"Numbers crazy?" challenge

[Honus Wagner Rules]

True enough, except that the batting average didn't *prove* he is a great hitter. Our observation did.

So Pujols's greatness is based on one's observation? What if two people disagree on the observation of a season's worth of Pujols ABs? What then? If Pujols hits .400 for a season and a person doesn't believe he was great for whatever reason does that mean Pujols was not great?

Stats are a great tool, but not everything can be measured. [n]Some things must be observed.

Most everyone agrees with this. No one claims the opposite, not even the saber folks.

Terry Bradshaw wasn't as good a QB as one would think for the Steelers to have been so successful. Sure, he had plenty of talent around him, but Bradhaw was just a winner on the field. He did things as a player that stats could never measure...

You mean like throw touchdowns? When Bradshaw entered the NFL many thought he was "dumb". There was a famous saying that Bradshaw couldn't speel the word "CAT" if you spotted him the 'C' and the 'A'. That's a pretty much assessment I would think. Football is very different than baseball in the sense that a player's preceived value is tied to to his team's success. In baseball, players on last place teams have won MVP award As far as I know that has never happened in the NFL. Bradshaw did have strong leadership skils that was a large part of his success.

[yankillaz]

I do not consider myself an anti-stat person, but since i've openly declared on which side of the argument i am, i'll take this one for me. How can i tell that Pujols is a great player? One moment in his career defined it:

October 17, 2005.

Top of the ninth inning, in the fifth game of the NLCS. Facing sudden elimination. With two players on base, and two outs. Against the most dominant closer, this side of Mo Rivera, and more overpowering.

It doesn't takes a stat-freak to know that hitting a home run on a slider (very difficult pitch to hit) is reserved for exceptional players. To posses the hability to predict a pitch (like Pujols did), from the most feared pitcher of the opposite team, and having gone 0 for 4 prior to that; having iron-like genitals to do that...that takes a fantastic player.

Ohh, sorry, i didn't mention that he has 19 hrs this year, but guess what...i didn't need it.

P.S. Stats just validate the fact that he is a great player. One can see that just from watching him play.

[WrightWing]

What is it that you "see" Pujols do that makes him a great player. How do the scores of other who say great things come about thier conclusion? I'm sure the others might say Pujols is great because he hits .330 and hits 40+ HRs every year. Hmmm...

I believe I answered that in post # 10. I can tell the instant one of my pitchers releases the ball whether it will be a strike or a ball because of their body position. I don't need the umpire to tell me, I already know. I can likewise sit in the first-base dugout and tell from the swing whether or not my hitter has hit it square or not. I don't need to see where the ball goes to know that it was hit well.

My point is that one doesn't need stats to let one know if someone is a great, good, average or poor player. That becomes pretty clear by watching them play.

My point is how does one do this without keeping stats? Your argument is self-refuting since you mention .300 BA and 40+ HRs. Aren't those stats?

You are correct. My error. I should have wrote "one of the best average and power hitters the game has ever seen at this point in his career" rather than reference the stats. I was honestly doing it to be brief, but I will concede the point...

[Brian McKenna]

I believe I answered that in post # 10. I can tell the instant one of my pitchers releases the ball whether it will be a strike or a ball because of their body position. I don't need the umpire to tell me, I already know. I can likewise sit in the first-base dugout and tell from the swing whether or not my hitter has hit it square or not. I don't need to see where the ball goes to know that it was hit well.

My point is that one doesn't need stats to let one know if someone is a great, good, average or poor player. That becomes pretty clear by watching them play.
..

this goes to the heart of the moneyball, computer analyst debate - some argue precisely that the managers are uninformed and that scouts, coaches and fellow ballplayers are as well - they argue that the men who run the game on the field are in the worst position to actually do so - that baseball knowledge amassed from years of experience is somehow trumped by a clever algorithm

[west coast orange and black]

maybe it simply comes down to this, wags:

scouts make decisions on youngsters year in and year out based on many intangibles. after a while, those players with those intangibles become separated from those who do not have *it*.

now, the scouts certainly look at numbers, tons of 'em. but after a while, to the naked eye, things emerge that help one decide on which side of the column the player'll be placed.

[SABR Matt]

It can certainly be done, but unfortunately for Albert there is no Grantland Rice or Runyan reeling off paragraph after paragraph of poetry about him. It is definitely harder to make someone great nowadays as opposed to yesteryear. We are too visual now, rely too much on what we see. While in the old days we didn't have enough visual images to make a whole picture so we relied more on the written word to fill in those blanks.

Heving said that even if one does not use stats to define greatness one is still using stats to do it. A player is great because he is better then the next guy in that aspect that we consider to be important. Pujols is great because many consider him a complete hitter. How do we know he is a complete hitter? Because his stats confirm this to be true. Patient, doesn't strike out a ton, hits with power, and puts the ball in play. Now I could leave out all the stats and say this but the reason I am saying this is because I know his stats.

Nail, head. Well said Ubi.

[Yankwood]

But why is it so important for some people to rank? Or to always make it the main focus. And in such a dry way. (for some)

[redbuck]

But why is it so important for some people to rank? Or to always make it the main focus. And in such a dry way. (for some)

I don't know if rank is what I'm addressing here, but the reason we compare players to other players is so we know that a player like Pujols is great.

The numbers .335, 45, 150 or whatever don't mean much as just numbers. But when you say that the average is .270, 18, 60, then you realize that .335, 45 annd 150 mean something.

It's the same concept as seeing the guy. Just seeing Pujols, not knowing anything else about baseball, you couldn't say if he's tall for a baseball player, whether he is fast for a baseball player or whether he is swinging the right end of the bat. But by comparison you can tell that.

I've changed from one who gives strict decimal ratings to someone who prefers ranges. Now whether Pujols has some z-score of 2.12 while some other guy is 2.10 doesn't prove to me Pujols is better. But knowing that Pujuls has a z-score over 2 tells me that he's a great player in whatever we're measuring. It tells me that he's better than someone with a z-score between -.5 and 0.25.

[Yankwood]

And you honestly can't tell if he's good otherwise?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

maybe it simply comes down to this, wags:

scouts make decisions on youngsters year in and year out based on many intangibles. after a while, those players with those intangibles become separated from those who do not have *it*.

now, the scouts certainly look at numbers, tons of 'em. but after a while, to the naked eye, things emerge that help one decide on which side of the column the player'll be placed.

west coast!!!! what's up with the Dodger avatar!!!!

[Honus Wagner Rules]

maybe it simply comes down to this, wags:

scouts make decisions on youngsters year in and year out based on many intangibles. after a while, those players with those intangibles become separated from those who do not have *it*.

now, the scouts certainly look at numbers, tons of 'em. but after a while, to the naked eye, things emerge that help one decide on which side of the column the player'll be placed.

The problem is that baseball has an institutionalized group-think mentality. Have you read an scouting reports lately? They say things like "a prospect has good face" and stuff like that.

[redbuck]

And you honestly can't tell if he's good otherwise?

If you have absolutely nothing to compare him to, you can't tell anything.

For example, here's a stat I've created called MRN (meaningless random number). Pujols has a 26.7.

Is that good or bad?

If I tell you that Babe Ruth had a 16.5, you might assume from that statement that Pujols is pretty good if the stat is positive.

But ignoring that last sentence, if I tell you that Pedro Feliz has a 32.3 and the stat is measured so that more is better, you'd think Pujols isn't so good.

Without comparision, 26.7 means nothing.

[jalbright]

Anybody who never uses any stats is a complete idiot if they're trying to deal with the history of the game. However, someone who refuses to use anything but objective stats that never even consider things like MVP, HOF, and all-star results is similarly an idiot.

I think what a lot of the so-called "anti-stats" folks are reacting to is 1) the idiots who think the stats tell us everything, 2) the fact the stathead approach contradicts a lot of the things we were taught about baseball when we were first learning about the game, and 3) the perception that reducing everything to a very few numbers takes the "poetry" out of the game. The second point is the only one I have no apology for--why should we reject knowledge simply because it flies in the face of old "truths" which are demonstrably false? The first is unquestionably a problem, but all I can say there is not all idiots are statheads, and nowhere near all statheads are idiots. I can't be responsible for everyone who decides to play with baseball's numbers, nor do I think I nor even SABR as a group needs to be, though we should responsibly point out flawed analyses.

The "poetry" issue is the hardest. Another poster in this thread has talked about knowing from a pitcher's body position and release point whether a pitch is a strike or not. Few people watch the game that way, but some people (especially coaches) must do so. That doesn't mean coaches don't appreciate the game, they just do so in a different way. I think most statheads do enjoy the game, just in a different manner than those who like to think of the game more in artistic terms. Neither camp is right or wrong, at least not in general terms (there may be specific issues where one or the other approach is inappropriate)--but it seems that at least some in each camp want to insist that the other camp watch the game their way because the other camp's approach is somehow illegitimate. Those folks should be roundly ignored, because everyone enjoys the game in their own way, and should be allowed to do so. TV and radio may have to try to accomodate everyone to some degree, but their job is to reach a mass market, so we've just got to learn to live with that fact.

Jim Albright

[iPod]

From watching many baseball games, Pujols clearly stands out.

But maybe he only stands out because we watch him more closely because we know his numbers are good. It's, in my opinion, not really possible to separate one effect from the other. It's an equation with two unknowns, really. A randomized controlled experiment on this subject would be pretty interesting, but I'm not sure how you could perfectly separate the treatment and control groups, and make sure they adhere to the protocol of the experiment.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

But maybe he only stands out because we watch him more closely because we know his numbers are good. It's, in my opinion, not really possible to separate one effect from the other. It's an equation with two unknowns, really. A randomized controlled experiment on this subject would be pretty interesting, but I'm not sure how you could perfectly separate the treatment and control groups, and make sure they adhere to the protocol of the experiment.

Interesting iPod. So you're saying that when the Cards are on, we pay closer attention to Pujols, only because we know what type of stats his skills can produce?

Lets say that we find 10 baseball fans who have been on another planet (literally) for the past 10 years. They're all 50 years old, played baseball growing up, got hurt along the way, and got into coaching. Baseball is their passion. They pay attention to details. They know what it takes to make a great ballplayer.

Let's show them a highlight package of the 20 best hitters in the game (based on stats), except they have no idea who these hitters are, or that they indeed are the best. Every AB of the season from each hitter is shown to all 10 guys. No stats are given. The teams record isn't mentioned. Nothing except AB after AB. Would Albert not stand out even amongst the "top 20?"

[leecemark]

--Randy, would they have been living on the same planet you are ? I'd say if you were showing them video of every AB by Albert Pujols and David Eckstein they could easier tell you which was better without keeping track. If its Pujols and Sheffield or some other great (but not as great as Pujols) hitter it wouldn't be so clear. You mentioned Pujols fluid swing earlier. I can recall lots of guys with beautifull swings who never amounted to anything as hitters - and some guys with ugly ones who hit the snot out of the ball.

[baseballPAP]

1) the idiots who think the stats tell us everything, 2) the fact the stathead approach contradicts a lot of the things we were taught about baseball when we were first learning about the game, and 3) the perception that reducing everything to a very few numbers takes the "poetry" out of the game.

Absolutely dead on Jim.
I had a roommate in college, a bright student. He failed his Biology 101 class, because he was a very religous person, and completely spurned the idea of evolution. He believed that God created all, and even for a grade he needed to stay in school, he would not budge enough to even learn the information. That falls under number 2....because no matter how much evidence he was shown, he refused to believe his way wasn't correct. There is a great quote from one of Bill James' books on almost that very topic.....

"Anyway, the "dispute" isn't a disagreement about the evidence, but a disagreement between people who are looking at the evidence and people who aren't. It's like asking a naturalist why he doesn't do a complete, once-and-for-all study on the evidence of evolution and creationism. The evidence is already conclusive; it's just that there are people who don't intend to accept it unless the hand of God appears in the sky one afternoon and writes "ALL RIGHT! I CONFESS! I DID IT BY EVOLUTION! IT TOOK ME YEARS! I'SE JUST KIDDING ABOUT THE SEVEN DAYS! AND BY THE WAY, MILWAUKEE COUNTY STADIUM IS A PITCHER'S PARK ... BE BACK NEXT MILLENNIUM. LOVE, GOD. P.S. IF YOU DO ANY MORE MOVIES I'D PREFER DEBRA WINGER TO GEORGE BURNS."

[Yankwood]

Absolutely dead on Jim.
I had a roommate in college, a bright student. He failed his Biology 101 class, because he was a very religous person, and completely spurned the idea of evolution. He believed that God created all, and even for a grade he needed to stay in school, he would not budge enough to even learn the information. That falls under number 2....because no matter how much evidence he was shown, he refused to believe his way wasn't correct. There is a great quote from one of Bill James' books on almost that very topic.....

"Anyway, the "dispute" isn't a disagreement about the evidence, but a disagreement between people who are looking at the evidence and people who aren't. It's like asking a naturalist why he doesn't do a complete, once-and-for-all study on the evidence of evolution and creationism. The evidence is already conclusive; it's just that there are people who don't intend to accept it unless the hand of God appears in the sky one afternoon and writes "ALL RIGHT! I CONFESS! I DID IT BY EVOLUTION! IT TOOK ME YEARS! I'SE JUST KIDDING ABOUT THE SEVEN DAYS! AND BY THE WAY, MILWAUKEE COUNTY STADIUM IS A PITCHER'S PARK ... BE BACK NEXT MILLENNIUM. LOVE, GOD. P.S. IF YOU DO ANY MORE MOVIES I'D PREFER DEBRA WINGER TO GEORGE BURNS."

Please don't bring religion in to this. We have enough to discuss right here without death entering into it.

[baseballPAP]

Please don't bring religion in to this. We have enough to discuss right here without death entering into it.

Always a sticky situation.....
Please note that I did not pick a side, nor did I mention politics

[Captain Cold Nose]

Always a sticky situation.....
Please note that I did not pick a side, nor did I mention politics

You did mention Debra Winger.

[WrightWing]

--Randy, would they have been living on the same planet you are ? I'd say if you were showing them video of every AB by Albert Pujols and David Eckstein they could easier tell you which was better without keeping track. If its Pujols and Sheffield or some other great (but not as great as Pujols) hitter it wouldn't be so clear.

It wouldn't be so clear because the difference is relatively small. It is enough for the people in Sultan's example to know that they are both in the very top group of hitters. Rankings mean nothing at this level when one guy may be #1 and the other guy is #4 because you don't get to choose which one you're pitching to.

As either a manager or fan of a given team, or just a baseball fan in general, it doesn't matter whether Pujols is better than Manny when your team is playing the Red Sox. Manny is in the box at that point, not Pujols. And that person knows this: Manny is that rare hitter who can single-handedly dominate the game. Pujols is a marvel, to be sure, but he ain't at the dish.

The point is that while it may be fun to discuss which one is better, it doesn't really play out that way on the field. I think that's where some of us are coming from. Great is great, not #1 or #4 on a list.

You mentioned Pujols fluid swing earlier. I can recall lots of guys with beautifull swings who never amounted to anything as hitters - and some guys with ugly ones who hit the snot out of the ball.

A good fastball swing is not the same thing as a good curveball swing. The differences may be very minor, but they make a huge difference. Bob Hamelin was a Rookie of the Year, but he was pretty much done when teams figured out he couldn't hit a down-and-in breaking ball.

Likewise, bad-ball hitters and/or unorthodox batting stances do not necessarily make for ugly swingers. Vlad Guerrero is obviously a present-day example of a bad-ball hitter and I don't think a coach alive would teach a kid to hold the bat as high and as vertical as Yaz did, but it worked. I wouldn't say that either guy has/had an ugly swing.

I really don't think that there have been many guys at the major league level who have lasted very long with ugly swings. They are too easily exposed by big-league scouts, managers and pitchers...

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Likewise, bad-ball hitters and/or unorthodox batting stances do not necessarily make for ugly swingers. Vlad Guerrero is obviously a present-day example of a bad-ball hitter and I don't think a coach alive would teach a kid to hold the bat as high and as vertical as Yaz did, but it worked. I wouldn't say that either guy has/had an ugly swing.

I really don't think that there have been many guys at the major league level who have lasted very long with ugly swings. They are too easily exposed by big-league scouts, managers and pitchers...

I'm not sure what you mean by "ugly" swing but Jeff Bagwell had one of the ugliest swings ever. He had his feet spread apart and he would step forward on his swing. He would just lift his left leg and plant it in the same spot it was before. It almost hurt just to watch Rod Carew contort himself into his batting stance. And I don't know how Rickey Henderson ever hit out of that exggerated crouch. But their unique batting stances and swings worked for all these great ballplayers.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

You did mention Debra Winger.

Someone mentioned Debra Winger?! Those are fightin' words!

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--Randy, would they have been living on the same planet you are ? I'd say if you were showing them video of every AB by Albert Pujols and David Eckstein they could easier tell you which was better without keeping track. If its Pujols and Sheffield or some other great (but not as great as Pujols) hitter it wouldn't be so clear. You mentioned Pujols fluid swing earlier. I can recall lots of guys with beautifull swings who never amounted to anything as hitters - and some guys with ugly ones who hit the snot out of the ball.

I've actually never typed the word "fluid" once on this thread. And can you name one of my beliefs or opinions that would lead YOU (of all people) to think I'M on "another planet?"

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I'm not sure what you mean by "ugly" swing but Jeff Bagwell had one of the ugliest swings ever. He had his feet spread apart and he would step forward on his swing. He would just lift his left leg and plant it in the same spot it was before.

Bagwell actually has a reverse stride. He starts wide, and his feet end up closer together upon starting his swing. Hopefully little leaguers don't watch.