Are Sabermetrics Going Too Far?

[SABR Matt]

As for comparing baseball and other priorities in life...I would never argue that baseball should be taken more seriously than your marriage or your job or your practical education, but I find quite often that the way people pursue their passions and hobbies very often reflects the way they pursue life in the grander scheme. People who are motivated and driven don't just read some books about poker...they study poker and play it often...improving their game as they go. They don't just hike twice a week when the weather is nice, they go hiking every weekend, often for days at a time, taking a different route through complex terrain each time. They don't just fall in love and let relationships come to them...they pursue their partner zealously, making every effort to make their relationships work. They don't just shoot 9 holes once a month...if they can afford it at all, they shoot 18 every weekend and track their handicap and work on their skills. I could go on.

A motivated person loves life and ravenously tears into it at every opportunity. Shoeless Joe posts at baseball-fever.com...fairly regularly. He's a major baseball enthusiast. But he is satisfied with a substandard understanding of hitting. There's a good chance that speaks to his overall proclivity toward pursuing his hobbies and passions.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

As for comparing baseball and other priorities in life...I would never argue that baseball should be taken more seriously than your marriage or your job or your practical education, but I find quite often that the way people pursue their passions and hobbies very often reflects the way they pursue life in the grander scheme. People who are motivated and driven don't just read some books about poker...they study poker and play it often...improving their game as they go. They don't just hike twice a week when the weather is nice, they go hiking every weekend, often for days at a time, taking a different route through complex terrain each time. They don't just fall in love and let relationships come to them...they pursue their partner zealously, making every effort to make their relationships work. They don't just shoot 9 holes once a month...if they can afford it at all, they shoot 18 every weekend and track their handicap and work on their skills. I could go on.

A motivated person loves life and ravenously tears into it at every opportunity. Shoeless Joe posts at baseball-fever.com...fairly regularly. He's a major baseball enthusiast. But he is satisfied with a substandard understanding of hitting. There's a good chance that speaks to his overall proclivity toward pursuing his hobbies and passions.

Thank you for another compliment, substandard understanding method is fine for Joe. I'll put that in with your other kind words......hint a lazy and the your other shot, your words directed at me .. "If multiplying and adding is too hard for you then you represent everything that is wrong with America."

Don't you get it Matt, were having different view, the difference I'm talking baseball and your talking about me.

It's all yours, I should have never returned and I won't return this time, not on this subject, this will get us no where. You would be better served to stick to the game and not make negative comments about other posters. Say what you like anyone can go back on the posts and see I am being truthful with the above words and respectful of others. It's all yours.

[digglahhh]

To the extent that someone believes in the kool-aid offered by OPS, there is something that is clearly better than OPS.

This I can basically agree with. As Matt said, the grounds on which one may argue against this would be one that privileged something other than mathematical precision. One could argue that OPS is the best blend of accuracy, simplicity, familiarity, etc. But, of course, that's also relative and contextual, the dynamic with which it harmonizes is subject to change.

If your granting the underlying principles of OPS, it makes sense that you should grant those principles in their "more advanced" forms as well. Perhaps this is as simple as a quibble of semantics, "best" vs. "favorite."

digg is doing his best devil's advocate, but he's obviously facing a steep climb.

Speaking for myself, not Joe, I don't question the math involved in any of the work you guys do. I don't have any aversion to math. Being of a social science background with a deep interest in philosophy most of my questions deal with approach, underlying assumptions, etc.

I guess, it goes back to the, now cliche, statement by Alfred Korzybski, "the map is not the territory." I have no doubt you guys are sketching the most precise and detailed map possible, my only question is the essential likeness it bears and its functionality as it relates to the actual territory, the game itself.

The game isn't based on thousands of trials, during which variables are attempted to be controlled. The game is defined by glares of sun peeking through clouds, mysterious gusts of winds, a ball dropping three inches to left or right - something which neither the batter nor the pitcher consciously controls. The larger truths, in all their specificity, are meaningless over the course of a game or series, on the ground, in the territory.

That is, in fact, the beauty of the whole landscape. The margins are small, baseball is a game of inches, so too is statistical analysis. Every play in every inning of every game is a unique event. The statistical advantages levied by in-depth research are small enough to still allow an individual to justifiably play a hunch, and sometime success is about nothing more than defying the odds over the course of a few trials. To me, knowing about the statistical side of the game only makes me appreciate the novelty of anomalous stretches even more, it helps me to manage my expectations.

But, am I going to conclude that Miguel Cabrera is better or worse than Ryan Howard on the basis of two win shares, or three base runs, or whatever - nope! I just don't trust any metric to that degree, not in the face of the myriad other variables unable to be accounted for, not in the face of the territory.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

What bothers me about your position Shoeless is that it's intellectually lazy for no good reason. What you are essentially saying is:

"Math makes me queasy, I will therefore accept something illogical and less accurate."

The stupid thing about that...you don't have to do the math...those of us who are NOT lazy have DONE the math and posted it on our websites. All you have to do is take our linear weight values and multiply them with the number of times each hitter does each type of offensive event and you've got your answer. And if multiplying and adding is too hard for you, then you represent everything that is wrong with America today.

I have no patience at all for what you've said in this thread. Make a tiny bit of effort in life...even if that effort involves (gasp!) math!!

Not one of your better efforts Matt. Surprised this came from you actually.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

In one respect, I actually do understand Matt's reflex to react as such. The jocks vs. nerds (false) dichotomy is so pervasive in the culture of baseball. Guys who do the kind of work that Matt, Tango, etc. do are so often lambasted as underwear-clad, parents'-basement-dwelling specimens of social ineptitude. Arguably a greater insult, they are often dismissed as not even being fans of the sport. The quirks of the dichotomy are revealed as even more bizarre as it is seemingly acceptable (and even laudable) to be a history geek. Tim Kurkijan is fine, but Rob Neyer is a rogue-agent iconoclast...

People like Matt are working in the most marginalized genre of baseball research; they are challenging anecdotal assumptions about the underlying workings of the game that had never really been proven, but conferred divinity on the basis of intuition and repetition. In light of the larger dynamic, the "I don't need no math," argument is often perceived as (partially because it is often a euphemism for) "get off the field, nerd; this game is for the big boys." Sabermetricians get defensive when they perceive that tone (accurately or inaccurately).

As far as what is or isn't "lazy," I believe we are just projecting the efforts we make toward things about which we are passionate and holding others to that scale. Anybody who defines "lazy" without having read Derrida is lazy...

Ya know, you may not come out of the wood-work often, but when you do, you consistently make spot-on posts imo. Very well put.

I respect Matt's work and appeciate the line he must strattle, between protecting his passion, and helping those interested, to understand. Seeing the game differently is what makes baseball so great.

For the record...those who don't spend years and years researching a baseball players life, on and off the field, are lazy Just playin'.

[AstrosFan]

Hey, at least least we've got you and Bill Burgess as examples of how to live.

[SABR Matt]

For the record...I never said you were lazy if you didn't study sabermetrics with the same zeal that I do. I just think it's lazy to refuse even a small effort to become acquainted with some basic sabermetric tools if you're a serious baseball fan, especially when your reason for doing so is "ew...math!" and especially these days with the proliferation of availability of those basic metrics.

Also for the record, I do happen to think you're also lazy if you make no effort to get to know something about the important players in the game's history...doesn't have to be the in depth close personal study that some here have put into guys like Ruth, Cobb and Joe Jackson, but you should know about baseball history if you take baseball remotely seriously as a passtime.

[AstrosFan]

That bothers me some, but I am more irritated by the people who try to put as much of a negative spin on sabermetric analysis as they can. The attitude is, if I don't understand it, it must be bad. If you consider yourself into sabermetrics, how much do the following phrases irritate you on a 1-5 scale, with 1 being mildly annoyed, and 5 being ready to disintegrate that person's head with your fist?

Stat-head

Stat-freak

Stat-hound

Confusing, newfangled stats

Baseball is played on the field, not with computers.

These new stats have nothing to do with real baseball

Who needs stats? My eyes are all I need to tell how great a player was.

What makes you think you know so much more about how great a player was than those who saw him?

[SABR Matt]

Stat-head 1

Stat-freak 2

Stat-hound 1

Confusing, newfangled stats 4

Baseball is played on the field, not with computers. 5

These new stats have nothing to do with real baseball 5

Who needs stats? My eyes are all I need to tell how great a player was. 4

What makes you think you know so much more about how great a player was than those who saw him? 3

[AstrosFan]

I think the only place I would differ is I would give the phrase stat-freak a 1. None of those nicknames in the first three phrases bother me in and of themselves. I take it as a compliment. It is the context that matters. If a person were to say, "These stat-hounds think they have all the answers with their little formulas," then I would probably be up to the 5 level.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Also for the record, I do happen to think you're also lazy if you make no effort to get to know something about the important players in the game's history...doesn't have to be the in depth close personal study that some here have put into guys like Ruth, Cobb and Joe Jackson, but you should know about baseball history if you take baseball remotely seriously as a passtime.

Sounds reasonable. Perhaps we are on the extreme opposite ends of whatever spectrum we are defining here. I understand some stats, even curious about some other ones that I know will never be within my grasp. And you have some historical knowledge in you, so perhaps we've come the same distance toward the middle in those respective areas. I'm just sayin', don't be so quick to snipe back. Joe isn't posting with any sort of agenda or malice, just posting his opinion. He's anything but lazy...we all just choose where and how to focus the most energy.

Keep up the good work Matt.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Confusing, newfangled stats

Nothing wrong with that. Actually a humbling statement.

Baseball is played on the field, not with computers.

Nothing false about this statement.

These new stats have nothing to do with real baseball

Eye of the beholder. Some see the game different than others.

Who needs stats? My eyes are all I need to tell how great a player was.

Some might side more toward this, but I don't think anyone, even extreme anti-formula guys, will say that no stats are required. Stats are the backbone of the game. We need them. How in depth we need to go with them is another question altogether.

What makes you think you know so much more about how great a player was than those who saw him?

Historical opinions don't mean near as much, if we don't have numbers to back them up. The opinions particularly help in the cases of great past catchers like Schalk, whose total contributions will never be captured by numbers, no matter how in depth.

[AstrosFan]

You clearly have never seen the context in which those phrases are typically used. Aside from the nicknames:

"Confusing ..."

This is used in the context of perpetuating the idea that the first thing a person should look for in a statistic is its simplicity, not its accuracy in predicting or modeling run scoring. To a sabermetrician, that speaks volumes about a person's attitude.

"... on the field ..."

Technically, it is not a false statement. But the statement is not made with the intent of being a technically true statement. It is made with the intent of arguing that advanced statistical analysis cannot help the game, because formulas don't win games, players do. Yes, players win games. But sabermetrics can provide insight as to what strategies to use, how to optimize a batting order, how to best use the relief corps, etc. When that statement is made in its usual context, it is advancing a falsehood, that sabermetric analysis does nothing to help teams win games.

"... real baseball."

They have everything to do with real baseball, because they are the result of studying countless games and measuring the best ways to predict player performance or play percentage baseball. To say that sabermetrics having nothing to do with real baseball is in the eye of the beholder is an incorrect statement. How important they are is in the eye, but zero percent important is simply false.

The last two I don't really get worked up about. I kind of just threw them in there to give some more options.

[AstrosFan]

You know, that first sentence from the previous post makes a rather broad assumption. So just assume it says, "Your response gives the implication that you are unfamiliar with the context those phrases are typically used."

[four tool]

You clearly have never seen the context in which those phrases are typically used. Aside from the nicknames:

"Confusing ..."

This is used in the context of perpetuating the idea that the first thing a person should look for in a statistic is its simplicity, not its accuracy in predicting or modeling run scoring. To a sabermetrician, that speaks volumes about a person's attitude.

"... on the field ..."

Technically, it is not a false statement. But the statement is not made with the intent of being a technically true statement. It is made with the intent of arguing that advanced statistical analysis cannot help the game, because formulas don't win games, players do. Yes, players win games. But sabermetrics can provide insight as to what strategies to use, how to optimize a batting order, how to best use the relief corps, etc. When that statement is made in its usual context, it is advancing a falsehood, that sabermetric analysis does nothing to help teams win games.

"... real baseball."

They have everything to do with real baseball, because they are the result of studying countless games and measuring the best ways to predict player performance or play percentage baseball. To say that sabermetrics having nothing to do with real baseball is in the eye of the beholder is an incorrect statement. How important they are is in the eye, but zero percent important is simply false.

The last two I don't really get worked up about. I kind of just threw them in there to give some more options.

And for evidence to support saberemetrics, how many world series have the Red Sox won since they hired Bill James?

[digglahhh]

And for evidence to support saberemetrics, how many world series have the Red Sox won since they hired Bill James?

I support sabermetrics and I support James, but that is not "evidence."

It's an anecdotal, rhetorical quip based upon a unquantifiable kernel of truth.

Correlation vs causality.

[four tool]

They have won 2 world series since they hired him, they hadn't won any without without James for decades despite many close calls--look up the meaning of evidence and tell me how it isn't evidence. There is a difference between evidence and proof, as any reader of mysteries knows, and I did not say proof.

[brett]

They have won 2 world series since they hired him, they hadn't won any without without James for decades despite many close calls--look up the meaning of evidence and tell me how it isn't evidence. There is a difference between evidence and proof, as any reader of mysteries knows, and I did not say proof.

but I'd like to know specifically what suggestions he has made that have lead to winning. I heard he recommended not re-signing Pedro, and possibly Damon. Boston does not actually use their pitchers the way the he suggests.

The one real area where he can be valuable to a team is in his age analysis. If he tells you that a 31 year old coming off a career year is unlikely to have 3 more great years then that is worth it.

He picked David Wright to be the top player over the next 5 years by the way. Possible, but I think that someone would want to physically examine Wright's talents before giving him the ultimate contract.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

They have won 2 world series since they hired him, they hadn't won any without without James for decades despite many close calls--look up the meaning of evidence and tell me how it isn't evidence. There is a difference between evidence and proof, as any reader of mysteries knows, and I did not say proof.

What evidence do you have besides what you believe happened. You think thats the reason so it has to be accepted as evidence by others. We're playing word games again, splitting hairs. Look in any dictionary at proof and evidence they are first cousins.
But instead of wasting time with the word games how can you convince anyone...is that better, that The Bosox did it because of Bill James.

It could be, it could be part of it, we don't know.

[four tool]

What evidence do you have besides what you believe happened. You think thats the reason so it has to be accepted as evidence by others. We're playing word games again, splitting hairs. Look in any dictionary at proof and evidence they are first cousins.
But instead of wasting time with the word games how can you convince anyone...is that better, that The Bosox did it because of Bill James.

It could be, it could be part of it, we don't know.

Could be is a little different than not evidence, and you obviously didn't look evidence up: "data presented to a court or jury to support claims." is a direct quote from Random House Webster's If you can prove they would have won without James, then it isn't evidence--otherwise it is according to the dictionary. Personally I'll take the dictionary definition over your speculation.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Could be is a little different than not evidence, and you obviously didn't look evidence up: "data presented to a court or jury to support claims." is a direct quote from Random House Webster's If you can prove they would have won without James, then it isn't evidence--otherwise it is according to the dictionary. Personally I'll take the dictionary definition over your speculation.

Instead of playing the word game can we get to the point, what did you try to say in your original post. Do we have to read between the lines. In another post you point out they won two World Series since they hired Bill James and hadn't won any for decades. It certainly sounds like your saying that James was the reason they won those two. I'm saying that hiring James might not be the reason.

[four tool]

Instead of playing the word game can we get to the point, what did you try to say in your original post. Do we have to read between the lines. In another post you point out they won two World Series since they hired Bill James and hadn't won any for decades. It certainly sounds like your saying that James was the reason they won those two. I'm saying that hiring James might not be the reason.

Why do you think it's a word game? I was originally pointing out the value of sabermetrics and I was specific when I said evidence--I never said proof or the only reason--you apparently inferred something that wasn't said or implied. I don't know why you tried to read between the lines, I used a specific word to convey meaning and used it in a valid sense according to the dictionary, and somehow you jumped to conclusions.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Why do you think it's a word game? I was originally pointing out the value of sabermetrics and I was specific when I said evidence--I never said proof or the only reason--you apparently inferred something that wasn't said or implied. I don't know why you tried to read between the lines, I used a specific word to convey meaning and used it in a valid sense according to the dictionary, and somehow you jumped to conclusions.

I can buy that, your saying it wasn't the only reason.

[four tool]

I can buy that, your saying it wasn't the only reason.

Thank you, for the difference between evidence and proof, watch any old Perry Mason or read an Agatha Christie, etc. etc.

[abolishthedh]

They have won 2 world series since they hired him, they hadn't won any without without James for decades despite many close calls--look up the meaning of evidence and tell me how it isn't evidence. There is a difference between evidence and proof, as any reader of mysteries knows, and I did not say proof.

There is a major element missing in your assumption, though, fourtool. Remember that the Red Sox are a high quality organization and that they had been for some time prior to their recent success. I happen to know that Bill James' hometown is Lawrence, Kansas, and that his first love among all teams has been the KC Royals since their inclusion into the league.

If, on the other hand, the Royals had hired him for what he knows, we all know how it would have worked out.

For sabermetrics to have the impact that James has shown, there must be a high quality organization for the proper scouting. I teach high school math, and have done so for several years. I love math and high level analyses, but there may be something to the old-fashioned 'hunch' that scouts bring to the game. Raw numbers, whether calculated through sabermetrics or not, cannot bring to life the reason Blake DeWitt has surprised some people this season. It probably has something to do with something that a scout noticed in how DeWitt prepares, his attitude on and off the field toward his teammates and coaches, and maybe even his tendency to take care of his health everyday (as opposed to most very young players). These observations will never show up in OPS.