Sabermetrics: Prepare to be destroyed

[BigSlick]

I DONT NEED NONE OF YOUR WARPS OR BLORPS

 

if your fancy computers cant predict every possible contingency, then its not worth attempting to predict anything at all!

[NewUserName]

All sports change and involve with better understanding, equipment, and players. Though there is a crowd of "right wayers" in all sports, it is baseball that this crowd seems to the largest and loudest.

[Tracer Bullet]

Perhaps reading something with an Slightly open mind might be better than simply making fun of something without even knowing anything about it. Its ridiculous to completely discredit something without even reading it.

 

Pretend this part was written by FJM to Joe Morgan

 

these two words just blew my mind: "an Slightly."

 

why is an being used, and why is Slightly capitalized? possibly the most incredible two words in the history of internet forums.

 

Wow, why even point this out? You are calling out a punctuation error? Seriously? What is wrong with you?

 

For the record, I had a 5 month old baby on my lap while typing and he hit the keyboard and I thought I erased all of the errors he typed. I shall send him to bed without dinner for his egregious error. In the future, I will have you proofread all posts so any punctuation errors no longer offend.

 

you're throwing your child under the bus here?

[Sammy Sofa]

The premise is not indefensible. A book detailing the weaknesses and limitations of sabermetrics is completely defensible.

 

Heck that's a book that a huge number of posters here needs to read.

 

Name a single good sabermetrics book you've read. Point out anyone here who says that sabermetrics are infallible.

 

Any good sabermetric book worth the paper it's printed on points out the limitations and variables of evaluating players; they're not claimed to be perfect predictive systems in the first place, hence why the key goals of this book, as stated by the authors, are so glaringly wrong and misguided. They don't seem to understand either Moneyball or sabermetrics. What in the information released so far has you convinced that they do? Why are so ready to believe that they are going to provide insight into the limitations of sabermetrics (which, again, the good sabermetric books and sites have already done) based on the faulty approach they're taking in the first place?

[fromthestretch]

One more quick example.

 

For years and years, the WARP values baseballprospectus puts out on its PECOTA cards have been the foundation for countless "Player A is better than Player B" type debates.

 

Yet nobody who doesn't actually work for baseballprospectus knows how WARP is actually computed! Nevertheless the supposedly enlightened saber-savvy fans quote these numbers as gospel.

 

That's not thinking critically and taking a full measure of the strengths and limitations of the metrics. In fact by keeping its algorithm for computing WARP secret, BP makes it virtually impossible to do so.

 

There are people on both ends of the spectrum that will latch onto a single statistic and treat it as gospel. That's not unique to those on the sabermetrics side.

 

As has been pointed out a few times in this thread, many people interested in sabermetrics see it as a way to better understand a sport they enjoy. Very few view it as the only way to evaluate players. Most realize the following:

 

1. There is no one statistic that will tell you everything you need to know about a player's performance. However, by looking at some of the more advanced statistics, you can get a pretty good picture.

2. You can't predict everything with statistics.

3. There's still significant value in scouting.

 

The big issue I see is with the anti-sabr crowd's general attitude towards statistical analysis. Bring up sabermetrics, and many of them get ridiculously defensive. Terms like "stat-geek" and "mother's basement" get thrown around. Those who embrace sabermetrics are labeled as people who don't watch the games and only bury themselves in numbers. The fact is, many people interested in advanced statistical analysis like it because it enhances their enjoyment of the game.

 

No one is forcing sabermetrics down the throat of the general population of fans. Hell, it's almost the opposite. Listen to any sports talk show or pay attention to the analysis that's done on any of the MLB Network shows. You get former players, managers, and executives putting too much emphasis on things like batting average and wins. (Next time you watch any of the MLB Network preview shows, take a shot everytime you hear the phrase "plays the game the right way". You'll be dead within 30 minutes.) Obviously, they'd lose a vast majority of their audience if they spent an hour talking about wOBA or EqA. However, there's no reason some of these stats can't be introduced in the proper context. Something like FIP shouldn't be that difficult to explain fairly quickly.

[UMFan83]

These stats haters are jerks. I bet they sent that bird on a collision course with that ball in order to prove a point. I'm sure the Randy Johnson bird as well. PETA should protest this book.

[davearm2]

The premise is not indefensible. A book detailing the weaknesses and limitations of sabermetrics is completely defensible.

 

Heck that's a book that a huge number of posters here needs to read.

 

Name a single good sabermetrics book you've read. Point out anyone here who says that sabermetrics are infallible.

 

Any good sabermetric book worth the paper it's printed on points out the limitations and variables of evaluating players; they're not claimed to be perfect predictive systems in the first place, hence why the key goals of this book, as stated by the authors, are so glaringly wrong and misguided. They don't seem to understand either Moneyball or sabermetrics. What in the information released so far has you convinced that they do? Why are so ready to believe that they are going to provide insight into the limitations of sabermetrics (which, again, the good sabermetric books and sites have already done) based on the faulty approach they're taking in the first place?

People who really know sabermetrics (the ones authoring books on the subject, for example) understand the limitations. That's not the target audience.

 

The target audience is the broad swath of more casual fans that have had some exposure to sabermetrics and think they get it, yet will toss out conclusions such as, "well just look at his BABIP, obviously he was unlucky" and think that's sound reasoning.

[Derwood]

It's better reasoning than "he hit .200 so he SUUUUUUUUUUCKS"

[mookie]

It's better reasoning than "he hit .200 so he SUUUUUUUUUUCKS"

 

Sometimes I think that is quite sound reasoning.

[Guest]

It's probably a moronic book, but I'll never know. No one can aruge with a moron it's self-defeating. It's crazy to think that mathmatical principals aren't real.

 

All that aside, there is some validity/reliabilty problems and overgeneralizations in some of the metrics that make them not all that useful, especially the defensive metrics.

[Guest]

The target audience is the broad swath of more casual fans that have had some exposure to sabermetrics and think they get it, yet will toss out conclusions such as, "well just look at his BABIP, obviously he was unlucky" and think that's sound reasoning.

 

Rather than making broad generalizations against anyone and everyone that latches onto sabermetrics (regardless of the level), why don't you just call out that one person that angers you so?

[Exile on Waveland]

How many times have we read on here that Carlos Pena is bound to rebound, just look at how low his BABIP was last year.

 

The folks spouting this supposed saber-savvy insight are often completely oblivious to the fact that BABIP was actually an effect, not a cause. The cause was that Pena hit fewer line drives, fewer fly balls, and a lot more ground balls. If those trends don't improve, then Pena's BABIP probably won't either, nor will any of the more traditional metrics. But too many folks see that BABIP and think Pena was simply unlucky.

 

That is not an argument against Sabermetrics, it's an argument against an interpretation of sabermetric data. Which you, in fact, used saber-style metrics (e.g., line-drive percentage, flyball/groundball percentage) to debunk this (perhaps? -- I'm not the correct person to determine the qualitative analysis here) flawed, simplistic determination. So, in effect, you are saying you proved saber to be fallible by using saber.

 

I'm not sure, but I think this comprises "meta."

[Exile on Waveland]

The premise is not indefensible. A book detailing the weaknesses and limitations of sabermetrics is completely defensible.

 

Heck that's a book that a huge number of posters here needs to read.

 

Name a single good sabermetrics book you've read. Point out anyone here who says that sabermetrics are infallible.

 

Any good sabermetric book worth the paper it's printed on points out the limitations and variables of evaluating players; they're not claimed to be perfect predictive systems in the first place, hence why the key goals of this book, as stated by the authors, are so glaringly wrong and misguided. They don't seem to understand either Moneyball or sabermetrics. What in the information released so far has you convinced that they do? Why are so ready to believe that they are going to provide insight into the limitations of sabermetrics (which, again, the good sabermetric books and sites have already done) based on the faulty approach they're taking in the first place?

People who really know sabermetrics (the ones authoring books on the subject, for example) understand the limitations. That's not the target audience.

 

The target audience is the broad swath of more casual fans that have had some exposure to sabermetrics and think they get it, yet will toss out conclusions such as, "well just look at his BABIP, obviously he was unlucky" and think that's sound reasoning.

 

I would vehemently disagree with your assumption of who is the target audience. I think it's quite apparent the target audience is meatheads that have never used a computer in their mom's basement because they hate "nerds" and "geeks" with their "numbers."

[Sammy Sofa]

People who really know sabermetrics (the ones authoring books on the subject, for example) understand the limitations. That's not the target audience.

 

The target audience is the broad swath of more casual fans that have had some exposure to sabermetrics and think they get it, yet will toss out conclusions such as, "well just look at his BABIP, obviously he was unlucky" and think that's sound reasoning.

 

Given your repeated complaints about people not knowing what this book is about, I have absolutely no clue how you're coming to this conclusion.

 

The info we have so far has made it very clear that the authors' intentions are to be the "anti-Moneyball." They think the Moneyball approach is a flawed and "doomed" one (and are somehow showing this with the Red Sox, of all teams). If their goal is what you've stated, then they're still writing a stupid book because Moneyball is hardly the source to base such an argument around. Contrary to what certain people think, MB is not some kind of sabermetric bible.

 

In short, there's absolutely no way the book is as measured and sensible as you're stating, that's abundantly clear from the authors' own information. These guys cleary THINK that MB is year one for sabermetrics and are trying to tear it down because of it. If someone doesn't like MB, whatever, but to state that it presents some kind of absolute predictive system is complete garbage and betrays just how little these guys understand what they're trying to counter.

 

And the fans you described are not a "broad swath" of anything. Fans that casually drop something like BABIP are still very much in the minority of baseball fans, and this book is not addressing them. It's trying to take down what the authors see as much bigger and more sacred cows.

[Bote McBoteface]

How many times have we read on here that Carlos Pena is bound to rebound, just look at how low his BABIP was last year.

 

The folks spouting this supposed saber-savvy insight are often completely oblivious to the fact that BABIP was actually an effect, not a cause. The cause was that Pena hit fewer line drives, fewer fly balls, and a lot more ground balls. If those trends don't improve, then Pena's BABIP probably won't either, nor will any of the more traditional metrics. But too many folks see that BABIP and think Pena was simply unlucky.

 

Wasn't he playing with an injured leg that could have caused him to hit a lot more ground balls?

[TruffleShuffle]

i picture davearm sitting there pronouncing babip phonetically, like bah-bip

[Butterscup1679666578]

I just think some of the pro-saber folks in here are coming off like pompous arrogant fools with their reflexive rush to judgement.

 

excuse me but i prefer sabre

 

Moneyball is okay, but I like it a lot better on vinyl.

[Butterscup1679666578]

Perhaps reading something with an Slightly open mind might be better than simply making fun of something without even knowing anything about it. Its ridiculous to completely discredit something without even reading it.

 

Pretend this part was written by FJM to Joe Morgan

 

these two words just blew my mind: "an Slightly."

 

why is an being used, and why is Slightly capitalized? possibly the most incredible two words in the history of internet forums.

 

Wow, why even point this out? You are calling out a punctuation error? Seriously? What is wrong with you?

 

For the record, I had a 5 month old baby on my lap while typing and he hit the keyboard and I thought I erased all of the errors he typed. I shall send him to bed without dinner for his egregious error. In the future, I will have you proofread all posts so any punctuation errors no longer offend.

 

I was watching football okay?!

[Four and Twenty]

silly of me to think that a national author knows more about this then a bunch of internet message board know it alls.

One would hope you wield a position of skepticism when considering the writing of any author, national or otherwise. Furthermore, assuming the authors present a more intelligent argument than that of our very own NSBB residents simply on the basis that they have published a book is, yes, unequivocally silly.

 

Also, if you are going to decry name calling I suggest you refrain from doing so yourself.

 

The reaction here is ridiculous.

People joking off the cuff about a synopsis to a book on a private message board is not ridiculous. Taking their jokes and comments too seriously is ridiculous.

 

I suspect the "NSBB debunking of all things" book to be released with great fanfare later this summer.

Again, if you are going to decry bullying, I suggest you refrain from belittling others.

 

Perhaps reading something with an Slightly open mind might be better than simply making fun of something without even knowing anything about it.

Yes, perhaps. However, most around here already understand that statistics aren't the end all be all of the sport. We grew up loving the sport because of the players, because humans aren't always predictable and are capable of extraordinary efforts. Understanding the statistics and science behind the sport serves to foster a greater appreciation for those 'magical' moments.

 

Its ridiculous to completely discredit something without even reading it.

Jokes are fun. Being too serious is not. Also: internet.

 

Hopefully someone stops feeding you.

You should probably stop doing that yourself, then.

 

I guess I should have expected as such from this board. Someone disagrees, calls you on your stupidity and the name calling ensues. Clearly missing the point as usual but masking it with some supposed "witty" reply that makes no sense.

You realize that you disagreed, repeatedly questioned others' intelligence and called them names, right? Such hypocrisy is the sole reason I bothered to write this reply.

 

Thank you for adding to the examples in this thread of what is wrong with this community of bullies and jerks

Your hypocrisy aside, I find these sort of sentiments increasingly tired. Yes, there are some who could try to be a bit more civil, but this is the internet. Things said here should hold no sway over you. Bullying and insults are only as effective as the victim allows them to be. Either kindly disagree or take their criticism as possible things you could work on. Complaining about "bullies and jerks" only serves to make you appear a victim.

 

I am sure that splicing these quotes together took a fair amount of time. Thank you for pointing out my failings in my frustrated rants. I appreciate your excuses for the lack of civility from other posters here. However, I will disagree with your assertion that what people say here should not have an effect on someone else. Cyber-bullying is a very real and concerning issue that many youths struggle with. Texting has also affected this. No matter if it is typed somewhat anonymously or said in person insults, name calling, criticisms and off color comments are not something that can just be waved away simply because it was done on the internet.

 

What I find out of sorts is that you are singling me out as a problem here because I called out several posters for having bad form. Perhaps a different approach may be more effective but I suggest that instead of taking the time to splice my quotes and complain about them, you should have spliced the multiple people here who acted inappropriate in response. Since you haven't I take this to mean that you are implying that their actions are acceptable and mine are not. If that is the case, we will never see eye to eye. There are some regular posters here who get joy from putting others down. It is clear in this thread and getting joy from hurting others is never something that should be acceptable.

 

You missed the point altogether. Simply put, you are taking the comments on a Chicago Cubs baseball forum far too seriously. Of course cyber-bullying is real, but the occurrences here hardly constitute as such.

 

Never did I mean to imply you were the problem, rather you were letting the problem be a problem. So what if someone here calls you a name or criticizes you? Why allow them to wield such influence over your sensibilities? They only have the power to bully you if you grant them that power, which is especially true over the internet.

 

It comes down to this: There are no such things as insults, just those that feel insulted.

 

I'll ignore the veiled insults this time and grant you reprieve from me 'splicing together' (or in actuality just breaking down) your quotes and detailing how you are doing much of the same antics that you bemoan. And with that I'll drop the subject, though you are welcome to have the last word on it.

[davearm2]

silly of me to think that a national author knows more about this then a bunch of internet message board know it alls.

One would hope you wield a position of skepticism when considering the writing of any author, national or otherwise. Furthermore, assuming the authors present a more intelligent argument than that of our very own NSBB residents simply on the basis that they have published a book is, yes, unequivocally silly.

 

Also, if you are going to decry name calling I suggest you refrain from doing so yourself.

 

The reaction here is ridiculous.

People joking off the cuff about a synopsis to a book on a private message board is not ridiculous. Taking their jokes and comments too seriously is ridiculous.

 

I suspect the "NSBB debunking of all things" book to be released with great fanfare later this summer.

Again, if you are going to decry bullying, I suggest you refrain from belittling others.

 

Perhaps reading something with an Slightly open mind might be better than simply making fun of something without even knowing anything about it.

Yes, perhaps. However, most around here already understand that statistics aren't the end all be all of the sport. We grew up loving the sport because of the players, because humans aren't always predictable and are capable of extraordinary efforts. Understanding the statistics and science behind the sport serves to foster a greater appreciation for those 'magical' moments.

 

Its ridiculous to completely discredit something without even reading it.

Jokes are fun. Being too serious is not. Also: internet.

 

Hopefully someone stops feeding you.

You should probably stop doing that yourself, then.

 

I guess I should have expected as such from this board. Someone disagrees, calls you on your stupidity and the name calling ensues. Clearly missing the point as usual but masking it with some supposed "witty" reply that makes no sense.

You realize that you disagreed, repeatedly questioned others' intelligence and called them names, right? Such hypocrisy is the sole reason I bothered to write this reply.

 

Thank you for adding to the examples in this thread of what is wrong with this community of bullies and jerks

Your hypocrisy aside, I find these sort of sentiments increasingly tired. Yes, there are some who could try to be a bit more civil, but this is the internet. Things said here should hold no sway over you. Bullying and insults are only as effective as the victim allows them to be. Either kindly disagree or take their criticism as possible things you could work on. Complaining about "bullies and jerks" only serves to make you appear a victim.

 

I am sure that splicing these quotes together took a fair amount of time. Thank you for pointing out my failings in my frustrated rants. I appreciate your excuses for the lack of civility from other posters here. However, I will disagree with your assertion that what people say here should not have an effect on someone else. Cyber-bullying is a very real and concerning issue that many youths struggle with. Texting has also affected this. No matter if it is typed somewhat anonymously or said in person insults, name calling, criticisms and off color comments are not something that can just be waved away simply because it was done on the internet.

 

What I find out of sorts is that you are singling me out as a problem here because I called out several posters for having bad form. Perhaps a different approach may be more effective but I suggest that instead of taking the time to splice my quotes and complain about them, you should have spliced the multiple people here who acted inappropriate in response. Since you haven't I take this to mean that you are implying that their actions are acceptable and mine are not. If that is the case, we will never see eye to eye. There are some regular posters here who get joy from putting others down. It is clear in this thread and getting joy from hurting others is never something that should be acceptable.

 

You missed the point altogether. Simply put, you are taking the comments on a Chicago Cubs baseball forum far too seriously. Of course cyber-bullying is real, but the occurrences here hardly constitute as such.

 

Never did I mean to imply you were the problem, rather you were letting the problem be a problem. So what if someone here calls you a name or criticizes you? Why allow them to wield such influence over your sensibilities? They only have the power to bully you if you grant them that power, which is especially true over the internet.

 

It comes down to this: There are no such things as insults, just those that feel insulted.

 

I'll ignore the veiled insults this time and grant you reprieve from me 'splicing together' (or in actuality just breaking down) your quotes and detailing how you are doing much of the same antics that you bemoan. And with that I'll drop the subject, though you are welcome to have the last word on it.

This is wrong on so many levels, although frankly "there are no such things as insults, just those that feel insulted" was really quite an impressive bit of illogic.

 

What you fail to realize is that the namecalling and bullying and toughguy schtick that runs so rampant around here makes the board worse for everyone. It's not just the guy getting called a name that's impacted. It's everyone who's here hoping and trying to have a civilized discussion.

 

I'll venture to guess that most here would rather be talking baseball than comparing [expletive] sizes. Yet that's what so many threads devolve into.

[Sammy Sofa]

Stop pretending like everyone else is the problem when you're the one almost always talking up terrible, terrible baseball analysis.

[Sammy Sofa]

Let's put it another way:

 

Why do you think you get so many negative responses when you start breaking down the game?

[Tryptamine]

When it ends up being you against the entire board time and time again there is a real good chance that a) you are wrong or b) you are arguing for the sake of arguing. My guess is it's a little bit of both.

[davearm2]

When it ends up being you against the entire board time and time again there is a real good chance that a) you are wrong or b) you are arguing for the sake of arguing. My guess is it's a little bit of both.

Even if you are right (and of course I disagree), that still doesn't justify the sort of nasty insulting responses and personal attacks being described.

 

If some folks were half as bright as they think they are, then they wouldn't have to rely on this gradeschool garbage to get a convincing point across.

 

Disagree with me and my points all day long, but have the maturity to do it with civility.

[mhuber92211]

The bottom line...

 

 

Why not be nice?