The Shortfalls of Using Statistical Projections

[Migrant Redbird]

You did say some.

And in response, I pointed out that for every correct conclusion that someone else holds the flawed perspective that "stats determine a player's future performance", there are 1,000s of incorrect ones.

A perfect illustration for the invalid usage of stats. Point me to your data supporting your statement "there are 1,000s of incorrect ones." Real statisticians usually avoid hyperbole when stating their conclusions.

So in general, the perceived size of "some fans" is off by several orders of magnitude,

Since your data is manufactured out of whole cloth (or extracted from your nether regions), the comment about orders of magnitude is meaningless.

and the problem is far more one of a listener's improper inference, than of a speaker's nonsensical implication.

And you were criticizing me for debating semantics?

The point is, your shoe fits virtually noone [sic], and the "problem" you're ranting about is far more imagined than real.

Your perception is what's founded in your imagination.

Nobody I know use stats as a de facto crystal ball, yet you're suggesting that such behavior is commonplace in fan communities such as this one.

It's not??? You've been reading a different board than I have. To quote you again.

Proper application of rigorous statistical analysis is a perfectly reasonable basis to dismiss a guy's prospects as a major league player

If that's not using statistical analysis as a "de facto crystal ball", I'd like to know what would satisfy your definition.

Read that again and then ask yourself who's taking themself too seriously here.

It appears to me that you've done an excellent job of indicting yourself, counselor.

[Migrant Redbird]

The FJM response to this complete and utter throw-away article, by the way, is absolutely terrific.

Methinks the guy doth protest too much. His descent into vulgarity also fails to bolster his argument.

He also completely skipped over caveats such as these.

OK, you're right, that is a totally unfair generalization of the stat-lovers.

.... But, we will concede this: Mom's Basement loves sports. He just loves them at a level unlike most others. But the sports world definitely needs more fans with his commitment and his passion for the games. Why? Because the truth is, without fans like him, I'm living in my Mom's Basement, with my Star Wars jammies on, waiting for my next shift at Mickey Dees, which is probably what I should be doing anyway.

And I am still convinced that many of the average fans view us "stat-lovers" exactly as "Mom's Basement". It's difficult enough to counter that perception/opinion without being so close-minded that we can't recognize the truthful elements in that satirical representation of "Mom's Basement". How are you ever going to educate the average fan about things like OPS and VORP and DIPS when you're so contemptuous of his intelligence?

[RShack]

For every fan that actually does believe that stats determine a player's future performance, there are 1,000s that are falsely accused of believing this.

Oh, please...

Look, unless you know about some membership in the "Responsible Use of Stats Club", that's just a silly thing to say.

Do some people blow off stats? Sure.

Do some folks accuse stat people of doing things that *serious* stat people don't do? Sure.

But for every FakeCodgerDude who goes on anti-stats rants, I see more-than-plenty people who insist we should trade so-and-so because of his age and OPS in return for a couple of prospects who have good MiL OPS, as if that's all that's relevant. So, face it, there's plenty of foolishness on both sides of this issue.

For you to claim this "thousands to 1" argument is just ridiculous.

[Eight]

Wait - this crotchety old sports writer gets paid to write a column painting baseball fans who enjoy and understand the statistical analysis of the game as loser nerds who live with their mother until they're 40, and the ones being stereotyped are the ones that need to be less close-minded??

That's an interesting perspective, but perhaps this crotchety old sports writer might want to take the time to educate himself even a little bit about the importance of statistical analysis. Nah, he'd probably rather write columns about David Eckstein's guts or Derek Jeter's intangibles.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Methinks the guy doth protest too much. His descent into vulgarity also fails to bolster his argument.

He also completely skipped over caveats such as these.

And I am still convinced that many of the average fans view us "stat-lovers" exactly as "Mom's Basement". It's difficult enough to counter that perception/opinion without being so close-minded that we can't recognize the truthful elements in that satirical representation of "Mom's Basement". How are you ever going to educate the average fan about things like OPS and VORP and DIPS when you're so contemptuous of his intelligence?

People like that don't have "contempt" for anyone's intelligence, or lack-of.

It is people who are closed-minded, and shout that fact with pride from every bully-pulpit available, who are the problem. It is people who hear those comments and snicker and think about how right they are without bothering to look into what is being discussed who are the problem.

Besides, I really think you need to look at the original caracture statement again before you keep trying to defend it as a point of view.

I think this post in the comments section says a lot:

Jeff,

Going to the Star Trek/basement dweller well when trying to paint someone as a nerd pretty much now exists solely as an example of the most reductive, unoriginal and self-defeating tactic in internet mockery. It reflects more negatively on the person hurling the accusation than the nocturnal underground homunculus it targets, in part because most teenagers can spot that it's a reference older than they are.

I also fail to see what's so noisome about fans so dedicated to appreciating a game that they create new avenues of speculation (unexplored for over a century) and new metrics designed to help understand how the game can and does unfold.

For one, why would we not laud fellow citizens for voluntarily using mathematics in their spare time to democratize information about the National Pastime and promote its understanding beyond a self-sustaining coterie?

For another, why would anyone voluntarily line up like an unpaid stooge to attack those fans for a coterie that desperately needs to convince others of the exclusivity of its baseball knowledge and its inherent value despite its frequent inanity and inability to withstand rational scrutiny?

Thousands of Americans every year elect to take classes in film appreciation, but I can't remember the last time an entertainment writer used a public forum to mock their social skills, question their manliness, insult their intelligence or cheerlead for the Directors Guild of America by declaring that *only* DGA members or the journalists covering the DGA could possibly comprehend what "wide-angle lenses" and "light" are. That's because the attack would not only be utterly fatuous, it would be mortifying to the writer.

Thank goodness you didn't let anything like that stand in your way.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Oh, please...

Look, unless you know about some membership in the "Responsible Use of Stats Club", that's just a silly thing to say.

Do some people blow off stats? Sure.

Do some folks accuse stat people of doing things that *serious* stat people don't do? Sure.

But for every FakeCodgerDude who goes on anti-stats rants, I see more-than-plenty people who insist we should trade so-and-so because of his age and OPS in return for a couple of prospects who have good MiL OPS, as if that's all that's relevant. So, face it, there's plenty of foolishness on both sides of this issue.

For you to claim this "thousands to 1" argument is just ridiculous.

You keep making this argument, yet have never proved it.

[davearm]

A perfect illustration for the invalid usage of stats. Point me to your data supporting your statement "there are 1,000s of incorrect ones." Real statisticians usually avoid hyperbole when stating their conclusions.

... countered by a perfect illustration of your tendency to take everything far too literally, which, you'll recall, is how we got here to begin with.

I was using hyperbole to illustrate a point, and it's obviously sailed right over your head.

And you were criticizing me for debating semantics?

LOL, the difference between what's implied and what's inferred is not semantics. If I'm talking and you're listening, then I'm the one implying, and you're the one inferring.

And when you're inferring stuff that I'm not implying, that's then we've got a problem.

Your perception is what's founded in your imagination.

Ah, the handy "I know you are but what am I" comeback. Well played.

If that's not using statistical analysis as a "de facto crystal ball", I'd like to know what would satisfy your definition.

Your definition suits me just fine: "stats determine a player's future performance."

[davearm]

Oh, please...

Look, unless you know about some membership in the "Responsible Use of Stats Club", that's just a silly thing to say.

Do some people blow off stats? Sure.

Do some folks accuse stat people of doing things that *serious* stat people don't do? Sure.

But for every FakeCodgerDude who goes on anti-stats rants, I see more-than-plenty people who insist we should trade so-and-so because of his age and OPS in return for a couple of prospects who have good MiL OPS, as if that's all that's relevant. So, face it, there's plenty of foolishness on both sides of this issue.

For you to claim this "thousands to 1" argument is just ridiculous.

The irony here is just priceless: you don't realize that you've become "FakeCodgerDude who goes on anti-stats rants."

[Migrant Redbird]

OK, I give up! Obviously the "stats-nerds" are too hypercritical to recognize any resemblance to themselves in "Mom's Basement" and are rallying to lynch the messenger. It's that lack of perspective which creates their problem in the first place.

It's a good thing that Bill James seems to have a more realistic perspective. Even while he's ripping Derek Jeter a new one in The Fielding Bible, he's taking into account the limitations of his stats.

[RShack]

The irony here is just priceless: you don't realize that you've become "FakeCodgerDude who goes on anti-stats rants."

Are you kidding me?

Par for the course: davearm has no argument, so he switches to personal attacks. In other words, the usual...

[BaltimoreTerp]

OK, I give up! Obviously the "stats-nerds" are too hypercritical to recognize any resemblance to themselves in "Mom's Basement" and are rallying to lynch the messenger. It's that lack of perspective which creates their problem in the first place.

It's a good thing that Bill James seems to have a more realistic perspective. Even while he's ripping Derek Jeter a new one in The Fielding Bible, he's taking into account the limitations of his stats.

Read those two paragraphs again, and you should realize the fallicy of your argument.

If the face of the movement towards statistical analysis is honest about the limits of statistics, why wouldn't most people be that way?

I do like how you view a debate on the topic as an attack on you personally. That seems to be who most of the "non-statistic" people see when statistics are used to form a rebuttal to their opinions.

[J.D.]

Methinks the guy doth protest too much. His descent into vulgarity also fails to bolster his argument.

He also completely skipped over caveats such as these.

Do you read FJM? Vulgarity is just kind of their thing. It doesn't take away from the argument at the core: No one is a Mom's Basement fan. Those people don't exist. Just because he dropped some vulgarities doesn't make Mom's Basement fans suddenly appear. That site is set up specifically to point out the illogical stat-bashing that goes on in some of the "old-guard" columnist circles. People who seem to be so dismissive of statistics as a whole that they come up with shoddy, unfair, hyperbolic characterizations like this.

And I am still convinced that many of the average fans view us "stat-lovers" exactly as "Mom's Basement". It's difficult enough to counter that perception/opinion without being so close-minded that we can't recognize the truthful elements in that satirical representation of "Mom's Basement". How are you ever going to educate the average fan about things like OPS and VORP and DIPS when you're so contemptuous of his intelligence?

And the fact that people consider us "stat-lovers" as "Mom's Basement" fans completely eliminates any shred of desire I have to speak about baseball with them. It's a completely and utterly stereotypical characterization. It's no different than if I said that non-stat people are 60-year old guys chomping on cigars, spouting off how much chemistry has made Aubrey Huff a good baseball player, talking about the "good 'ol days" when baseball was a simple, pure game, and who believe that instant replay is stupid, interleague play needs to go, the Wild Card is an awful idea, the DH is stupid, free agency is awful, and we need to go back to the purity of the game. You know, the same people that praise the idea of a suicide squeeze bunt.

These are equally unfair characterizations of people that think that stats are over-used and we don't pay enough attention to scouting reports. The truth is that neither characterization is correct or fair.

OK, you're right, that is a totally unfair generalization of the stat-lovers.

.... But, we will concede this: Mom's Basement loves sports. He just loves them at a level unlike most others. But the sports world definitely needs more fans with his commitment and his passion for the games. Why? Because the truth is, without fans like him, I'm living in my Mom's Basement, with my Star Wars jammies on, waiting for my next shift at Mickey Dees, which is probably what I should be doing anyway.

At least the writer was intelligent enough to realize that he was being hyperbolic. That doesn't really change the characterization much. Why is he even going out of his way to make the characterization that he's apologizing for the very next minute? Because it's great newspaper fodder.

OK, I give up! Obviously the "stats-nerds" are too hypercritical to recognize any resemblance to themselves in "Mom's Basement" and are rallying to lynch the messenger. It's that lack of perspective which creates their problem in the first place.

It's a good thing that Bill James seems to have a more realistic perspective. Even while he's ripping Derek Jeter a new one in The Fielding Bible, he's taking into account the limitations of his stats.

It has nothing to do with being hypercritical. It's about fairness. By using a ridiculous stereotype to classify the "stat-nerd" section of fans, the writer is opening himself up to this. Because if the exact opposite characterization of the non-stat guy was made, I'd fully expect that section of fan to be irritated about it. It's not a rally to lynch the messenger and it's not a lack of perspective. The lack of perspective here exists in the fact that the Mom's Basement fan is a myth. The response to that article that BTerp posted sums up my feelings fairly eloquently. I honestly couldn't care less if someone thinks that I'm a nerd because I think there's more to stats than batting average, and if I think that using those stats can help predict future performance. What bothers me, day in and day out, is the haughtiness of people that seem to either loath or disregard those of us that see the validity in statistical analysis. At the very least, MR, the lack of perspective rests very firmly in both camps.

Bill James sees the limitations in those stats, even though they point out what a lot of trained scouts see... that Derek Jeter is a fairly poor defensive shortstop. Here's the thing that the non-stats camp seems to miss, though: a lot of the stats guys see the flaws and limitations in those stats as well. And I guarantee you that people are working on statistical formulas to reduce those flaws and limitations.

I suppose my main point is this, MR... if you want to point out that stats are limited as far as being able to be used for a predictor of future success, that's fine. Stats guys accept this, in general. Showing me some hack column telling me that because I use stats, I wear Star Wars jammies and live in my mother's basement isn't furthering your cause much, though. It's nothing but ridiculous. Hell, even the writer pointed that out.

Besides, I wear Family Guy jammies, and I live in my GRANDmother's basement.

[CrimsonTribe]

There's a reason I can only make it through half of a thread like this.

[davearm]

Are you kidding me?

Par for the course: davearm has no argument, so he switches to personal attacks. In other words, the usual...

LOL, c'mon down off the highhorse before you hurt yourself. Those are your insulting words, not mine.

All I did was laugh that this "FakeCodgerDude" you deride, blathering on about those blasted stathead whippersnappers... you're that guy. You're doing exactly that which you scorn, right here in this very thread.