Someone convince me about Sabermetrics

[OleMissCub]

I'm not so great with numbers, etc, so someone explain in lay terms why Sabermetrics works and why it is the way to go when looking at stats.

[bukie]

They wrote it better than I: Sabermetrics Manifesto

 

To put it simply, sabermetrics is simply an attempt to acquire objective knowledge about baseball through facts, or statistics. It looks at only things that can be completely quantified, and it looks to try to quantify things that can't (the "little things", so to say).

 

Sabermetric stats are an attempt to measure the complete value of an individual. No statistic is perfect, so the best statistics are those that minimize flaws. Most of sabermetrics is focused on hitting, as ERA for pitching is a fairly accurate enough measure of individual ability.

 

Since things like runs, RBI, and wins are largely dependent on others, they are regarded minimally as is, in favor of other statistics. Also, counting stats are problematic because, obviously, the more chances, the higher count (on average).

 

Stuff like Win Shares exist to try to compare players from different eras and doing different things (hitting, pitching, fielding) as accurately as possible.

 

EDIT: I will say, however, that my biggest criticisms of most sabermetrics is that they undervalue the strikeout as an out (basically by passing it off as the exact same as any other type of out for a hitter, but oddly they value it more for pitchers), and how they pass off anything specifically unexplainable as "luck", when it's simply a combination of immeasurable factors.

[NewUserName]

Because I wrote Bill James a letter in the early 80s and he wrote me back

[Derwood]

i actually feel like the biggest flaw of sabermetrics is its insistence to make all evaluations purely on an individual level for what is a team game. players don't hit in a vacuum, there are always team-based circumstances that have an effect, yet sabermetrics tends to invalidate anything that is "team-based".

 

For example, it will insist that a player with an OPS 50 points higher than another player is always better, regardless of whether or not those 50 points actually translated into runs

[jersey cubs fan]

i actually feel like the biggest flaw of sabermetrics is its insistence to make all evaluations purely on an individual level for what is a team game. players don't hit in a vacuum, there are always team-based circumstances that have an effect, yet sabermetrics tends to invalidate anything that is "team-based".

 

For example, it will insist that a player with an OPS 50 points higher than another player is always better, regardless of whether or not those 50 points actually translated into runs

 

That's because those 50 points are always better, regardless of what the other teammates did.

[jersey cubs fan]

EDIT: I will say, however, that my biggest criticisms of most sabermetrics is that they undervalue the strikeout as an out (basically by passing it off as the exact same as any other type of out for a hitter, but oddly they value it more for pitchers), and how they pass off anything specifically unexplainable as "luck", when it's simply a combination of immeasurable factors.

 

There's a good explanation for this.

 

Strikeouts are bad for hitters and good for pitchers. But they are only part of the picture. Many hitters can be productive and still strike out a ton. But it's very hard for pitchers to be any good without striking out anybody.

[Derwood]

i actually feel like the biggest flaw of sabermetrics is its insistence to make all evaluations purely on an individual level for what is a team game. players don't hit in a vacuum, there are always team-based circumstances that have an effect, yet sabermetrics tends to invalidate anything that is "team-based".

 

For example, it will insist that a player with an OPS 50 points higher than another player is always better, regardless of whether or not those 50 points actually translated into runs

 

That's because those 50 points are always better, regardless of what the other teammates did.

 

in a vacuum they are. but the goal of baseball is to score runs, not have the highest OPS

[NewUserName]

i actually feel like the biggest flaw of sabermetrics is its insistence to make all evaluations purely on an individual level for what is a team game. players don't hit in a vacuum, there are always team-based circumstances that have an effect, yet sabermetrics tends to invalidate anything that is "team-based".

 

For example, it will insist that a player with an OPS 50 points higher than another player is always better, regardless of whether or not those 50 points actually translated into runs

 

 

But the fact that runs have been scored would to a large extent have to do with the players that are around you in the order. If a player gets a 1 out double with no one on and is stranded, that is not his fault that no runs are scored. The best chance to score runs is to increase the amount of chances to score runs. So in the case that a players OPS is 50 points higher, he is giving his team more chances to score.

[jersey cubs fan]

i actually feel like the biggest flaw of sabermetrics is its insistence to make all evaluations purely on an individual level for what is a team game. players don't hit in a vacuum, there are always team-based circumstances that have an effect, yet sabermetrics tends to invalidate anything that is "team-based".

 

For example, it will insist that a player with an OPS 50 points higher than another player is always better, regardless of whether or not those 50 points actually translated into runs

 

That's because those 50 points are always better, regardless of what the other teammates did.

 

in a vacuum they are. but the goal of baseball is to score runs, not have the highest OPS

 

And you score more runs by having guys with higher OPS.

[Derwood]

i actually feel like the biggest flaw of sabermetrics is its insistence to make all evaluations purely on an individual level for what is a team game. players don't hit in a vacuum, there are always team-based circumstances that have an effect, yet sabermetrics tends to invalidate anything that is "team-based".

 

For example, it will insist that a player with an OPS 50 points higher than another player is always better, regardless of whether or not those 50 points actually translated into runs

 

 

But the fact that runs have been scored would to a large extent have to do with the players that are around you in the order. If a player gets a 1 out double with no one on and is stranded, that is not his fault that no runs are scored. The best chance to score runs is to increase the amount of chances to score runs. So in the case that a players OPS is 50 points higher, he is giving his team more chances to score.

 

i agree. but the fact of the matter is it's a team game, and you'll always have teammates and the performance of those teammates is always going to have an affect on your stats (even the non-counting stats), so, at times, it's worth not looking at statistics on a purely individual level

[Derwood]

i actually feel like the biggest flaw of sabermetrics is its insistence to make all evaluations purely on an individual level for what is a team game. players don't hit in a vacuum, there are always team-based circumstances that have an effect, yet sabermetrics tends to invalidate anything that is "team-based".

 

For example, it will insist that a player with an OPS 50 points higher than another player is always better, regardless of whether or not those 50 points actually translated into runs

 

That's because those 50 points are always better, regardless of what the other teammates did.

 

in a vacuum they are. but the goal of baseball is to score runs, not have the highest OPS

 

And you score more runs by having guys with higher OPS.

 

roughly speaking, yes. there are plenty of exceptions

[jersey cubs fan]

i agree. but the fact of the matter is it's a team game, and you'll always have teammates and the performance of those teammates is always going to have an affect on your stats (even the non-counting stats), so, at times, it's worth not looking at statistics on a purely individual level

 

Yeah, it's important to have your whole team have good stats, that doesn't chang the fact that it's important to have an individual with good stats.

 

Baseball is a team sport, but it's more a sport of one on one matchups, between pitcher and hitter, with slight variables given to the quality of the defense behind the pitcher. You don't want one hitter with great numbers surrounded by bums. But that's obvious.

[jersey cubs fan]

i actually feel like the biggest flaw of sabermetrics is its insistence to make all evaluations purely on an individual level for what is a team game. players don't hit in a vacuum, there are always team-based circumstances that have an effect, yet sabermetrics tends to invalidate anything that is "team-based".

 

For example, it will insist that a player with an OPS 50 points higher than another player is always better, regardless of whether or not those 50 points actually translated into runs

 

That's because those 50 points are always better, regardless of what the other teammates did.

 

in a vacuum they are. but the goal of baseball is to score runs, not have the highest OPS

 

And you score more runs by having guys with higher OPS.

 

roughly speaking, yes. there are plenty of exceptions

 

No, not really.

[Derwood]

i actually feel like the biggest flaw of sabermetrics is its insistence to make all evaluations purely on an individual level for what is a team game. players don't hit in a vacuum, there are always team-based circumstances that have an effect, yet sabermetrics tends to invalidate anything that is "team-based".

 

For example, it will insist that a player with an OPS 50 points higher than another player is always better, regardless of whether or not those 50 points actually translated into runs

 

That's because those 50 points are always better, regardless of what the other teammates did.

 

in a vacuum they are. but the goal of baseball is to score runs, not have the highest OPS

 

And you score more runs by having guys with higher OPS.

 

roughly speaking, yes. there are plenty of exceptions

 

No, not really.

 

sure there are. Tampa Bay out-slugged an out-OPS'd Anaheim this year but scored 40 fewer runs. I found that in about 10 seconds. I'm sure I could go on and on.

 

as I said, those are the exceptions, but it's not a straight OPS=runs relationship

[NewUserName]

EDIT: I will say, however, that my biggest criticisms of most sabermetrics is that they undervalue the strikeout as an out (basically by passing it off as the exact same as any other type of out for a hitter, but oddly they value it more for pitchers), and how they pass off anything specifically unexplainable as "luck", when it's simply a combination of immeasurable factors.

 

There's a good explanation for this.

 

Strikeouts are bad for hitters and good for pitchers. But they are only part of the picture. Many hitters can be productive and still strike out a ton. But it's very hard for pitchers to be any good without striking out anybody.

 

 

Also to prevent KOs players tend to become hitters that they are not. If Ryan Howard or Adam Dunn were to choke up and shorten their stroke to prevent strikeouts, would they be productive hitters. I would rather they just did their normal swing and drive the ball they way they normally do and have a good chance they get an extra base hit, than shorten there stroke and have pretty much the same chance to get a single.

[Banedon]

i actually feel like the biggest flaw of sabermetrics is its insistence to make all evaluations purely on an individual level for what is a team game. players don't hit in a vacuum, there are always team-based circumstances that have an effect, yet sabermetrics tends to invalidate anything that is "team-based".

 

For example, it will insist that a player with an OPS 50 points higher than another player is always better, regardless of whether or not those 50 points actually translated into runs

 

That's because those 50 points are always better, regardless of what the other teammates did.

 

in a vacuum they are. but the goal of baseball is to score runs, not have the highest OPS

 

Runs are team based. OPS is individual based. If you're trying to determine the best player, use OPS. If you're trying to determine the best team, use runs scored. I don't think that's a terribly controversial statement.

[Derwood]

FWIW, I'm not an opponent of sabermetrics at all. my only beef is the complete individualizatoin of the stats.

 

just wanted to get that out there before i was painted as a pro-grit and hustle idiot

[CubinNY]

i actually feel like the biggest flaw of sabermetrics is its insistence to make all evaluations purely on an individual level for what is a team game. players don't hit in a vacuum, there are always team-based circumstances that have an effect, yet sabermetrics tends to invalidate anything that is "team-based".

 

For example, it will insist that a player with an OPS 50 points higher than another player is always better, regardless of whether or not those 50 points actually translated into runs

 

That's because those 50 points are always better, regardless of what the other teammates did.

 

in a vacuum they are. but the goal of baseball is to score runs, not have the highest OPS

 

And you score more runs by having guys with higher OPS.

 

roughly speaking, yes. there are plenty of exceptions

 

No, not really.

 

sure there are. Tampa Bay out-slugged an out-OPS'd Anaheim this year but scored 40 fewer runs. I found that in about 10 seconds. I'm sure I could go on and on.

 

as I said, those are the exceptions, but it's not a straight OPS=runs relationship

I think you are missing the forest through the trees. No statistic will capture all that is important, but some statistics will capture most of what's important. The point being, that decision making is best done based on objective measures.

[Derwood]

i actually feel like the biggest flaw of sabermetrics is its insistence to make all evaluations purely on an individual level for what is a team game. players don't hit in a vacuum, there are always team-based circumstances that have an effect, yet sabermetrics tends to invalidate anything that is "team-based".

 

For example, it will insist that a player with an OPS 50 points higher than another player is always better, regardless of whether or not those 50 points actually translated into runs

 

That's because those 50 points are always better, regardless of what the other teammates did.

 

in a vacuum they are. but the goal of baseball is to score runs, not have the highest OPS

 

And you score more runs by having guys with higher OPS.

 

roughly speaking, yes. there are plenty of exceptions

 

No, not really.

 

sure there are. Tampa Bay out-slugged an out-OPS'd Anaheim this year but scored 40 fewer runs. I found that in about 10 seconds. I'm sure I could go on and on.

 

as I said, those are the exceptions, but it's not a straight OPS=runs relationship

I think you are missing the forest through the trees. No statistic will capture all that is important, but some statistics will capture most of what's important. The point being, that decision making is best done based on objective measures.

 

which brings us to the part of sabermetrics I like, which is in scouting and objective predictions of future performance. i think they are designed to do this much better than tell the entire story of past performance

[UK1679666180]

Sabermetrics just gives a more detailed and more accurate description of what happened as far as productivity.

 

Hell, if you know how to look at OPS and each component of it (OBP and SLG) and account for park factors, that's more than enough.

 

As far as pitching... WHIP, HR/9, BB, K ratios, IP, and runs allowed are not complicated stats that when combined, give enough non sabr-stats to paint that picture.

 

Of course these stats tell you what has happened and not why it happened, which I'm more concerned with.

[bukie]

I'll try to explain one common sabermetric without using too many acronyms:

 

OPS is a good example of a common SABR statistic ("sabermetrics" actually comes from the Society for American Baseball Research).

 

Its value is that it contains a measurement of reaching base (OBP) and a measurement of hitting for power (SLG), two of the most important aspects of hitting. However, it simply adds them (OPS = OBP + SLG), which means the statistic of OPS considers one point of OBP to be worth the same as one point of SLG.

 

Now wait a moment, some would say, those two statistics aren't equivalent. Consider that a perfect OBP (getting on base every plate appearance) is 1.000, while a perfect SLG (getting a home run on every plate appearance) is 4.000. Of course, that's not so simple as 1 OBP = 4 SLG either, because a good OBP and a good SLG don't ever differ by a factor of 4 (even for Barry Bonds).

 

So, a more accurate representation of can be found by multiplying OBP by 1.6-1.8, depending on the person you talk to, which adds value to the OBP portion to balance out the statistic. So, consider 1.6 as a multiplier for a second. That would equate a .400 OBP to a .640 SLG, which to me sounds about right.

 

That's basically the mindset of the SABR community. Take the stats that exist and make them more accurate for individual representation. Very little of sabermetrics has to do with team-based performance.

[Peoriaman]

I mean, I don't blame the number-crunchers, the computer geeks, for not being able to come up with a formula for how we got here. But there's a lot more that goes into sports than numbers.

--Arizona outfielder Eric Byrnes

[illiniguy]

I mean, I don't blame the number-crunchers, the computer geeks, for not being able to come up with a formula for how we got here. But there's a lot more that goes into sports than numbers.

--Arizona outfielder Eric Byrnes

The rest of the national league sucks?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Find an old copy of The Hidden Game of Baseball and read it. That's what got me to begin thinking along these lines many years ago.

[UK1679666180]

I mean, I don't blame the number-crunchers, the computer geeks, for not being able to come up with a formula for how we got here. But there's a lot more that goes into sports than numbers.

--Arizona outfielder Eric Byrnes

 

Ignoring numbers speaks volumes as well.

 

In context, I'm sure Byrnes was speaking of the post-season prediction from baseball prospectus which had them being swept.

 

I'd like to think I know stats pretty well as well as advanced metric stats, despite the fact I prefer numbers that are calculated via eyesight rather than box scores.

 

Until people get their heads out of their ____ about it being one or the other, they'll never realize they work better together than by themselves.