Are Sabermetrics Going Too Far?

[DoubleX]

The Jose Cruz thread, coupled with some other discussions in recent weeks, are really turning me off to the appeal and value of sabermetrics in analyzing players. I'm sure many will vehemently disagree with me, but I think there is becoming far too much reliance on sabermetrics, and I while I believe certain measures are indeed very helpful (mostly the more simple ones), I think a lot of it is still conjecture (especially the advance statistics) that are born when people try too hard to overly analyze and quantify the game. I'm starting to think that the people who rely too heavily on these stats, particularly the advances one, are missing on out on certain fundamental aspects of the game. It's like they think they can get the whole gist from looking at a composite of box scores and quantifying players that they've never seen play, rathan than actually watching (or even playing) some games. I've said this before, it's like they may listen to Jimi, but they don't hear Jimi.

It's like the spirit of the game is being lost in this pseudo-science.

Anyway, I'm sure people will disagree, and perhaps passionately, but I just had to get this out of me.

[DoubleX]

As a follow-up, I just feel like more and more people believe that baseball can be reduced down to sabermetrics. That little else matters other than what some of these advanced and complicated measures say. That greatness can be captured in these measures. Whereas I believe there is a lot more involved in being a great ballplayer, a lot more than cannot just be reduced to numbers. And it had been this way for well over a century before the rise of sabermetrics.

[Pine Tar]

As a follow-up, I just feel like more and more people believe that baseball can be reduced down to sabermetrics. That little else matters other than what some of these advanced and complicated measures say. That greatness can be captured in these measures. Whereas I believe there is a lot more involved in being a great ballplayer, a lot more than cannot just be reduced to numbers. And it had been this way for well over a century before the rise of sabermetrics.

I totally agree. Statistics certainly have value but they are only part of the picture. I equate a lot of the rise of sabermetrics with the rise in the number of poeple who take introduction to statistcs courses in college. 20 or 30 years ago, not as many people would have taken such a course. Now, many more people are going to college and are taking statistics as a course requirement. Its almost as if they know just enough to be dangerous. I even would put Bill James in this group of people. As I understand it, he was not even educated in statistics or in theories of statistics and yet he has developed his theory of win-shares which a lot of people hold as really the only necessary information needed to judge the worth of baseball players. So much of what makes up sabermetrics are arbitrarily chosen and numbers do lie and mislead.

[DoubleX]

Sorry to keep harping on this (I guess I have a lot to say), but the problem I perceive is that people are relying way too heavily on sabermetrics, in an effort to quantify and objectify the game. However, the game is not meant to be completely objective - it's impossible; there are too many variable for an objective analysis of baseball. Baseball is meant for subjective analysis, and probably a considerable amount of subjective analysis. Sabermetrics are good for support, but they shouldn't be the be all and end all. I'm starting to think that people who rely on sabermetrics for the be all and end all are missing something about the game.

[BoSox Rule]

The hate for sabermetrics on such a great site is ridiculous. Sabermetrics are not measuring anything new. They are using traditional stats and making them into better all-in-one stats. And guess what? The "new" stats have a higher correlation to run scoring, winning, whatever.

[Pine Tar]

The hate for sabermetrics on such a great site is ridiculous. Sabermetrics are not measuring anything new. They are using traditional stats and making them into better all-in-one stats. And guess what? The "new" stats have a higher correlation to run scoring, winning, whatever.

Then why not just look at the number of runs scored and wins? Why go the hard way to arrive at the same place?

[RuthMayBond]

and I while I believe certain measures are indeed very helpful (mostly the more simple ones)

Those are exactly the ones that are NOT helpful (Can you make no distinction between stats from 1894/1930/2001 and 1908/1968?)

<It's like they think they can get the whole gist from looking at a composite of box scores and quantifying players that they've never seen play>

Because
1) eyewitnesses are never prejudiced, and
2) you actually saw Cobb play, right?

[SABR Matt]

Simple...short answer.

Sabermetrics haven't gone nearly far enough.

Far from "coming too far"...the simple statistics that traditionalists see as appealing (while certainly better than BA/HR/RBI) do very little help us understand how runs are actually scored and games are actually won. In fact simple defensive metrics have done more to OBSCURE the truth about the game than to reveal it. It's the advanced metrics that will eventually tell us in more detail what is really happening in the field.

[Brooklyn]

I'm on the side "yes, they are going to far". But a lot of it may be that I haven't spent the time to really look at what goes into these stats. One of my issues is that I suspect that a lot of people that throw around these stats don't know what goes into them either.

I can respect someone who has studied Win Shares and truly believes that the underlying components are the best way to evaluate players. If this person uses them when comparing players, I can respect that. They have done the research and formulated an opinion. But I suspect a lot of people throw terms like Win Shares out there and fight for players based on Win Shares without even knowing what goes into it. That I can't respect - These people are arguing based on someone else's opinion.

Without turning this into the sabermetrics forum, can someone give me a brief (if possible) description of how Win Shares are determined, or how sabermetric stats that you feel are important are developed?

[RuthMayBond]

Without turning this into the sabermetrics forum, can someone give me a brief (if possible) description of how Win Shares are determined, or how sabermetric stats that you feel are important are developed?

My understanding is that they go through each win of a team that the player was on, figure out who had the three best performances in that win, and assign shares to each. I will go on the record as saying I'm not that crazy about Win shares
1) The guy that was 4th best gets nothing
2) The guy who's on a bad team that bats in or scores all his teams runs in a 6-5 loss gets nothing
3) A guy could get a win share in an 14-2 win when his performance really didn't affect the outcome of the game
I suppose it all evens out but if luck was spread evenly Blyleven and maybe RReuschel would be in the Hall, and Hunter/ Pennock/ Bender/ Lemon might not be

[DoubleX]

Those are exactly the ones that are NOT helpful (Can you make no distinction between stats from 1894/1930/2001 and 1908/1968?)

<It's like they think they can get the whole gist from looking at a composite of box scores and quantifying players that they've never seen play>

Because
1) eyewitnesses are never prejudiced, and
2) you actually saw Cobb play, right?

That's not what I meant to be my point. My point was that there is more to the game than just these advanced and complex stats, and I think there are growing number of people relying almost solely on the stats when analyzing players, when baseball is not meant to be completely objective.

[RuthMayBond]

My point was that there is more to the game than just these advanced and complex stats, and I think there are growing number of people relying almost solely on the stats when analyzing players, when baseball is not meant to be completely objective.

I have no problem with that statement :o

[DoubleX]

I have no problem with that statement :o

Thank you. I realize I probably came across poorly in my opening posts. So I should probably clarify. I do think there is value in sabermetrics, especially in comparing players across generations. I'm just getting vibes that more and more people rely almost exclusively on sabermetrics, and I think such an approach is missing some fundamental aspects of the game. The game is meant for subjectivity. Sabermetrics help to limit that somewhat, but it's impossible to eliminate. I feel like in 30 or 40 years, people will be looking at some metrics and start arguing that Bobby Abreu or Garret Anderson or someone like that should be in the Hall (I just picked these players randomly, I have no idea how metrics show them to be), based completely on the stats, when I don't think there would be many people who saw them play or followed the game when they played that would ever consider them a Hall of Famer. We could go back to the Jose Cruz example. Nice player, underrated player, and the metrics show that, but to say the metrics make him a Hall of Famer doesn't seem right. There has to be more than just the stats.

[Captain Cold Nose]

When people start putting the analysis as more important than what is being analyzed, the analysis has lost sight of its purpose. Those who value the analysis more than what is being analyzed are missing the point.

[RuthMayBond]

We could go back to the Jose Cruz example. Nice player, underrated player, and the metrics show that, but to say the metrics make him a Hall of Famer doesn't seem right. There has to be more than just the stats.

There also has to be more than unindexed stats that don't account for home park or an era's level of offense. I don't know that the metrics show that Cruz is a definite HOFer but it seems that his career was better than that of Manush, Hafey, and Cuyler