Someone convince me about Sabermetrics

[bukie]

Agreed. SABR statistics aren't intended to replace scouting observations, merely to supplement them with an objective analysis.

 

I wish there were more splits and statistics available pertaining to specific pitch types, and how hitters react to them. There is more available on pitch location, but a high and inside fastball is completely different than a hanging curveball on the inner half.

[chuckywang]

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

 

There are team based stats as well, such as Pythogorean W-L.

[chuckywang]

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

 

Tampa Bay had a lower OPS+ than Anaheim.

[CubinNY]

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

It's almost like proclaiming there is a lot more to winning the lottery than luck.

 

In the modern era only one other team who have scored less runs then they've given up has won a series in the post season.

 

Miracles happen, just not very often.

 

Eric Byrnes is a flipping Moron.

Edited October 9, 2007 by CubinNY

[UK1679666180]

Agreed. SABR statistics aren't intended to replace scouting observations, merely to supplement them with an objective analysis.

 

I wish there were more splits and statistics available pertaining to specific pitch types, and how hitters react to them. There is more available on pitch location, but a high and inside fastball is completely different than a hanging curveball on the inner half.

 

The future of stats is in play by data, that would answer what you're looking for.

[SouthSideRyan]

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

 

Eric Byrnes is an idiot. Even without looking at the quote he is. I have little worry about what a pro athlete says about the reason for their success. Many idiot players go on to be idiot managers that don't know what the hell they're doing. Others go on to be idiot commentators that don't know what the hell they're talking about. The fact that they "played the game" means nothing.

[seanimal]

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

 

Eric Byrnes is an idiot. Even without looking at the quote he is. I have little worry about what a pro athlete says about the reason for their success. Many idiot players go on to be idiot managers that don't know what the hell they're doing. Others go on to be idiot commentators that don't know what the hell they're talking about. The fact that they "played the game" means nothing.

 

More to the point, anybody who uses the term 'computer geeks' in the year 2007 is a complete moron. It might have been applicable say, ten years ago, but when used now, is just evidence that one is completely out of touch with the incredible ways in which we are able to process information.

 

The funniest thing is, we KNOW why the Diamondbacks have the record they do despite the RS/RA metric, and we figured it out by using our computers.

[bhogg]

use sabrmetrics until you get confused. at that point, just go with your gut :)

[nilodnayr]

Agreed. SABR statistics aren't intended to replace scouting observations, merely to supplement them with an objective analysis.

 

I wish there were more splits and statistics available pertaining to specific pitch types, and how hitters react to them. There is more available on pitch location, but a high and inside fastball is completely different than a hanging curveball on the inner half.

 

There is a lot of that now being tracked. THT has been recently writing an article every few days including pitch break/speed charts that allows differentiation between those pitches. As UK said, its the way analysis is going.

[nilodnayr]

Agreed. SABR statistics aren't intended to replace scouting observations, merely to supplement them with an objective analysis.

 

I wish there were more splits and statistics available pertaining to specific pitch types, and how hitters react to them. There is more available on pitch location, but a high and inside fastball is completely different than a hanging curveball on the inner half.

 

There is a lot of that now being tracked. THT has been recently writing an article every few days including pitch break/speed charts that allows differentiation between those pitches. As UK said, its the way analysis is going.

 

To expand, the data mining of this stuff is going to be great. As everyone has observed, pitchers throw in patterns. A pitcher will throw a certain pitch in certain counts, or rely on a his curve, when he can't get hsi fastball over the plate. Everyone inherently "knows" these things, but with the availabilty of the data teams can better prepare their hitters to have a gameplan against a pitcher. In essence, good data mining should result in the same outcome as when a pitcher is tipping his pitches. Conversely, hitters will be able to analyze what pitches they hit well, where those pitches are in the strikezone, etc. In essence, this will allow teams to create a Ted Williams chart for each hitter not only on pitch location in the zone but on what type of pitch. Pitchers can use this to their advantage as well.

 

I think the new wave of play by play information will do more to allow players/teams who embrace it to play smarter and better.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

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

 

I agree with that derwood.

 

But that has a huge relevance...It's why having a high OPS makes you a better player...

[Guest]

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

 

Eric Byrnes is an idiot. Even without looking at the quote he is. I have little worry about what a pro athlete says about the reason for their success. Many idiot players go on to be idiot managers that don't know what the hell they're doing. Others go on to be idiot commentators that don't know what the hell they're talking about. The fact that they "played the game" means nothing.

 

More to the point, anybody who uses the term 'computer geeks' in the year 2007 is a complete moron. It might have been applicable say, ten years ago, but when used now, is just evidence that one is completely out of touch with the incredible ways in which we are able to process information.

 

The funniest thing is, we KNOW why the Diamondbacks have the record they do despite the RS/RA metric, and we figured it out by using our computers.

 

So if it's cool for Eric Byrnes to call statheads "computer geeks", it should be cool for everyone to call him a dumb jock. I mean, all athletes are dumb, right? Sounds fair to me.

[seanimal]

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

 

Eric Byrnes is an idiot. Even without looking at the quote he is. I have little worry about what a pro athlete says about the reason for their success. Many idiot players go on to be idiot managers that don't know what the hell they're doing. Others go on to be idiot commentators that don't know what the hell they're talking about. The fact that they "played the game" means nothing.

 

More to the point, anybody who uses the term 'computer geeks' in the year 2007 is a complete moron. It might have been applicable say, ten years ago, but when used now, is just evidence that one is completely out of touch with the incredible ways in which we are able to process information.

 

The funniest thing is, we KNOW why the Diamondbacks have the record they do despite the RS/RA metric, and we figured it out by using our computers.

 

So if it's cool for Eric Byrnes to call statheads "computer geeks", it should be cool for everyone to call him a dumb jock. I mean, all athletes are dumb, right? Sounds fair to me.

 

I wasn't accusing him of being a moron because he plays baseball, I was accusing him of being a moron because he is a moron, or more accurately, ignorant.

[mhuber92211]

and the idiots will rule the world and us smart people will be posting about them on message boards.

[jjgman21]

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.

 

I've always agreed with the point that obp is undervalued in OPS, but you putting it into these terms really raises a doubt in my mind about that 1.6-1.8 multiplier.

 

plugging those numbers into a real world situation, Mark Grace's obp in 1998 was just as important as Sammy Sosa's slugging when it came to the Cubs scoring runs? no way.

 

or how about this. Eckstein's obp in 2005 was .363. multiply that by 1.6, you get .581. Pujols slugging in 2005 was .609. so Pujols slugging was only slightly more valuable than Eckstein's ability to get on base?

 

this just isn't passing the smell test.

[jjgman21]

Agreed. SABR statistics aren't intended to replace scouting observations, merely to supplement them with an objective analysis.

 

I wish there were more splits and statistics available pertaining to specific pitch types, and how hitters react to them. There is more available on pitch location, but a high and inside fastball is completely different than a hanging curveball on the inner half.

 

There is a lot of that now being tracked. THT has been recently writing an article every few days including pitch break/speed charts that allows differentiation between those pitches. As UK said, its the way analysis is going.

 

To expand, the data mining of this stuff is going to be great. As everyone has observed, pitchers throw in patterns. A pitcher will throw a certain pitch in certain counts, or rely on a his curve, when he can't get hsi fastball over the plate. Everyone inherently "knows" these things, but with the availabilty of the data teams can better prepare their hitters to have a gameplan against a pitcher. In essence, good data mining should result in the same outcome as when a pitcher is tipping his pitches. Conversely, hitters will be able to analyze what pitches they hit well, where those pitches are in the strikezone, etc. In essence, this will allow teams to create a Ted Williams chart for each hitter not only on pitch location in the zone but on what type of pitch. Pitchers can use this to their advantage as well.

 

I think the new wave of play by play information will do more to allow players/teams who embrace it to play smarter and better.

 

I would like to see more emphasis on measuring the speed and trajectory of the ball off the bat.

[haltz]

or how about this. Eckstein's obp in 2005 was .363. multiply that by 1.6, you get .581. Pujols slugging in 2005 was .609. so Pujols slugging was only slightly more valuable than Eckstein's ability to get on base?

That's not the point. It's just weighting it properly for the individual to make it correlate better to run scoring. You are essentially comparing BA+IsoD to BA+IsoP I guess, and we could be more precise with LWTS or whatever to tell us what that comparison is. Though I'm not sure what it'd be telling us.

 

OBP and SLG even have different denominators, it's an apples to oranges comparison. The reason that GPA (1.7*OBP+SLG/4) is useful is that it scales well to BA and EqA. However it's not adjusted, and the gains from OPS are marginal. It's just a little easier and more accurate back of the envelope calculation that people are familiar with (the OPS part, at this point anyway) the components.

 

If I wanted to be precise I'd use EqA or something similarly complex. OPS is just fine as a quick and dirty stat for most purposes.

 

I would like to see more emphasis on measuring the speed and trajectory of the ball off the bat.

If spotters for PBP data had a stopwatch, fielding metrics would be a lot better. I forget who said it first, but that's all you would really need with where the ball was caught. Hangtime has to be a lot more accurate than "fliner."

 

Anyway, whoever said that stats were too personal and lacked real-world run-scoring or whatever ... there are pretty much stats for everything now as far as production goes. A lot of stats are about removing context because a lot of that is luck and clutch. But there are things like WPA and LWTS by base-out state that give you a pretty good idea with the context in.

 

If you are really, really concerned about context, then look at RBI and Runs Scored. It's a bad way to gauge performance, or make side-by-side comparisons, or make projections, but it's "what happened."

[SouthSideRyan]

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.

 

I've always agreed with the point that obp is undervalued in OPS, but you putting it into these terms really raises a doubt in my mind about that 1.6-1.8 multiplier.

 

plugging those numbers into a real world situation, Mark Grace's obp in 1998 was just as important as Sammy Sosa's slugging when it came to the Cubs scoring runs? no way.

 

or how about this. Eckstein's obp in 2005 was .363. multiply that by 1.6, you get .581. Pujols slugging in 2005 was .609. so Pujols slugging was only slightly more valuable than Eckstein's ability to get on base?

 

this just isn't passing the smell test.

 

Do the reverse, throw in Sosa's adjusted OBP vs. Grace's SLG and Pujols's adjusted OBP vs. Eckstein's "SLG%"

[Rob]

If spotters for PBP data had a stopwatch, fielding metrics would be a lot better. I forget who said it first, but that's all you would really need with where the ball was caught. Hangtime has to be a lot more accurate than "fliner."

 

BIS is actually tracking the speed and vector of each ball in play, along with exactly where the fielder was positioned and all that jazz.

 

If you haven't already, read "The Fielding Bible"

[haltz]

If spotters for PBP data had a stopwatch, fielding metrics would be a lot better. I forget who said it first, but that's all you would really need with where the ball was caught. Hangtime has to be a lot more accurate than "fliner."

 

BIS is actually tracking the speed and vector of each ball in play, along with exactly where the fielder was positioned and all that jazz.

 

If you haven't already, read "The Fielding Bible"

I thought they were still spotting those classifications. Is this something new with the Gameday parks?

 

I can't find my copy of The Fielding Bible for whatever reason. Anyway, apparently there was a presentation on this at SABR 37, so I think we're talking about two different things here.

[UK1679666180]

Agreed. SABR statistics aren't intended to replace scouting observations, merely to supplement them with an objective analysis.

 

http://ussmariner.com/2007/10/09/the-seeds-of-success/

[Guest]

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

 

Eric Byrnes is an idiot. Even without looking at the quote he is. I have little worry about what a pro athlete says about the reason for their success. Many idiot players go on to be idiot managers that don't know what the hell they're doing. Others go on to be idiot commentators that don't know what the hell they're talking about. The fact that they "played the game" means nothing.

 

More to the point, anybody who uses the term 'computer geeks' in the year 2007 is a complete moron. It might have been applicable say, ten years ago, but when used now, is just evidence that one is completely out of touch with the incredible ways in which we are able to process information.

 

The funniest thing is, we KNOW why the Diamondbacks have the record they do despite the RS/RA metric, and we figured it out by using our computers.

 

So if it's cool for Eric Byrnes to call statheads "computer geeks", it should be cool for everyone to call him a dumb jock. I mean, all athletes are dumb, right? Sounds fair to me.

 

I wasn't accusing him of being a moron because he plays baseball, I was accusing him of being a moron because he is a moron, or more accurately, ignorant.

 

I know. I'm just turning the situation around on him.