On the usage of statistics on the OH

[Tony-OH]

In weighting how much to look at stats and how much to trust the eyes, it depends what you are doing. Evaluating which minor league players will become good major league players is one thing; deciding which major league players are good is something different. And clearly, stats capture offensive production better than they capture defensive production.

Agree on all points here Rick. I think stats tell us a lot more at the major league level then even traditional scouting although I still believe in having scouts watch the team you play next just in order to get the latest and great on guys (hot/cold streaks, what a hitter/pitcher is struggling with currently, etc).

I consider myself a stat-guy overall, and I'm certainly willing to look at wOBA and such when evaluating players, but when I write for the masses, one has to remember that the masses are a lot more comfortable with OPS and such so in order to get my points across it's better you use those terms. Plus, I happen to like OPS and feel it gives a great thumbnail indication of a hitters capabilities. It's obviously not the be-all, end-all, but I don't believe it's tragically flawed either.

[Sports Guy]

Agree on all points here Rick. I think stats tell us a lot more at the major league level then even traditional scouting although I still believe in having scouts watch the team you play next just in order to get the latest and great on guys (hot/cold streaks, what a hitter/pitcher is struggling with currently, etc).

I consider myself a stat-guy overall, and I'm certainly willing to look at wOBA and such when evaluating players, but when I write for the masses, one has to remember that the masses are a lot more comfortable with OPS and such so in order to get my points across it's better you use those terms. Plus, I happen to like OPS and feel it gives a great thumbnail indication of a hitters capabilities. It's obviously not the be-all, end-all, but I don't believe it's tragically flawed either.

I think if you write for the masses, you still need to use RBIs, HRs and BA.

[El Gordo]

Just about any statistical info from high school leagues is meaningless in terms of projection. This is true for several reasons, not the least of which is that the level of competition is so inconsistent.

My basic rule of thumb is that the lower the level of player you are observing, the more important observational scouting becomes.

This is very true. Stats are great if you know what they tell you and what they don't. I've even heard it said that BA (good heavens) is a good predicter at lower levels.

[SilentJames]

This is spot on. The major flaw in OPS is that it is not defined for certain events on an individual level. OPS is a summation of two aggregate level statistics. Might seem like a minor point, but its not.

If one was to describe the distribution of the batting average statistic, it is tempting to say that it varies between .200 and .400 for the most part. This is incorrect. Batting average (and OBP) are distributed binomially. Slugging follows a Poisson distribution. There are plenty of statistic tools to deal with those well behaved distributions. But things fall apart when you add two distributions based on different observational sets (PA and At-bats).

You don't really need to get very high tech in developing a new statistic to correct this flaw. Just figure out how much a walk represents one's ability to "slug" (do the same for sac flys and all the other differences between an at-bat and plate appearance). If its zero, then its zero. get OBP and SLG to use the same set of observations and then the combined stat is back to a Poisson distribution based upon a single set of observations.

Simply put, it all boils down to this:

Plenty of people have hit .300. No one in history has ever gotten 3/10ths of a hit.

Whether one stat is "better" than any other ultimately should be based on its strength of relationship with the ultimate stat: winning. Or maybe bi-winning, but I haven't been able to figure out what that is yet.

You're absolutely right. The point I was trying to make was that wOBA and other attempts at these weighted advanced metrics are fun, but are they telling us anything more than looking at the basic metrics that make up the equation.

Going back to fangraph's primer on wOBA for a second; Hanley's wOBA is .003 higher than Ludwicks. Now wOBA is weighted to allow for a player's OBP to shine through a bit more and we attempt to find a "golden number" properly weighted to assess value.

But I can come to the exact same conclusions by breaking OPS into its component stats and seeing the variations between the two players.

Sometimes I feel that saber is math for math's sake and things don't need to be that complex. SOMETIMES.

[Austin]

This post is almost certainly followed by a poster that is sitting in front of his computer, pocket protector and all, working and reworking numbers to try and "prove" the original poster wrong. He then vomits up his stats and presents it as if it is clear that his player is superior. It takes the joy out of this board. The nerds have taken over.

I know this has been touched on but I don't understand the name-calling at all. I know I wouldn't last a second if I called everyone who didn't understand statistics a bunch of knuckle dragging idiots - why label people interested in statistics a bunch of pocket-protector wearing nerds? We're all baseball fans. I can never understand the negative attitude some people have towards statistical analysis.

[El Gordo]

I know this has been touched on but I don't understand the name-calling at all. I know I wouldn't last a second if I called everyone who didn't understand statistics a bunch of knuckle dragging idiots - why label people interested in statistics a bunch of pocket-protector wearing nerds? We're all baseball fans. I can never understand the negative attitude some people have towards statistical analysis.

Hey I think I see what you did there....:scratchchinhmm: But anyway what's wrong with pocket protectors?:laughlol:

[Vertigo]

My thoughts on this, for what it matters, is that stats can tell you who performed better over a given period of time but can't tell you who IS the more talented player as stats are dependent on several human factors: be it the quality of pitcher a batter is facing, the skill of the catcher calling the game, the defensive skills of the players behind the pitcher, the imperfect umpires/refs who are making the decisions on close calls, the managers asking the batters to approach different situations in different ways: swing away, bunt, swing at the first good pitch or to work the count. And several thousand other human factors that effect the resulting statistics at the end of the day. A good scout can "see" beyond the results.

So while stats may tell you who was the better player in 2010, they can't necessarily tell you who is the more talented player in any aspect of the game, be it offensively or defensively.

I guess my point is if you're talking about who to give the MVP or whatever award to or discussing a players' HOF credentials, stats are a great way to measure a players' past accomplishments.

But if you're putting together 2011's 25-man roster, I want a scout who has had the opportunity to watch the player actually swing the bat.

[Tony-OH]

I think if you write for the masses, you still need to use RBIs, HRs and BA.

Well my mass is a little more educated than the typical MASN TV audience member so you are not going to see me quote RBIs too often.

I like using a triple slash lines with an OPS at the end to get across my hitter's stats.

[Phantom]

Sorry, but acting like someone needs to be "schooled" when they quote OPS is the EXACT attitude I was talking about.

Really? Someone posting a stat to either add to a points relevance, or to make a counterpoint is somehow attitude related?

Also, it's your opinion that the eye test is a far less useful one, but it's not fact. I've gone down to the minors and have seen guys with great pitching stats in the low minors, even at AA, only to see their stuff and realize it was not going to work at the big league level. In this particular case, the eye test was the better test.

Again, when ONE PERSON is able to predict with their eye, on any scale of sample, better than stat engines, I will concede your point. Until then, stats > "feel". Your example is as meaningless as me bringing up all the prospects scouts have missed on.

[Jimbo81]

I think if you write for the masses, you still need to use RBIs, HRs and BA.

This is correct for the masses but, for the most part the OH kinda gets it.

My biggest problem with the counting stats has not been on the OH, it's on the radio and news outlets. I know they are speaking to Joe Everyman but, when I hear or read someone say for ex. "It's Mark Reynolds fault he hit 32 hr and only had 85 rbi" it drives me crazy. It is not only wrong but it's telling the masses Reynolds is not that good of a player, IMO. Thats the kind of small/uninformed thinking that needs to stop.

[BaltimoreTerp]

So, if the stats guys are labeled as arrogant or nerds, what are the scout guys labeled as since they resort to the name calling?

Can we just call scouts hacks because they are probably wrong more than right in most cases?

I guess I don't get why name calling has to come into play here.

The thing is that the supposed "attitude" that the stats guys have can be easily explained simply by reading through this thread.

Look at all of the posts using terms like "nerds" and "dorks" and "sitting in front of their computer" (which we're all doing just by posting, last time I checked) and others.

It becomes a reaction to the attitude by the still-majority of those around the sport (both inside and as fans and media) that is being displayed here. That the people who create these numbers don't actually view this as a game played by people, but as some form of math equation. That is an absolute falsehood that should be discouraged, and that "attitude" is one way of doing so. It says, "Well, if you are going to act that way towards me, than I will act that way towards you."

Really it ends up going down to something basic within human societies, because you can observe similar behavior in any set of differing groups.

That's why I try not to participate in such social attitudes. I could sit here and say that all people who believe in eyes over stats are tobacco-chewing failed ballplayers with third-grade educations who spend their days killing themselves with ballpark food and their nights pleasuring themselves to pictures of Mickey Mantle from 1950 and dreaming of how they can scam some dumb kid-turned superstar into signing for practically nothing. That would be as far away from the truth as I could get, but since apparently using decades-old stereotypes with no relevance to the modern world is OK for the other side, I would be well within my rights.

What it all means is very simple. If you don't like the stats, or you don't feel that they give you what you want out of the sport, that's fine. Everyone is different, both in terms of the depth of what they want to know and in how they go about doing that.

However, there are a couple easy things to do that will help keep from anyone getting in these situations.

First, realize that anything you use to evaluate a ballplayer is a tool. Some tools are simple to use, others more complex. Some you can use even without understanding completely how they are built (I don't understand the advanced physics of laser technology, for example, but I can use a laser level). You can have a toolbox with just a hammer, a saw and a flathead screwdriver, for example, but even though it is possible and was done for centuries you probably wouldn't want to build a house with them.

Second, don't say that you have a problem with stats, then quote batting average or RBIs as your argument. That just means you have no problem quoting poor stats, and it makes sound to those who do understand the deeper numbers that you don't have a clue. You can use them, but you need to understand what they tell you about a player. Just like you wouldn't pull out a tool to use on a project without having an idea of what it will do.

Finally, please remember that if you want to have the attitude that "its just a game", you need to treat everyone that way. Just because I want to see deeper statistical analysis of things and care about numbers like WAR doesn't mean I don't love going to the games as much or more than anyone. Hell, the last two years I missed the Ravens playing at New England and at Pittsburgh so I could spend beautiful October afternoons at Camden Yards watch the Orioles finish out worthless games at the end of lost seasons. Honestly, how many people did, or would do the same?

I feel that the deeper numbers advance my understanding of the game to a deeper level. I won't begrudge anyone who doesn't feel the same way, but if you don't want to experience the condescending attitude that is at the base of the complaints, please don't give one to me.

"Do unto others as you would want others to do unto you."

[flashjordnk]

Well my mass is a little more educated than the typical MASN TV audience member so you are not going to see me quote RBIs too often.

I like using a triple slash lines with an OPS at the end to get across my hitter's stats.

I think this is really useful and helps encapsulate the problems articulated by the OP. The triple slash line tells you a lot about a player.

It's a good way to view the OP point too.

339/383/486

260/383/486

Knowing a bit about statistics though the whole conversation was kind of gerrymandered to make a point. So I get that.

Player A....560....190....22.....1.....10......40.....339 ...383....436

Player B....500....130....17......1....23......100....260 ...383....436

But I'd say a few things about Player B immediately. If he has 23 homers and 17 doubles. I'd expect a pretty immediate regression in the future. We know this because his HR/FB ratio is probably really really high. That kind of power without any other residual doubles tells you something.

And OPS of 819 just isn't that amazingly great. Position adjustment also plays a role in how you interpret the OPS. If players A and B both are 1b's, I'm not too thrilled about either of their production. And conversely if they are league average CFers I'm thrilled with what I'm getting.

The bottom line is no statistic in a vacuum ever tells you everything you need to know. There are a lot of variables and a lot of ways to measure them. People that want to say we should use this stat OR this stat. Are just trying to find ways to contextualize the flaws (and there are flaws in all of them) in the statistics being used.

[JERSEYORIOLE]

I know this has been touched on but I don't understand the name-calling at all. I know I wouldn't last a second if I called everyone who didn't understand statistics a bunch of knuckle dragging idiots - why label people interested in statistics a bunch of pocket-protector wearing nerds? We're all baseball fans. I can never understand the negative attitude some people have towards statistical analysis.

I suggest you pay attention to the holier then thou attitude of the statistial analysis gurus on this site. We are all baseball fans. Some prefer to watch games and have opinion's on players based on what we see. No one is right and no one is wrong. But I hear the statement " you are wrong" back up by the stat of the day, way too often on here.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I suggest you pay attention to the holier then thou attitude of the statistial analysis gurus on this site. We are all baseball fans. Some prefer to watch games and have opinion's on players based on what we see. No one is right and no one is wrong. But I hear the statement " you are wrong" back up by the stat of the day, way too often on here.

Then why can't you even answer his question without displaying the kind of attitude you claim to dislike?

[El Gordo]

I suggest you pay attention to the holier then thou attitude of the statistial analysis gurus on this site. We are all baseball fans. Some prefer to watch games and have opinion's on players based on what we see. No one is right and no one is wrong. But I hear the statement " you are wrong" back up by the stat of the day, way too often on here.

The problem wit this line of thinking is nobody can see enough to make an accurate comparison between the relative strengths and weaknesses of players. We may be able to see which OF on our team is the best defensively e.g., but even that is questionable. We certainly can't see other teams OF enough to make a comparison. And when we watch a game unless we are at the park watching off ball, as Buck likes to say, there is a lot we don't see about things like jumps and routes and positioning etc. So the numbers keep us honest when we think we see things that perhaps aren't there.