Are Stats for Dorks?

[baltfan]

As a guy who pays a lot of attention to stats, I wouldn't say that they are for dorks. But I think the broader point here is that too many seamheads treat the stats as if they are the gospel and there is no room for argument. The truth of the matter is that the stats often lie. Moreover, anyone who thinks the current set of stats that we have for evaluating players, especially from a predictive point of view, don't need substantial improvement is fooling themselves.

Ask yourselves this question, how is it that you determine whether a stat is valid or not? Generally it is based on the results that the stat returns. If you created an offensive stat that didn't show Albert Pujols at or near the top of baseball, you would likely go back to the drawing board thinking that there must be a problem with the formula you developed. So, there is a bit of perception meets reality here.

You are particularly seeing this with defensive stats. It has been mentioned that WAR rates Zobrist above Pujols this season largely based on differences in the value of their defense. I would dare say there is no one that would really take Zobrist's season over Pujols. I would also dare say that WAR will either be adjusted in someway to de-emphasize defense or the defensive stats will be improved upon so that a truer conclusion will be reached.

I was a mathematics major in college and the one thing that I learned from mathematical modeling was the more complex the model the greater likelihood that there would be some error that you did not anticipate. If the statheads would stop acting like current statistical models are perfect or near-perfect and those that despise stats would recognize the important role that they do play, I think there would be a lot less of these types of arguments.

One final thing for Oldfan. As a old fan I am sure that you were a fan of Earl Weaver. You know Weaver was one of the earliest stat geeks. He kept tons of information on index cards, did things like hit Glenn Gulliver leadoff because of his OBP, and preached the value of patience at the plate and not running yourself out of innings. The current statheads are just building on Earl's work. But I can guarantee you Earl never would have taken Zobrist over Pujols or a season of Franklin Gutierrez or Nyjer Morgan over Torii Hunter.

[Fan4Life]

Agree with those who say they are only as good as the hands they're in. Around here there is too much faith put into stats that are average based and then draw individual conclusions from that. Stats obtain their most effectiveness when they are used to express details, not generalities,, IMO. And stats based on averages are generalities.

[crawdad]

I have no problem with stats but I do with those who act like they trump observation every time without fail, or isolating them to prove something when the opposite is the case. An example would be saying Brooks Robinson must have been a good baserunner because he rarely got picked off! :laughlol:

I also find if laughable the way so many of these stats gurus or geeks act in such an arrogant or snobbish manner towards others who are not enamored or overly impressed with stats.

The example of Billy Ripken is excellent in that every stats geek known to man would have predicted he would have zero chance of success at the major league level. Funny stuff - it really is!:laughlol::laughlol:

Also, for all the statistical guru's that post here nary a one picked up on how streaky a hitter Luke Scott is prior to his becoming an Oriole. However, many had him hitting thirty plus homers every year, same as Markakis based on stats. Again, pretty humorous stuff, as none of these predictions have come true.:laughlol: The point is nobody can predict anything when it comes to baseball.

The thing is this . . . you are lumping in ALL of these stats guys and I really have no clue who would ever in their right mind think like this. It is over simplified.

RE: Luke Scott . . . I do not know how things were like here, but this certainly was not the case at the SunBoards. There we were discussing his inability to do well against lefties and how his performance was inconsistent. This was largely backed up with statistics.

RE: Markakis . . . every 30 home run estimate I saw were from either exuberant pseudo-scouts or folks who believe too much in the double rule.

RE: Billy Ripken . . . he was a solid defensive backup who started. Great glove . . . not much of a bat. Not sure I would want to hang my hat on that. OPSing around 50 with a plus 15 at second is not starting caliber. Problem was that if he was a shortstop, the baseline on his hitting probably could be overlooked in an Adam Everett sort of way. At second, more offense is required and his defensive skill could not make it up. He was pretty solid in 1990 . . . he was probably about 4 wins above average that year.

I think you are going too full bore with these examples.

Not being able to predict anything in baseball? Then why do some players make more than others? Because we predict they will be better. I mean . . . you use statistics. Everyone uses statistics. Some people write them down and use them as numbers. Others use descriptors. It is the same thing.

[Moose Milligan]

Ahhh, you know what? As I was glossing over this thread I thought something was missing but I just couldn't put my finger on it.

[maudibjr]

Stats are fun and useful. If you totally stat out your level of dorkage will be high however.

[LookinUp]

Stats are more for nerds than dorks. There's a difference. Nerds are smart people about a given area. Dorks are wannabe nerds.

Stats in the hands of dorks are misused and problematic. Stats in the hands of nerds are properly used, with acknowledged limitations and always looking for improvements. In this sense, nerds are cool.

:thumbsup1: :beerchug1:

Mods should change this thread title to "Are stats for nerds." If so, the answer is yes!

[BRobinsonfan]

The example of Billy Ripken is excellent in that every stats geek known to man would have predicted he would have zero chance of success at the major league level. Funny stuff - it really is!:laughlol::laughlol:

Define "success."

Billy averaged 76 games a season spread out over 12 years. He only played in more than 100 games or more in 5 of those seasons. He was essentially a back-up second baseman.

He had no power, didn't hit for average, and had a Luis Hernandez like career OBP of .294.

He was a good defensive player to be sure - but since he never won a gold glove - you obviously can't say he was a "gold-glove" calibre second baseman, right?

[Avsfan]

I haven't read every word....but I think it hasn't been said yet...

Stats prove either right or wrong what our eyes think they see.

Stats are also vehicles in which to dis-miss well known and accepted baseball arguments, that were in fact mis-leading and often not valid; i.e W-L record for a pitcher and batting avg. for a hitter.

[RShack]

I think it's pretty clear that stats are indeed for dorks. I don't see how anybody can argue with that.

Just look at the crew around here: mostly guys with computers and not enough Real Life.

However, that's a completely different issue than how useful stats are...

[Lucky Jim]

I think it's pretty clear that stats are indeed for dorks. I don't see how anybody can argue with that.

Just look at the crew around here: mostly guys with computers and not enough Real Life.

However, that's a completely different issue than how useful stats are...

I guess it all comes down to how you define "real life".

[Old#5fan]

I think it's pretty clear that stats are indeed for dorks. I don't see how anybody can argue with that.

Just look at the crew around here: mostly guys with computers and not enough Real Life.

However, that's a completely different issue than how useful stats are...

Can you sell me one of your two Oriole Birds? You would still have one!

[olehippi]

This has definitely been a interesting thread......

I’ve never been a big stat person, at least not much beyond what’s on the back of a baseball card. I’m definitely more visual than stat driven when it comes to making a conclusion about the skill level of a particular player. More out of curiosity -- and usually because of something said here on OH -- I will sometimes check Baseball Reference or Baseball Cube for additional info on a particular player. And while I grasp the importance of stats for definitive evaluations, quite honestly as a fan, I really don’t care all that much about the esoteric stat side of the game.

So yes, stats are an essential tool, but I’m not a baseball mechanic. Maybe I’ll grab a hammer or a screwdriver every now and then, but I’m content to let others worry about fixing someone’s BABIP or adjusting their WARP. I prefer to just watch and enjoy the KISS version of baseball.

[makoman]

Can you sell me one of your two Oriole Birds? You would still have one!

But rep birds are just a silly stat measuring what other people actually think about a person's posts. Nothing more than an achievement for dorks.

I for one don't need such silliness, and can tell how good a person's posts are using my own eyes.

[El Gordo]

Chicks dig the long ball, and Dorks dig wOBA. :laughlol: One of the reasons stats are helpful IMO, is that I can't watch games live very often. When I watch on TV there is a great deal the camera work doesn't allow my "eyes" to see. Stats can help make up for that.

[RShack]

I guess it all comes down to how you define "real life".

Too bad I didn't use the word "is" ;-)

Let's try this again...

I think it's pretty clear that stats are indeed for dorks. I don't see how anybody except maybe a bored lawyer can argue with that.

Just look at the crew around here: mostly guys with computers and not enough Real Life.

However, that's a completely different issue than how useful stats are...