"You can keep your fancy stats"

[Icterus galbula]

Article on Page 2 on ESPN:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=garfamudis/080305&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab5pos2

Highlights:

"For those of you who, like me, made the smart literary choice and didn't read "Moneyball..."

I suggest these time-honored baseball accounting practices, laid across the page in the traditional format: games played, at-bats, runs scored, hits, doubles, triples, homers, runs batted in, batting average and maybe, if there's room, stolen bases. That's 10 items. For pitchers, there's games, games started, wins, losses, winning percentage, saves, innings pitched, hits, strikeouts, walks and ERA. That's 11, which might be too much. Forget strikeouts. If the guy's getting people out, it will show up in his ERA....

If you can't tell how good a player is from those basic stats, there's something seriously wrong with you -- I mean brain-damage wrong...

Keep adding statistics and eventually, you'll find something that will qualify everyone on the planet for being a pro ballplayer. "

I can't decide if its meant to be satire. If it is, its well done. If its not, I think OldFan just found a new favorite sportswriter.

I think it very well could be satire given its page 2 and that some of the guy's older columns were definitely attempts at humor.

My favorite part is that he suggests using more advanced stats than runs, AB, and RBI will cause baseball to be filled with undeserving players.

[longflyball]

Some advanced stats do tend to split hairs. Park effects, competition level, BABIP, inherited runners and other assorted factors are worth considering at the margins, but you don't need them to figure out that Jay Payton is a giant hole in a lineup.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I don't trust anyone that is willing to make a blanket statement like this without showing any willingness to understand the concept.

It suggests a level of ignorance in the same vein as geocentricism and alchemy.

[RShack]

I can't get the link to respond, so I'm just going on the highlights you quoted. Based just on that, he's clearly pooh-poohing stats in a codgerly BS way... but if you remove the swipe at Moneyball and at K's (which are sorta like the bookends of it), and look at what he actually says in between those 2 thing, he's kinda right: those traditional stats contain almost all the raw info that we refer to. Nearly all stat-info is derived from them, so the actual info is right there in those traditional stats. The newer ones are mostly just permutations based on slicing-and-dicing those basic ones using simple arithmetic. For example, there's not a column for OPS, but you get OPS from what's right there in the basic stats. The basic ones are the fundamentals, and the newer ones are mainly just very simple arithmetic rearrangements of them that don't actually add any new information, but just provide different views of exactly the same information. The newer stats just make the important parts more obvious and accessible.

The big problem is D stats. If we had decent basic D-stats to go along with the basic hitting and pitching stats, we'd be a lot better off in terms of having stats that help model the game than we are now with a zillion permutations of the basic hitting and pitching stats combined with huge void when it comes to useful D-stats. In everyday stat practice, a third of the game is missing, information-wise, so you just gotta watch and see for yourself.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I can't get the link to respond, so I'm just going on the highlights you quoted. Based just on that, he's clearly pooh-poohing stats in a codgerly way... but if you remove the swipe at Moneyball and at K's (which are sorta like the bookends of it), and look at what he actually says in between those 2 thing, he's right: those traditional stats contain almost all the raw info that we refer to. Nearly all stat-info is derived from them, so the actual info is right there in those traditional stats. The newer ones are mostly just permutations based on slicing-and-dicing those basic ones using simple arithmetic. For example, there's not a column for OPS, but you get OPS from what's right there in the basic stats. The basic ones are the fundamentals, and the newer ones are mainly just very simple arithmetic rearrangements of them that don't actually add any new information, but just provide different views of exactly the same information.

That's the problem; do the newer stats provide BETTER views of the information then "traditional" stats?

I mean, if I hold a page of text upside-down, it's the same information, just harder to get anything out of it, you know?

[RShack]

That's the problem; do the newer stats provide BETTER views of the information then "traditional" stats?

Oh, sure. That's exactly what they do: give you various convenient-and-useful views of the exact same information.

I'm not agreeing with how the guy is trying to make it sound. He's being codgerly just to start an argument. But it is true that all you really need is the basic stats. That's where all the new ones come from. There's no new information in the new stats. They're just different ways to focus on the same old information.

The only reason we have the new ones is PC's, not genius. You don't need a computer to do any of them, it's just simple arithmetic. It took PC's to enable them, simply due to all the simple arithmetic that's involved. It's not like anything about the new stats is special except for doing very simple arithmetic to a zillion pieces of exactly the same old information. The only place anything is new is with the D-stats that we should have access to but don't. That's the only new information. Too bad we can't get it.

[scOtt]

I don't trust anyone that is willing to make a blanket statement like this without showing any willingness to understand the concept.

It suggests a level of ignorance in the same vein as geocentricism and alchemy.

It's willful ignorance. Militant ignorance. Something I just can't abide!

But then again it's Page 2... The guy probably has the same feelings as me.

[Migrant Redbird]

That's the problem; do the newer stats provide BETTER views of the information then "traditional" stats?

Absolutely! Ballplayers aren't unidimensional. You have to evaluate all aspects of a player's performance to make a complete assessment of him. It's really difficult, for example, to compare the performances of a lead off hitter and a clean up hitter, much less factor in the values of their defense, base running, and the "intangibles".

Stats like Win shares, VORP, eQA, etc. begin to do that. However, they also tend to obscure the process of how that occurs. I know how OPS is computed and I can do it myself mentally but, even if I knew the formula for Win shares off the top of my head, I couldn't do the calculations and compare a half dozen players with each other easily unless someone else has compiled a table of Win Share values and published them for my convenience. And, without knowing how the various factors feed into the published Win share values, how do I determine if I agree with the results or not. I can do that with OPS, but not with the more complex performance measurands.

I mean, if I hold a page of text upside-down, it's the same information, just harder to get anything out of it, you know?

I feel your pain, even if I don't quite agree with you. I get more out of the complex stats, but I don't fully understand what I'm getting.

[Icterus galbula]

The newer ones are mostly just permutations based on slicing-and-dicing those basic ones using simple arithmetic. For example, there's not a column for OPS, but you get OPS from what's right there in the basic stats.

Not trying to nitpick, but he doesn't actually include walks in the "basic" stats, so OPS couldn't be calculated.

[66-70-83-??]

Granted it is a "Page 2" article, but it does have some truth to it.

QUALIFIER: I know some think that I hate new/translated stats because of some of the "debates" that I have engaged in over the years here. I am firmly stuck in the middle of this debate. I am a charter BP.com subscriber, read every Elias Analyst and Bill James Abstracts, etc.........

I often engage in these debates to try and learn more. I must be missing something if I can't just swallow every drop of KoolAid from BP, right?

I also simply feel the need to defend fans who are attacked when their only "sin" is not caring or wanting to be involved in the advanced stats. Why can't people just be allowed to enjoy the game their way? It doesn't mean they are morons.

It doesn't have to be an "either/or" debate. Why can't I appreciate Ecksteins "grittiness" AND BP.com's statistical analysis and articles ? Why should it always be an us (smart guys who "get it" vs old guys who are morons who "dont get it") ?

At the end of the day- the old guys who like to look at "tools" and the new guys with their "stats" will still identify the same players 95% of the time when identifying the best players.

Predicting future performace? The stat heads will identify a statistical diamond in the rough on occasion. Likewise, the scout will sometimes identify a diamond in the rough because of his intangibles or tools.

Stats are recording what actually happened. To ignore them would be foolish.

They are the players "report card". Some advanced stats can unearth some good stuff. But, some stats value is dubious.

Many on the one extreme (FJM crowd for ex) love to mock David Eckstein, or those who dare compliment him for some reason. I dont get it. It is obvious to me that he has something above and beyond the stats that has value to MLB teams or else he wouldn't be hired. And its wrong and arrogant to constantly say that the good ole boys of MLB just "don't get it".

Imo, it isn't nonsense to suggest that there is value in intangibles that don't show up on the stat sheet.

As long as human beings play the game, intangibles will play a role on the team in the dugout, clubhouse, and on the field.

All the new/translated type stats would only be perfect if robots played the game. We could build robots with specific skill sets and measure them perfectly. We could then figure out to the 4th decimal point the likelyhood of every play in baseball, BEFORE it happened.

That would be fun, wouldn't it?

[BaltimoreTerp]

Granted it is a "Page 2" article, but it does have some truth to it.

QUALIFIER: I know some think that I hate new/translated stats because of some of the "debates" that I have engaged in over the years here. I am firmly stuck in the middle of this debate. I am a charter BP.com subscriber, read every Elias Analyst and Bill James Abstracts, etc.........

I often engage in these debates to try and learn more. I must be missing something if I can't just swallow every drop of KoolAid from BP, right?

I also simply feel the need to defend fans who are attacked when their only "sin" is not caring or wanting to be involved in the advanced stats. Why can't people just be allowed to enjoy the game their way? It doesn't mean they are morons.

It doesn't have to be an "either/or" debate. Why can't I appreciate Ecksteins "grittiness" AND BP.com's statistical analysis and articles ? Why should it always be an us (smart guys who "get it" vs old guys who are morons who "dont get it") ?

At the end of the day- the old guys who like to look at "tools" and the new guys with their "stats" will still identify the same players 95% of the time when identifying the best players.

Predicting future performace? The stat heads will identify a statistical diamond in the rough on occasion. Likewise, the scout will sometimes identify a diamond in the rough because of his intangibles or tools.

Stats are recording what actually happened. To ignore them would be foolish.

They are the players "report card". Some advanced stats can unearth some good stuff. But, some stats value is dubious.

Many on the one extreme (FJM crowd for ex) love to mock David Eckstein, or those who dare compliment him for some reason. I dont get it. It is obvious to me that he has something above and beyond the stats that has value to MLB teams or else he wouldn't be hired. And its wrong and arrogant to constantly say that the good ole boys of MLB just "don't get it".

Imo, it isn't nonsense to suggest that there is value in intangibles that don't show up on the stat sheet.

As long as human beings play the game, intangibles will play a role on the team in the dugout, clubhouse, and on the field.

All the new/translated type stats would only be perfect if robots played the game. We could build robots with specific skill sets and measure them perfectly. We could then figure out to the 4th decimal point the likelyhood of every play in baseball, BEFORE it happened.

That would be fun, wouldn't it?

I think you are exactly right. There are things you can measure, and things you can't. I've seen Bill James say that before, and I'm sure Billy Beane would agree completely.

The problem comes from people that for whatever reason can't or don't want to understand these stats and instead of being honest about it just attack the idea.

All stats are just a lens through which you view the game. Newer stats are just ways of trying to clean the glass and adjust the prescription (successfully or unsuccessfully).

You can see the game using batting average, runs batted in and wins, but your vision will be very blurry.

EDIT: Just to comment on David Eckstein, I think that the problem comes not because of his ability, but from the treatment he gets from the writers. They speak in hushed print about his heart and "grittiness" and being a "dirty dog" and other empty statements while ignoring his actual ability.

Put me at shortstop for the Orioles, and I'll display all the heart in the world. I'll even make sure my uniform needs three spins through the wash after every game. But when I'm batting .002 and making errors on the few balls I can actually field, that shouldn't matter.

Eckstein is a great story, and is good enough to start at shortstop in the major leagues, but until people will be honest and realize that he's a singles hitter who doesn't walk, doesn't steal bases, and is declining defensively when he was never that good in the first place, there will be those who make fun of those people. And they will deserve it.

[RShack]

Not trying to nitpick, but he doesn't actually include walks in the "basic" stats, so OPS couldn't be calculated.

Well, then he's goofy for not even knowing what basic stats are. How can you not count walks?

[RShack]

Granted it is a "Page 2" article, but it does have some truth to it.

QUALIFIER: I know some think that I hate new/translated stats because of some of the "debates" that I have engaged in over the years here. I am firmly stuck in the middle of this debate. I am a charter BP.com subscriber, read every Elias Analyst and Bill James Abstracts, etc.........

I often engage in these debates to try and learn more. I must be missing something if I can't just swallow every drop of KoolAid from BP, right?

I also simply feel the need to defend fans who are attacked when their only "sin" is not caring or wanting to be involved in the advanced stats. Why can't people just be allowed to enjoy the game their way? It doesn't mean they are morons.

It doesn't have to be an "either/or" debate. Why can't I appreciate Ecksteins "grittiness" AND BP.com's statistical analysis and articles ? Why should it always be an us (smart guys who "get it" vs old guys who are morons who "dont get it") ?

At the end of the day- the old guys who like to look at "tools" and the new guys with their "stats" will still identify the same players 95% of the time when identifying the best players.

Predicting future performace? The stat heads will identify a statistical diamond in the rough on occasion. Likewise, the scout will sometimes identify a diamond in the rough because of his intangibles or tools.

Stats are recording what actually happened. To ignore them would be foolish.

They are the players "report card". Some advanced stats can unearth some good stuff. But, some stats value is dubious.

Many on the one extreme (FJM crowd for ex) love to mock David Eckstein, or those who dare compliment him for some reason. I dont get it. It is obvious to me that he has something above and beyond the stats that has value to MLB teams or else he wouldn't be hired. And its wrong and arrogant to constantly say that the good ole boys of MLB just "don't get it".

Imo, it isn't nonsense to suggest that there is value in intangibles that don't show up on the stat sheet.

As long as human beings play the game, intangibles will play a role on the team in the dugout, clubhouse, and on the field.

All the new/translated type stats would only be perfect if robots played the game. We could build robots with specific skill sets and measure them perfectly. We could then figure out to the 4th decimal point the likelyhood of every play in baseball, BEFORE it happened.

That would be fun, wouldn't it?

I agree with everything you just said.

[Icterus galbula]

I also simply feel the need to defend fans who are attacked when their only "sin" is not caring or wanting to be involved in the advanced stats. Why can't people just be allowed to enjoy the game their way? It doesn't mean they are morons.

I'm definitely not a fan of the personal attacks based on simply one's way of using stats. Be it that they use them all the time or not at all. That said, the article I posted has this written:

If you can't tell how good a player is from those basic stats' date=' there's something seriously wrong with you -- I mean brain-damage wrong. If you can't tell how good a player is from those basic stats, then maybe your daddy was drunk when you were a baby and he dropped you on your head and never told anybody because he was too embarrassed or didn't remember. If you can't tell how good a player is from those basic stats, maybe you ate some lead paint in the basement or crashed your motorcycle and hit your head against a telephone pole. If you can't tell how good a player is from those basic stats, maybe Timothy Leary was your family doctor, or maybe it's just that you don't know very much about baseball.

[/quote']

If the article isn't satire, the guy suggests that anyone who uses advanced stats to seek refined analysis is brain-dead or drug-addled. Thats ridiculous. I guess I have the biggest problem with people who attack something they don't have the faintest comprehension of. I respect people who closely examine an issue and then come to a different conclusion. I don't respect people who sweepingly dismiss something they haven't read, examined, or understood. Thats the annoying part of the "debate" to me- its a mentality that basically says "I don't know what this is about, I'm not even going to try and know what its about, I just know its dumb."

I definitely don't think its an "even/or" debate. I just hate that some people will scathingly deride those who use advanced statistics and suggest they somehow are destroying baseball. For me, the advanced stats provide an extra joy to the game.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Well, then he's goofy for not even knowing what basic stats are. How can you not count walks?

Because walks are for cowards who are too scared to take a swing like a real man. Like Babe Ruth or Ted Williams. Neither of them ever took a walk in their lives.