Whitlock: "Stat geeks are ruining sports"

[LouisEly]

While I and Whitlock agree that there is value in using stats to evaluate players, his point - which I agree strongly with - is that "it’s difficult to interpret baseball these days. The stat geeks won’t

let you argue. They quote sabermetrics and end all discussion." I agree with Whitlock that there is more to the game than statistics, and that some stats people do ruin the discussion by acting as though the stats they reference are absolute:

 

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/sabermetrics-moneyball-stat-geeks-are-ruining-sports-092211

[topper09er]

Statistics predict the group, not the individual. Many "stat" geeks do not actually have the statistical background to understand this.

[rluzinski]

Statistics predict the group, not the individual. Many "stat" geeks do not actually have the statistical background to understand this.

They estimate projected performance using analytical models based on historical data. They don't predict anything. Many people don't appreciate the difference.

And trying to lump all "stat geeks" into one group is stupid. Statististics should be used as the foundation of a discussion, not the capstone. I have had plenty of great discussions here they did not end with me saying, "end of discussion".

And the whole premise or the article is silly. Baseball fans have been obsessed with stats forever. Some fans are just upset that some are using stats they are less familiar with. BA, RBi and HRs are still fine of course.

 

[Baldkin]

I'm surprised he didn't make a "parents basement" reference.

[sveumrules]

"The stat geeks won't let you argue." That is a terrible blanket statement. Most "stat-geeks" are simply looking for ways to better understand the game and would like as many tools at their disposal to do so as is possible. If someone wants to just trust their eyes or just trust the spreadsheet while more or less ruling out the other that is obviously their prerogative but it will lead to a very limited view of the game.

[TooLiveBrew]

What's the typical timeline for one of these articles to be written -- once every two years? Three?

[JohnBriggs12]

"The stat geeks won't let you argue." That is a terrible blanket statement. Most "stat-geeks" are simply looking for ways to better understand the game and would like as many tools at their disposal to do so as is possible. If someone wants to just trust their eyes or just trust the spreadsheet while more or less ruling out the other that is obviously their prerogative but it will lead to a very limited view of the game.

Take if from someone who has questioned the stat geeks. Whitlock is right on the money. Check out the threads that discuss Mark Kotsay for instance. Because some stat geek came up with "Wins above Replacement" as a measure of value, and Kotsay has been marginally negative on this for the last several years. the argument (and if you refute it you are an idiot) is that Kotsay is completely worthless and doesn't belong in the game. The true stat geeks are zealots. Sabermetrics is their religion.

 

Other examples of stat geek beliefs that you can't argue with them about: RBI totals are random and thus useless in measuring a player's value. A high BABIP is good luck and a low BABIP is bad luck. Wins and losses are completely out of a pitchers' control and therefore also a useless stat. And this is my personal favorite: "Walks are as good as hits". I have a theory about that one that goes back to youth baseball. We use to yell at the guys on our team that couldn't hit "a walks as good as a hit" when they were up to bat. What we meant was "We all know you can't hit, so take pitches and maybe the guy will walk you". Apparently those guys took us at our word, and all of them convinced themselves that walks are indeed as good as hits, and became stat geeks.

[sveumrules]

I would argue that anyone who constantly misuses the stats they are quoting due to not properly understanding them is in fact not a geek by the dictionary definition of the word.

[rluzinski]

"The stat geeks won't let you argue." That is a terrible blanket statement. Most "stat-geeks" are simply looking for ways to better understand the game and would like as many tools at their disposal to do so as is possible. If someone wants to just trust their eyes or just trust the spreadsheet while more or less ruling out the other that is obviously their prerogative but it will lead to a very limited view of the game.

Take if from someone who has questioned the stat geeks. Whitlock is right on the money. Check out the threads that discuss Mark Kotsay for instance. Because some stat geek came up with "Wins above Replacement" as a measure of value, and Kotsay has been marginally negative on this for the last several years. the argument (and if you refute it you are an idiot) is that Kotsay is completely worthless and doesn't belong in the game. The true stat geeks are zealots. Sabermetrics is their religion.

You believe you learned everything there is to know about baseball about 30 years ago. I haven't. You are always certain that your opinion is correct. I don't. Who's the zealot?

[topper09er]

Too often stat people get stuck in the fallacy that just because you cannot prove something exists is proof that it does not exist. This is obvious from math, yet sometimes people overlook it. A certain number of prime numbers are known, but just because you don't know the next one yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that you could confidently say it certainly doesn't exist. Bill James wrote a piece on this very topic but I cant find it.

 

This applies to things like hot streaks or clutchness for example. When looking at these stats for different players across different years there seems to be no consistency, the most "clutch" guys one year will not be the most clutch the next. Therefore, there is no proof that some players are clutch their whole career while others are chokers. However, this does not prove that clutchness does not exist. For these types of things the best insight comes from playing experience. There are some players who want the ball hit to them in a tie game in the bottom of the 9th, and some players who don't. Some players can focus more and perform better when it matters most and some get nervous and feel the pressure.

 

If you have ever played you know that hot streaks exist, there are just times for whatever reason when you feel like you can drive any pitch, and times when you are hoping to get walked because you aren't seeing it well. There is really no way to determine using stats when a player is hot or when the hot streak will end, so stat lovers basically deny that hotness exists, when anyone who ever played the game insists it exists because they actually experienced it. The best way to determine if someone is hot is to observe their ABs and note when they lay off nasty pitches and crush mistake pitches.

[JohnBriggs12]

"The stat geeks won't let you argue." That is a terrible blanket statement. Most "stat-geeks" are simply looking for ways to better understand the game and would like as many tools at their disposal to do so as is possible. If someone wants to just trust their eyes or just trust the spreadsheet while more or less ruling out the other that is obviously their prerogative but it will lead to a very limited view of the game.

Take if from someone who has questioned the stat geeks. Whitlock is right on the money. Check out the threads that discuss Mark Kotsay for instance. Because some stat geek came up with "Wins above Replacement" as a measure of value, and Kotsay has been marginally negative on this for the last several years. the argument (and if you refute it you are an idiot) is that Kotsay is completely worthless and doesn't belong in the game. The true stat geeks are zealots. Sabermetrics is their religion.

You believe you learned everything there is to know about baseball about 30 years ago. I haven't. You are always certain that your opinion is correct. I don't. Who's the zealot?

Try 50 years ago. Baseball isn't that complicated. I knew at 9 years old when he had about 150 career HR, that Hank Aaron was a HOFer. I'm guilty of believing my opinions are correct. The difference is I realize they are opinions.

[rwa12]

I appreciate advanced metrics, and feel they should be used as a tool for evaluating players for a team. I think of them more for off season purposes. I believe that is when they are useful, for compiling the team. In season, I think their worth is lessened somewhat. I also feel, and this is true for both sides of the fence, that sometimes the forest is lost for the trees. There is a subset that would have a manager micro-manage to an extreme that is just not realistic in baseball. I think in the same way that traditionalists will waive off some SABR as witchcraft, many SABR folk too easily eliminate the human element of the game. In all aspects of life "Everything in Moderation".

[Invader3K]

Reminds me of a classic Homer Simpson quote: "Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that."

[JimH5]

Jeter is so clutch.

[topper09er]

Jeter is so clutch.

in addition to being a winner.

 

The difference is that a stat geek will call Brain Wilson's postseason 2010 (10 G, 11.2 IP, 0 R) lucky instead of clutch because they cant prove that players can be clutch.

[danzig6767]

I really appreciate and enjoy the advances in statistical analysis, but only to a degree.

 

For example, it helped me understand just how much more important OBP is compared to batting average. I turned 40 this year and in my younger days, i judged hitters a ton by simply batting average because that and home runs/RBI's were pretty much all the stats that were shown. If say Rob Deer would be hitting only .235, i never factored in how much he walked which in turn gave him a solid OBP, while at the same time i would overrate guys who hit for a high average but rarely walked. I also like how OPS came and gave baseball fans a pretty good and simple tool to evaluate the kind of overall season a hitter had. Same with pitchers. In my younger days i never understood the importance of stuff like K/9 or K/BB ratios to how good most pitchers will end up being. A stat like WHIP i was very glad came about. More telling than just ERA, but not overly complicated either. BABIP is another stat i find useful and glad it's around.

 

That said, there are so many metrics and stats out there today that it can make reading this forum tough at time because i'm simply not interested enough in sabermetrics to read up on all the various metrics and stats now available. It's one new abbreviation after another that i really don't care to learn about, i just prefer watching the baseball games for pure entertainment value without trying to statistically analyze every aspect of the game super in depth. For those though that really are into the ever evolving statistical analysis, more power to you, what bores me certainly doesn't have to bore others.

 

The one area i can agree a bit with Whitlock is there are some saber folks out there who can be real pricks when expressing their opinions toward those who either don't follow advanced analysis or who simply don't understand the newer/newest stuff. Then again, calling people "geeks" just for enjoying the evolving statistical angle of baseball and all sports isn't exactly the best way to frame an argument against the socalled bad attitude saber minded people take.

[Baldkin]

Topper:

Is Prince clutch? Most would say Yes. Last season he was about as far from "clutch" as a hitter of his caliber can be. Can you point me to a guy who is clutch? Some guy who performed consistently better in high leverage/clutch situations? I will ask this one question: Why didn't he want to be "clutch" early in games, or when the score was tied in the 5th inning, or when his team was behind in the 3rd? Why didn't he try that hard then?

 

Hot streaks do happen, most stats people won't argue that they don't, what a "stats geek" will argue is that going forward you have NO IDEA when that hot streak will end, and that playing the better player is the better choice than playing the "hot hand".

 

rwa:

A SABR manager wouldn't want his manager to micromanage. Really. He wants his manager to macro-manage. To realize that over 162 games, playing the statistics, playing the odds, time and time again, will result in more wins than "playing a hunch" or "going with your gut".

 

Briggs:

Any SABR guy knows that a walk is not as good as a hit. But it is infinitely better than an out. Even a so called "productive out".

[pitchleague]

rwa:

A SABR manager wouldn't want his manager to micromanage. Really. He wants his manager to macro-manage. To realize that over 162 games, playing the statistics, playing the odds, time and time again, will result in more wins than "playing a hunch" or "going with your gut".

help me out here, because I'm curious: if this is true, wouldn't a SABR manager then have a half-dozen very angry bench players because they never ever get to be used? Wouldn't a SABR manager then have a 19- or 20- man roster instead of 25?

 

A SABR manager (and by this, I mean a manager that only manages with advanced metrics) would fail in probably most situations as a manager and wouldn't last very long. Real managers do use stats and even the advanced metrics (I'm sure that Roenicke has looked at them/used them in meetings with coaches and/or players) but they also must stroke the egos of players, unfortunately. There would be a massive revolt by the backup players, some of the guys in the starting lineup would eventually voice their displeasure that their friends aren't getting any playing time, and it could trickle down to the minor league players as well.

 

On topic, I enjoyed the article and saw myself shaking my head in agreement. And there were even a few, "yep, that sounds like 'so-and-so' from Brewerfan.net" comments from my conscience. But it's a necessary evil, having advanced metrics. I enjoy reading about them and learning and improving my baseball knowledge. But it's also not the end-all be-all of arguments. Most of my friends would laugh me right out of the argument if I brought up advanced stats in a normal conversational baseball argument.

 

 

[StearnsFTW]

"The stat geeks won't let you argue." That is a terrible blanket statement. Most "stat-geeks" are simply looking for ways to better understand the game and would like as many tools at their disposal to do so as is possible. If someone wants to just trust their eyes or just trust the spreadsheet while more or less ruling out the other that is obviously their prerogative but it will lead to a very limited view of the game.

Take if from someone who has questioned the stat geeks. Whitlock is right on the money. Check out the threads that discuss Mark Kotsay for instance. Because some stat geek came up with "Wins above Replacement" as a measure of value, and Kotsay has been marginally negative on this for the last several years. the argument (and if you refute it you are an idiot) is that Kotsay is completely worthless and doesn't belong in the game. The true stat geeks are zealots. Sabermetrics is their religion.

 

Other examples of stat geek beliefs that you can't argue with them about: RBI totals are random and thus useless in measuring a player's value. A high BABIP is good luck and a low BABIP is bad luck. Wins and losses are completely out of a pitchers' control and therefore also a useless stat. And this is my personal favorite: "Walks are as good as hits". I have a theory about that one that goes back to youth baseball. We use to yell at the guys on our team that couldn't hit "a walks as good as a hit" when they were up to bat. What we meant was "We all know you can't hit, so take pitches and maybe the guy will walk you". Apparently those guys took us at our word, and all of them convinced themselves that walks are indeed as good as hits, and became stat geeks.

Is there a HOF on this board? Because this post belongs there.

 

Why are people so afraid of Sabermetrics? I'll never understand it.

[Baldkin]

rwa:

A SABR manager wouldn't want his manager to micromanage. Really. He wants his manager to macro-manage. To realize that over 162 games, playing the statistics, playing the odds, time and time again, will result in more wins than "playing a hunch" or "going with your gut".

help me out here, because I'm curious: if this is true, wouldn't a SABR manager then have a half-dozen very angry bench players because they never ever get to be used? Wouldn't a SABR manager then have a 19- or 20- man roster instead of 25?

 

A SABR manager (and by this, I mean a manager that only manages with advanced metrics) would fail in probably most situations as a manager and wouldn't last very long. Real managers do use stats and even the advanced metrics (I'm sure that Roenicke has looked at them/used them in meetings with coaches and/or players) but they also must stroke the egos of players, unfortunately. There would be a massive revolt by the backup players, some of the guys in the starting lineup would eventually voice their displeasure that their friends aren't getting any playing time, and it could trickle down to the minor league players as well.

You can still use bench guys, you can still use backups as much as need be. I don't think anyone is sticking up on the Brewers saying Craig Counsell and Josh Wilson need more playing time, though. My point is, you don't do things like: Having a LOOGY specialist come into face 5 RHBs because he "Has a decent screwball" even though he makes an average RHB hit like Pujols, or name your 8th inning guy to be a guy who makes lefties look like Joey Votto.

You can rest Hart against a RHP who has a hard slider, because he hasn't hit that type of pitcher well in his career... you don't sit him against a guy because he's 1 for 4 in his career against him.

[topper09er]

Maybe Prince wasn't clutch last year because none of our games mattered? Maybe he is clutch, maybe he is lucky. The point is just because I can't point you to a guy who is clutch doesn't mean it does not exist. Can you point me to a guy who isn't clutch? How will you justify the player isn't clutch? Would that not then imply that a player who is much better at whatever the unclutch player is bad at is then clutch?

 

You can easily have an idea when a hot streak will end by watching the guy at the plate, when is he swinging at balls? When is he fouling off pitches right down the middle? It is better to play the hot hand than the guy who was better in previous seasons in some cases, obviously you don't start Kotsay over Braun ever, but you could start him over Morgan (in theory, ignoring defense) if you think he is hotter than Tony. I am NOT saying the Brewers should follow this example because Kotsay sucks, but in theory if he didn't suck then it should be considered if he has gone like 20 ABs in a row without 1 lazy roll-over grounder to the second baseman and Morgan turned into Corey Hart 2nd-half 2008 mode.

 

And sometimes a productive out is better than a walk, tie game bottom of 9th, R2 0 out. R1, R2 0 out gives you a 37% chance of scoring 0 runs and 22% chance to score 1 run. But R3 1 out gives you a 34% of scoring 0 runs and 49% chance to score 1 run.

[logan82]

Other examples of stat geek beliefs that you can't argue with them

about: RBI totals are random and thus useless in measuring a player's

value.

Not true. They are mostly useless for evaluating player because they are based more on batting order than actual talent. They probably tell you more about where a player hit in the order than how well they hit.

 

 

A high BABIP is good luck and a low BABIP is bad luck.

Not true. A high BABIP is an indication that a player may have had good luck. A low BABIP is an indication that a player might be having bad luck.

 

 

Wins and

losses are completely out of a pitchers' control and therefore also a

useless stat.

Again not true. Wins and losses are somewhat out of a pitches control. They can't control how many runs their own team scores and have very limited control over what happens when a ball is put in play.

 

 

And this is my personal favorite: "Walks are as good as

hits".

Baldkin covered this one.

[rluzinski]

"Too often stat people get stuck in the fallacy that just because you cannot prove something exists is proof that it does not exist."

 

I agree wholeheartedly. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

If you have ever played you know that hot streaks exist, there are just times for whatever reason when you feel like you can drive any pitch, and times when you are hoping to get walked because you aren't seeing it well. There is really no way to determine using stats when a player is hot or when the hot streak will end, so stat lovers basically deny that hotness exists, when anyone who ever played the game insists it exists because they actually experienced it. The best way to determine if someone is hot is to observe their ABs and note when they lay off nasty pitches and crush mistake pitches.

 

I'm sure there are certain factors that contribute to streakiness (health being the greatest I suspect). I hope we can all agree that the vast majority of time that when a player is deemed hot or cold, they are simply exhibiting a random bunching of good or bad performance. It's a statistical inevitability.

 

As for being able to predict when a batter should be expected to perform better than his projections by simply watching him, I am beyond skeptical. I would absolutely love for you or anyone else to prove your ability to identify which players are hot by watching them. I would bet all my money against it. Honestly, if you can do that greater than 55% if the time, you can make a lot of money in Vegas.

 

Believe it or not but I've made decent money betting against people who think they have that skill.

[endaround]

Whitlock is basically complaining because he can no longer write down any garbage and turn it in. Now he has to have evidence, which makes his job harder.

[topper09er]

RBI totals are random and thus useless in measuring a player's value.

The problem was that MVP voters and many fans thought: Lead league in RBIs = best player in the league

 

Wins and losses are completely out of a pitchers' control and therefore also a useless stat.

Again, the problem was that Cy Young voters and many fan thought: Lead league in Wins = best pitcher in the league.

 

Infact, a lot of this still exists, try telling a Philly fan Ryan Howard is not the best player in the league and is closer to an average 1B than the best 1B. Their head will explode because Howard consistently finishes very high on the RBI leaderboard. (http://www.975thefanatic.com/teams/phillies/blogentry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10275886) It was a huge contribution from SABR to change the mindset of the average fan to appreciate that RBIs and Wins are very dependent on the team as well as the player. Instead, when ranking players other stats that the player has a larger control over should be used.

 

Now it may appear that the statheads are pushing away from Wins and RBIs so much that they are writing them off as useless, but it is more because of the need to convince the average fan that they should not the holy stats they used to be.