Whitlock: "Stat geeks are ruining sports"

[logan82]

The problem I have with advanced stats is that some are not true math. Uzr and WAR are examples. Sure some amount of these stats involve math to make them look and feel objective, but they're not.

 

I hate when people pull out stats with obvious flaws and use them to paint broad strokes about all advanced stats. I hate when people refuse to even look at OBP or OPS because they are "advanced stats." They are stats that are good enough in 98% of cases and are not very hard to calculate by yourself.

 

Yes, he's having a bad year at the plate. But over his first 1000+ career plate appearances - no small sample by any means - he demonstrated being a ~.800 OPS hitter. Why the dropoff this year?

 

Maybe his personal problems were effecting his play. Maybe he just wasn't as good as his first 2 years showed which was a small sample compared tho his MiLB stats which were nowhere near as good. Of course you know all this as it has been discussed ad nauseum.

[FVBrewerFan]

Logan, it's why I singled out certain stats like Uzr and WAR. Doesn't mean ALL advanced stats have no merit. In fact, at this point, I'm not sure I would even call OBP and OPS advanced. But now that they're brought up, I'm glad you mentioned it. Because fairly often OPS is used as basically an "end of discussion" around here. Now, I agree it is THE most important stat for any hitter. However, I do think it discounts OBP.

 

I'll also add this, related to pitching advanced stats. I think there's a difference between using these stats to evaluate minor league players vs MLB players. For example, you can have a guy who is a solid MLB pitcher, even though his WHIP, K/BB, BAPIP, etc. would suggest otherwise. Why? Some pitchers can simply get out of jams, have the ability to induce DPs, pitch around guys and focus on hitters they know they can out, and simply aren't SO pitchers. On the other hand, if a minor league pitcher is having success in this manner, it often doesn't translate to MLB success.

[DuWayne Steurer]

One of the huge fallacies in this argument is that stat geeks seemingly don't appreciate the 'finer' points of baseball. Stat geeks, we're lead to believe, don't appreciate a well executed hit and run, a bunt in the 8th inning of a 1 - 1 game, or a stolen base in the same scenario, and that most incredulously, a stat geek would rather see a walk than a hit. These things are almost wholly untrue.

 

As Russ has said, I've never seen anyone on this sight try to discount the mental aspect of the game. I've never seen anyone on this site indicate that there may be no more than 'luck' to variance, and that these things are not measurable. I have often seen discussions where something is brought up that is in fact, not measurable, and gets passed over. That doesn't mean the effect doesn't exist.

[fondybrewfan]

IDK;

 

I think "stat geeks" are almost universally opposed to bunting in all situations. That is one of the areas where statistics apparently show that 9 times out of 10 you are better off not bunting. In real life it is a little different though.

 

I have never gotten into the advanced stats; I live by OPS, OPS+, OBP, K/9 etc and I feel perfectly content that I have a solid understanding of a players performance. I don't really care if people start talking about UZR or WAR or whatever; its just that you can't really trust the stats (and the calculations behind them) unless you are very fluent in math / algebra / etc.

[DuWayne Steurer]

IDK;

 

I think "stat geeks" are almost universally opposed to bunting in all situations. That is one of the areas where statistics apparently show that 9 times out of 10 you are better off not bunting. In real life it is a little different though.

Ok, I'll give you that one. Early in the season when Nyjer was sac bunting in the first inning, I was throwing things at my tv and hurling insults at Roenicke. I will say this though, in that Yuni B bunting disaster, most people said "yes, bunt, but do it with someone that can actually bunt", and I even remember many of the so called 'stat geeks' saying such.

[StearnsFTW]

It's just annoying that some people feel the need to expound upon how wronged they are by "stat geeks". You know what ruins this kind of discussion or "sports" for me? Self-righteous moaning.

Preach on brother, preach on.

 

I am thoroughly amused by the outright terror sabermetrics cause in people. I have no interest in telling people not to use RBIs and Wins if that's what makes them comfortable. What bothers me is when people denegrate a different method because they don't understand it.

 

Edit: changed wording

[RockCoCougars]

I would say that the truth lies somewhere in between.

[gregmag]

There have been some great posts in this discussion. I mean really thoughtful, from a variety of perspectives, people thinking hard and writing well about something important to many of us. So it tells me something sad about my psyche that I keep dwelling on the couple of people who, all over this board, again and again, post with such malice and arrogance as to make me want to stay away for weeks at a time.

 

I know less about zen than I do about stats, but here's my effort to be zen: In my humble opinion, John Briggs and Louis Ely know a heck of a lot about baseball. I learn many interesting and worthwhile things from their analyses of players and situations, quite frequently. Therefore, at least from my limited perspective, their prominence in discussions on this board must be judged a good thing.

 

Now I'm going to stay away for a while.

[Patrick425]

One of the reasons I fell in love with Baseball as a kid was because of all the numbers and stats. Measuring players against one another based on their stats seemed to be easier to do than in any other sport. Also, there was such a rich history of records and stats and there was always this thought that maybe someday someone will break DiMaggios hitting streak, or Aaron's HR record, Maris' 61 HRs, etc (the steroid era kind of took something away from some of the power records).

 

I have nothing against today's "stat geeks". I find them to be usually pretty intelligent and well informed about the game of baseball.

 

However, I will say there is a certain population of so called "stat geeks" that tend to scoff at anything that can not be quantified. They push aside things like team chemistry, momentum,, hustle as if they have nothing to do with the success of an individual player or team. I completely disagree with this line of thinking. Anyone who has ever been involved in sports, and has sat in a dugout, or on a bench with your teammates realizes that there are a lot of intangibles that are just as much a part of the game as anything else. Things that can not simply be explained in a box score. As Yogi Berra said, "50% of the game is half mental"

[logan82]

They push aside things like team chemistry, momentum,, hustle as if they have nothing to do with the success of an individual player or team.

 

Some of that gets pushed off to the side not because of stats but for stats instead. There are enough examples of players not liking each other on good teams or good teams not getting along that chemistry can be considered anecdotal. Then there is the whole "the team looks flat" line of thinking that seems to follow around teams while they are losing. Are they losing because they are flat or are they flat because they are losing. I don't totally discount teams playing better/worse because of how they feel but I think it is pretty small compared to their actual talent. Now I think that because I believe most of the mentally weak players get filtered out in the minors.

[homer]

IDK;

 

I think "stat geeks" are almost universally opposed to bunting in all situations. That is one of the areas where statistics apparently show that 9 times out of 10 you are better off not bunting. In real life it is a little different though.

 

I have never gotten into the advanced stats; I live by OPS, OPS+, OBP, K/9 etc and I feel perfectly content that I have a solid understanding of a players performance. I don't really care if people start talking about UZR or WAR or whatever; its just that you can't really trust the stats (and the calculations behind them) unless you are very fluent in math / algebra / etc.

I look at all the advanced defensive metrics with skepticism. To me, defense is the one thing where you absolutely have to see a guy play to get a true read on how good he is. Hence, I will look at UZR and all encompassing WAR but don't bring them into the argument too much.

 

As for bunting, I hate bunting in the early inning to get one run. I don't mind it late in the game when all you need is one run. In the first inning, how do you know all you'll need is a single run to win a game? I especially hate it when you have two MVP candidates coming up to bat.

[Patrick425]

logan3825[/b]]They push aside things like team chemistry, momentum,, hustle as if they have nothing to do with the success of an individual player or team.

 

Some of that gets pushed off to the side not because of stats but for stats instead. There are enough examples of players not liking each other on good teams or good teams not getting along that chemistry can be considered anecdotal. Then there is the whole "the team looks flat" line of thinking that seems to follow around teams while they are losing. Are they losing because they are flat or are they flat because they are losing. I don't totally discount teams playing better/worse because of how they feel but I think it is pretty small compared to their actual talent. Now I think that because I believe most of the mentally weak players get filtered out in the minors.

I understand what you are saying. I was in no way suggesting that these intangibles are the main reason an individual or team does well or performs poorly. However, if you take two teams that have the same "talent" statistically, I believe these intangibles will be a large reason why one team will end up with more wins than the other team.

 

[homer]

I would say that a number of things that can't directly be measured eventually show up in a stat in some way shape or form. Guys that hustle probably get on base a little more often than someone of similar talent that doesn't. Similarly they might get to more balls in the gap than other guys.

 

But I will also say that the intangibles, while excellent teaching tools for young people, are probably overrated in terms of how much better a baseball player they make you. I'm not saying they shouldn't be utilized in little league because that should be about more than baseball but in terms of judging if a guy is a good player or not the intangibles are typically over used in my humble opinion.

[Raw Biz]

As Yogi Berra said, "50% of the game is half mental"

It's 90%.

[FVBrewerFan]

Hustle is worth 1.6378889% of WAR

[rluzinski]

"I think a player can bunch together good performances for reasons other than randomness."

 

Of course they can. Who is arguing otherwise?

________________________________________________________________________

Um what does this mean then?

 

"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."

Those two statements don't contradict each other. Just because I think that skill-based streakiness is significantly smaller than the "luck" based streakiness doesn't mean I don't think there is such thing as skill-based streakiness. As I explained in an earlier post, we can easily model the theoretically most consistent batting performance that we could expect. You just set it up a Bernoulli trial with the batter having the same odds of getting a hit every AB. That will define that absolute MINIMUM streakiness any player can exhibit In reality, no no batter could be even that consistent over a large period of time but it defines the floor. You will find that batter will be very streaky and it is physically impossible to rid yourself of it.

[NievesNoNO]

Pretty good discussion here. I don't beleive advanced stats have ruined anything. If you're constantly debating with people who just state their beleifs as fact all the time maybe it's time to debate sports with a different group of people. Personally, I love stats but don't consider myself a "stat geek" and think the recent trend is for people to rely too much on them. A lot of the advanced metrics are very subjective. In many cases the creater has chosen what they think is important and includes that it in the calculation. Basically trying to inicate, "here's what actually happened, but here's what should've happened".

 

Everything in life is 50/50 isn't it? Either it happens or it doesn't?

 

 

[FVBrewerFan]

Back to the article itself, whether you're heavily into stats or not I do dismiss the premise of the entire article. If someone else spends 20 hours a day crunching numbers, and that's how THEY get pleasure out of the game, what affect does that have on YOU?

 

My wife loves the Brewers. Many here would call her a "casual fan" because she doesn't fully understand strategy, stats, etc. But her passion for the Brewers is not casual. She knows who the best players are, and who sucks. Her in-game straetgy is limited to "this pitcher sucks, get him out of there." Now I used to think of her as somehow less of a fan because of this. Sure, she knows .300 BA is good. But that's an advances stat for her.

 

My point is, she thoroughly enjoys watching just about every inning of Brewer games, and frankly has never even heard of OPS, much less any of the more advanced stats. And I know she reflects thousands of passionate Brewer fans. So how exactly are stats ruining the game?

[topper09er]

You just set it up a Bernoulli trial with the batter having the same odds of getting a hit every AB.

I really dont like treating baseball like a series of coin flips, I think that is far too simplistic. I think if a player is hot then they should have higher odds of getting a hit with successive good ABs. You are treating players too much like a random dice instead of dynamic people. To suggest a true talent .300 hitter has a 30% chance of getting a hit in every single AB of their career does not reflect reality, in my opinion.

 

Also, it would be extremely interesting to actually set up the trial you are suggesting and compare it to actual results. Maybe you are correct and you would not find anyone less random than your theoretical floor, but I suspect you would.

[topper09er]

The problem I have with advanced stats is that some are not true math. Uzr and WAR are examples. Sure some amount of these stats involve math to make them look and feel objective, but they're not.

What is subjective about WAR? Read through this and show me where any subjectivity comes in:

http://www.insidethebook....le/how_to_calculate_war/

[rluzinski]

You just set it up a Bernoulli trial with the batter having the same odds of getting a hit every AB.

I really dont like treating baseball like a series of coin flips, I think that is far too simplistic. I think if a player is hot then they should have higher odds of getting a hit with successive good ABs. You are treating players too much like a random dice instead of dynamic people. To suggest a true talent .300 hitter has a 30% chance of getting a hit in every single AB of their career does not reflect reality, in my opinion.

 

Also, it would be extremely interesting to actually set up the trial you are suggesting and compare it to actual results. Maybe you are correct and you would not find anyone less random than your theoretical floor, but I suspect you would.

Of course it is too simplistic. The point is that the streakiness that model would represent the MINIMUM streakiness you can expect from any player ever. If you find a player that is less streaky over the course of "x" number of games, it is only because of random chance. Why can I say that with such complete confidence? Because the fundamental laws of probability statistics demand it. It's a binomial distribution. It can't be erased.

In reality, the odds of getting a hit changes for every AB, which only increases the spread of expected results for a given sample. Why do the odds change? Some of the largest reasons:

* change in opposing pitcher skill and specific matchup (lefty/righty, pitch types, etc...)

* park

* health of batter and pitcher

Those factors just add to the expected streakiness. I don't know how much "seeing the ball well" contributes to overall streakiness but I am certain that it is small compared to everything else (especially the luck part which can easily be calculated).

Unless you think the odds of getting a hit are naturally cyclical (e.g. 90%,10%,10%, 90%, 10%, 10%, etc), the streakiness you see batters have is primarily based on a coin flip. I'm sure that's just another example of a stat-nerd ruining the game but it is what it is.

 

[1992casey]

My wife loves the Brewers. Many here would call her a "casual fan" because she doesn't fully understand strategy, stats, etc. But her passion for the Brewers is not casual. She knows who the best players are, and who sucks. Her in-game straetgy is limited to "this pitcher sucks, get him out of there." Now I used to think of her as somehow less of a fan because of this. Sure, she knows .300 BA is good. But that's an advances stat for her.

Your wife isn't a "casual fan." A casual fan doesn't pay a lot of attention to what's going on, maybe goes to some games, and tunes in on TV and radio occasionally.

 

I'd submit that it isn't necessary to possess a knowledge of even the traditional stats to qualify as an avid fan. An avid fan follows the team daily in some way shape or form, knows the players, knows who's hot, who's not, etc.

 

By the way, a .300 batting average on its own doesn't guarantee that a player is good. Case in point: Alex Sanchez. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[FVBrewerFan]

The problem I have with advanced stats is that some are not true math. Uzr and WAR are examples. Sure some amount of these stats involve math to make them look and feel objective, but they're not.

What is subjective about WAR? Read through this and show me where any subjectivity comes in:

http://www.insidethebook....le/how_to_calculate_war/

What is NOT subjective about it? Arbitrary "value" given to different positions, Uzr is part of the formula, estimated factors for games played, etc. But the biggest problem is the junk science that is the leap between above/below avg performance and win shares. It is impossible to conclude player x is worth 2.7 wins a year. There's just now way to prove it.

 

[topper09er]

"If you find a player that is less streaky over the course of "x" number of games, it is only because of random chance."

 

So when Christian Laettner goes a perfect 10-10 from the floor and 10-10 from the line in the 1992 Elite 8 it ALL random luck, no room whatsoever for an increase in performance from being "clutch" or just focusing more when it really matters? And you know this for a fact as much as you know 1 + 1 = 2? You will not concede that it was possible for Laettner to control his performance at all instead of him just simply getting lucky?

 

I am not talking about results which you can measure and is far more luck dependent, I am talking about performance like line drive percentages. It would be interesting to see if Pujols is a less streaky LD hitter than Jason Kendall.

[ramssuperbowl99]

The problem I have with advanced stats is that some are not true math. Uzr and WAR are examples. Sure some amount of these stats involve math to make them look and feel objective, but they're not.

What is subjective about WAR? Read through this and show me where any subjectivity comes in:

http://www.insidethebook....le/how_to_calculate_war/

What is NOT subjective about it? Arbitrary "value" given to different positions, Uzr is part of the formula, estimated factors for games played, etc. But the biggest problem is the junk science that is the leap between above/below avg performance and win shares. It is impossible to conclude player x is worth 2.7 wins a year. There's just now way to prove it.

I'm guessing you don't know where the positional adjustment values come from, and therefore think they are subjective. That's wrong. It's the difference in BRAA for SS, CF, etc. etc that determines the positional adjustment. No subjectivity there.

UZR might not be accurate, especially in small samples, but that has no bearing on it's subjectivity.

 

Obviously, the replacement part is arbitrary to a point, but 2 wins per 650 PA seems to provide a fairly accurate benchmark based on the eye test as a 0 point. Further, even if the value is off, it's off by the same amount for everyone who plays the same amount of games, meaning it's not that big a deal since all the value is relative anyway.

That "leap" you mention between wins (and runs) and performance is not even close to subjective. It all relies on Pythagorean Win Expectancy, then converting defense and offensive plays into run values, which is easy given the wealth of data available. Nothing subjective there.