statistic. OPS does a good job of showing the value of a 3rd/4th/5th hitter. As tom pointed out, it is kind of worthless for a leadoff hitter.
Hates stats/Likes stats - kbwsb - 10-02-2009
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->(from the article) The funny thing about people are who bothered by stats is that they (almost without fail) tend to use<b> other</b> stats as a battering ram.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's funny that this line was actually in the article (and even highlighted by me), and yet both tom and Sipes did exactly that.
Anyway, the reason I printed out the article in the first place was to show both sides;
I'm kind of closer to rok's view than you think.
I've always loved the line by the crusty old ballplayer (was it Toby Harrah?) when he said,
"Stats are like a woman in a bikini...they show a lot, but they don't show everything."
That kind of sums up my feeling.
Hates stats/Likes stats - veryzer - 10-02-2009
<!--quoteo(post=64964:date=Oct 2 2009, 09:54 AM:name=1060Ivy)-->QUOTE (1060Ivy @ Oct 2 2009, 09:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=64959:date=Oct 2 2009, 09:40 AM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Oct 2 2009, 09:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->stats are great, but they don't always tell the whole story.
if a player has a .750 ops, you think that he's not all that good. but if his average is .300 and his obp is .400, and he steals 50 bases and is caught 5 times, and he's good at taking extra bases, and scores 120 runs, and drives in 60, and is a good fielder, and a leader, and takes walks, and gives to charity, then isn't it safde to conclude that this player is good and that ops doesn't give you the full picture?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You used one stat to say the player sucked and then 5 other stats to prove that he's a stud.
Maybe the point is that you can't rely on an single stat to decide the value of a player?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
that was exactly my point. thank you for your reading comprehension skills.
Hates stats/Likes stats - veryzer - 10-02-2009
<!--quoteo(post=64966:date=Oct 2 2009, 10:03 AM:name=ColoradoCub)-->QUOTE (ColoradoCub @ Oct 2 2009, 10:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=64964:date=Oct 2 2009, 08:54 AM:name=1060Ivy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (1060Ivy @ Oct 2 2009, 08:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=64959:date=Oct 2 2009, 09:40 AM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Oct 2 2009, 09:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->stats are great, but they don't always tell the whole story.
if a player has a .750 ops, you think that he's not all that good. but if his average is .300 and his obp is .400, and he steals 50 bases and is caught 5 times, and he's good at taking extra bases, and scores 120 runs, and drives in 60, and is a good fielder, and a leader, and takes walks, and gives to charity, then isn't it safde to conclude that this player is good and that ops doesn't give you the full picture?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You used one stat to say the player sucked and then 5 other stats to prove that he's a stud.
Maybe the point is that you can't rely on an single stat to decide the value of a player?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly what I was thinking [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif[/img]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
wow, i thought i was crystal clear on this. i said that someone will throw out a .750 ops to prove someone sucks. yet there are other stats available to prove that said player doesn't suck at all. one stat doesn't always prove a point. you need to see more than that to get the whole story. i'm amazed that you and ivy and kb all completely missed my point.
Hates stats/Likes stats - PcB - 10-02-2009
Stats are like assholes. Everyone's got em and they all squeeze out fecal matter with peanuts and corn inside.
Hates stats/Likes stats - kbwsb - 10-02-2009
tom, nobody is saying that there's a catch-all stat (in your example, OPS) that paints a perfect picture.
Most stat guys dislike OPS because it's a "square peg in a round hole" type of thing; you're adding two percentages for one, and you're weighting them equally (and SLG isn't nearly as important as OBP), and you're counting batting average twice....lots of problems with that stat.
It's a little better than batting average or RBI's, and it's easy to compute, so that's why it's caught on some, but it's never been the Joe Cool stat.
And the example of the guy you gave, with the .750 OPS? I'd take that guy in a second, and pay him $10 million a year, maybe more. Why? Well, as you point out in the post, 1) he's a good guy, and 2) he has excellent stats! (especially that 91% stolen base percentage).
Hates stats/Likes stats - Fella - 10-02-2009
<!--quoteo(post=65000:date=Oct 2 2009, 11:30 AM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Oct 2 2009, 11:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->(from the article) The funny thing about people are who bothered by stats is that they (almost without fail) tend to use<b> other</b> stats as a battering ram.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's funny that this line was actually in the article (and even highlighted by me), and yet both tom and Sipes did exactly that.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I certainly won't argue that traditional fans use old stats as a battering ram against new stats, it happens a lot, but I think it happens for good reason.
There are MANY fans these days that completely ignore and even act like non saber-metric stats are stupid and ridiculous.
I've seen threads on NSBB where people laughed and made fun of people who used RBIs as a stat and even saw one where 4 or 5 guys piled on someone for using batting average.
I think that's the real issue in the "likes/hates stats" debate. Its like politics. You have your people that rely on old stats and see Sabermatricians as "dice rolling computer nerds who don't watch games" and the mostly younger fans who use Sabermetrics see the other people as "stupid old fans who have let the game pass them by."
Just like politics, I think both extremes are pretty stupid, there is simply just more tools and ways of evaluating players now and it has definitely changed the game for the better.
Hates stats/Likes stats - leonardsipes - 10-02-2009
It is not politics. There is the religion of I Know More About Baseball Than Joe Morgan, and then the sceptics who have realized through life experience that not only Morgan, but Lou Piniella and Dusty Baker and even Jim Hendry probably know more about their profesion than I do.
The idea is that modern statistical analysis trumps experience and acutally being part of the game. If you debunk any one of the sacred stats, they say "we know there is not one stat that tells everything ..." in a condescending tone. And then throw out a bunch of "dinosaur"
stats that show how stupid we are.
Some day, a Newton or Darwin or Columbus will say fuck this and write a book that debunks it all. Then we can all go back to watching games, living in peace and harmony.
Hates stats/Likes stats - Butcher - 10-02-2009
Joe Morgan is not only a horrible analyst, but also a grade-A moron. He was an amazing baseball player, but he was obviously very physically gifted. Not mentally.