Furcal or Pierre?

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

I don't think people on this bd should be faulted for wanting to emulate the Sox simply b/c many of us think their methedology was flawed. The Sox accomplished the goal - they won, and they won huge, nearly sweeping through the postseason. Based on stats alone, that never should have happended. Thus, it is fair to say that stats alone "do not a champion-maketh".

 

The reason people want to emulate the Sox is b/c they won. That's not completely misguided, as some of you seem to be alleging.[/b]

 

how does the sox winning by having great pitching fly in the face of stats?

 

btw, stats don't say that a team like the sox won't win the series, just that the odds are against it.

[RynoRules]

I don't think people on this bd should be faulted for wanting to emulate the Sox simply b/c many of us think their methedology was flawed. The Sox accomplished the goal - they won, and they won huge, nearly sweeping through the postseason. Based on stats alone, that never should have happended. Thus, it is fair to say that stats alone "do not a champion-maketh".

 

The reason people want to emulate the Sox is b/c they won. That's not completely misguided, as some of you seem to be alleging.[/b]

 

how does the sox winning by having great pitching fly in the face of stats?

 

btw, stats don't say that a team like the sox won't win the series, just that the odds are against it.

 

I am talking about their batting stats, which were mediocre, at best.

[scs_paradise]

The White Sox had a leadoff hitter in 2004 that go on base at a .366 clip with a .525 ? :shock: I didn't know that. but if that is the case you make a valid point.

 

No need to be snide. They replaced Carlos Lee with Scott Podsenik. That did not in any way, shape, or form, improve their offense. Lineup position is irrelevant. No matter where either one of them hits, if you replace Podsenik with Lee, it's a downgrade on offense.

 

so i guess 60 sb's had little effect on the sox's offense.

 

...just about as much effect as getting caught 23 times.

 

you are right. everyone should have 100 sb's and never get caught. 60 sb's is just pathetic (even though it's probably more than the whole cubs team had last year). i should know better than to argue with such sound reasoning.

 

isn't it true that while stat analysis can indicate trends it does nothing for an indiviual game. so while you can predict that a coin flipped 100 times will come up 50/50 with a standard deviation, it does not indicate what the next flip will be?

 

If so, stats are great for looking at the totals and making it say what you want it to say but it does nothing for that one game where you need Pods to steal second, be bunted over to third and score on a sac fly?

 

there are probabilities for every state in a ballgame.

 

but you can't tell me from stats when those stolen bases were important and when they just thought they could get an extra base can you? so you don't really know what affect Pods speed has on wins and loses, you have numbers that you think say something, but the first thing you learn in statistics is that statistics say whatever you want them to say.

[UBlink]

I don't think people on this bd should be faulted for wanting to emulate the Sox simply b/c many of us think their methedology was flawed. The Sox accomplished the goal - they won, and they won huge, nearly sweeping through the postseason. Based on stats alone, that never should have happended. Thus, it is fair to say that stats alone "do not a champion-maketh".

 

The reason people want to emulate the Sox is b/c they won. That's not completely misguided, as some of you seem to be alleging.[/b]

 

I think most of the critics have taken the next step in emulating the Sox and asked the question, what part of the Sox strategy was responsible for their success? And for many of us, that analysis indicates that their offensive moves were not very successful, and that their success resulted primarily from improvements in pitching and defense. Therefore, it does not make sense to emulate their offensive strategy.

[RynoRules]

I don't think people on this bd should be faulted for wanting to emulate the Sox simply b/c many of us think their methedology was flawed. The Sox accomplished the goal - they won, and they won huge, nearly sweeping through the postseason. Based on stats alone, that never should have happended. Thus, it is fair to say that stats alone "do not a champion-maketh".

 

The reason people want to emulate the Sox is b/c they won. That's not completely misguided, as some of you seem to be alleging.[/b]

 

I think most of the critics have taken the next step in emulating the Sox and asked the question, what part of the Sox strategy was responsible for their success? And for many of us, that analysis indicates that their offensive moves were not very successful, and that their success resulted primarily from improvements in pitching and defense. Therefore, it does not make sense to emulate their offensive strategy.

 

Fair points. Mine only is that is natural to want to "copycat" the team that most recently won it all.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

The White Sox had a leadoff hitter in 2004 that go on base at a .366 clip with a .525 ? :shock: I didn't know that. but if that is the case you make a valid point.

 

No need to be snide. They replaced Carlos Lee with Scott Podsenik. That did not in any way, shape, or form, improve their offense. Lineup position is irrelevant. No matter where either one of them hits, if you replace Podsenik with Lee, it's a downgrade on offense.

 

so i guess 60 sb's had little effect on the sox's offense.

 

...just about as much effect as getting caught 23 times.

 

you are right. everyone should have 100 sb's and never get caught. 60 sb's is just pathetic (even though it's probably more than the whole cubs team had last year). i should know better than to argue with such sound reasoning.

 

isn't it true that while stat analysis can indicate trends it does nothing for an indiviual game. so while you can predict that a coin flipped 100 times will come up 50/50 with a standard deviation, it does not indicate what the next flip will be?

 

If so, stats are great for looking at the totals and making it say what you want it to say but it does nothing for that one game where you need Pods to steal second, be bunted over to third and score on a sac fly?

 

there are probabilities for every state in a ballgame.

 

but you can't tell me from stats when those stolen bases were important and when they just thought they could get an extra base can you? so you don't really know what affect Pods speed has on wins and loses, you have numbers that you think say something, but the first thing you learn in statistics is that statistics say whatever you want them to say.

 

no, stats only say what you want them to say when the people you're talking to are too dumb to understand the nuances (not referring to you). :wink:

 

yes, you can tell how important pods' speed is, b/c his sb changes the state of the game (as does getting caught stealing). speed isn't an intangible, although it is difficult to quantify in some situations. you just need to acquire the right data to overcome that, which has been going on for years now.

[scs_paradise]

Yeah, I guess I'm a dumbass.

 

but I believe there are too many variables in baseball and in life to use statistics the way some of you want to use statistics.

 

some variables in getting caught stealing: pitcher, catcher, count, pitch thrown, batter, condition of the dirt, mental aspects, daily changes in the physical aspects of the stealer, person applying the tag, the throw, the ump, wind.

 

None of these aspects are ever equal.

[NewUserName]

The White Sox also put their players in the proper places in the order. Yeah they may not of had alot of great bats but were smart enought not to have a guy with a 250 obp batting lead-off. Dont you think that if Dusty was managing the White Sox he would have had Uribe batting 2nd and Iguchi batting 6th. Some of the Cubs offensive problems could have been solved by just having a correct batting order thus maximizing the chances they did have.

[scs_paradise]

there are probabilities for every state in a ballgame.

 

yes there are probabilities, but that just tells you what you would expect to happen if that exact scenario happened 100 times, it does not tell you what would happen this time.

 

stat heads would NEVER have brought up Gibson v. Eck in game 1 or Perez to hit a grand slam or Lee to have the year he did or Patterson to have the year he did etc.

 

Stats are a tool but some of you use it like an end all be all, this isn't a computer program, there are too many human variables to use it that way.

[UBlink]

Yeah, I guess I'm a dumbass.

 

but I believe there are too many variables in baseball and in life to use statistics the way some of you want to use statistics.

 

some variables in getting caught stealing: pitcher, catcher, count, pitch thrown, batter, condition of the dirt, mental aspects, daily changes in the physical aspects of the stealer, person applying the tag, the throw, the ump, wind.

 

None of these aspects are ever equal.

 

All of those variables are generally available (directly or historically) to the base runner in deciding whether to risk being thrown out attempting to steal a base. How he uses that information is measured by his success rate.

[scs_paradise]

Yeah, I guess I'm a dumbass.

 

but I believe there are too many variables in baseball and in life to use statistics the way some of you want to use statistics.

 

some variables in getting caught stealing: pitcher, catcher, count, pitch thrown, batter, condition of the dirt, mental aspects, daily changes in the physical aspects of the stealer, person applying the tag, the throw, the ump, wind.

 

None of these aspects are ever equal.

 

All of those variables are generally available (directly or historically) to the base runner in deciding whether to risk being thrown out attempting to steal a base. How he uses that information is measured by his success rate.

 

so now you say his stats are not an indication of his ability to steal but of when to steal?

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

there are probabilities for every state in a ballgame.

 

yes there are probabilities, but that just tells you what you would expect to happen if that exact scenario happened 100 times, it does not tell you what would happen this time.

 

stat heads would NEVER have brought up Gibson v. Eck in game 1 or Perez to hit a grand slam or Lee to have the year he did or Patterson to have the year he did etc.

 

Stats are a tool but some of you use it like an end all be all, this isn't a computer program, there are too many human variables to use it that way.

 

no, it doesn't tell you what will happen "this time." it tells you the likelihood that something will happen. a gut feeling doesn't tell you what will happen either (dusty's style of managing).

 

no method is clairvoyant.

 

no, stat hounds wouldn't have predicted the things you say (the odds were against them, not that they were impossible)...and no one else did either, so your point is...

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Stats are a tool but some of you use it like an end all be all, this isn't a computer program, there are too many human variables to use it that way.

 

Stats aren't perfect, but that doesn't mean they aren't the most accurate way of determining something. If using the most accurate way of determining something makes it the end all be all, then so be it I guess.

[UBlink]

Yeah, I guess I'm a dumbass.

 

but I believe there are too many variables in baseball and in life to use statistics the way some of you want to use statistics.

 

some variables in getting caught stealing: pitcher, catcher, count, pitch thrown, batter, condition of the dirt, mental aspects, daily changes in the physical aspects of the stealer, person applying the tag, the throw, the ump, wind.

 

None of these aspects are ever equal.

 

All of those variables are generally available (directly or historically) to the base runner in deciding whether to risk being thrown out attempting to steal a base. How he uses that information is measured by his success rate.

 

so now you say his stats are not an indication of his ability to steal but of when to steal?

 

The ability to steal includes both the physical attributes of the runner, and the mental attributes of knowing how to use the physical attributes. There are and have been lots of players with great speed who are not successful base stealers, and there are other players with moderate speed who can steal successfully. But unless you have a theory that a certain player is more likely to be caught stealing when that stolen base is not critical to the game (and the only theories I can think of go the other way), the overall success rate is probably a good ceiling of the probablity for success in a crucial situation. And in crucial situations, the downside in getting caught is usually greater than the upside in success.

[don_kessinger_was_good]

I've been on this crusade all offseason but....when will people give credit to deep and effective BULLPENS as a huge source of success for teams like the Sox and Astros? Our problem is that our starters often leave games early due to high pitch counts, and we don't have quality middle relievers to hand the ball off to in order to get to the closer. And conversely, because our middle relief sucks most every year, the manager feels the need to overextend his starters trying to reach his one or two effective late game relievers, leading to injury and loss of effectiveness for said starters.

 

We need something like Politte and Cotts and Hermanson and Jenks and Marte. None are outstanding, but all are reliable and effective. Same thing with Houston's bullpen (though Lidge is outstanding, the others are decent, not great).

 

So with all this money we have to spend, and if we feel emulating the Sox and Astros success is a desirable goal, then Hendry simply MUST pursue middle relief and setup help this offseason. Bobby Howry and Scott Eyre are terrific free agents available this year. Jesse Crain and Justin Duscherer and Guillermo Mota have all been mentioned as possible trading chips by their respective teams. I won't even mention how much I covet guys like Scott Linebrink and Rafael Betancourt.

 

BULLPEN, BULLPEN, BULLPEN. Let's have a good one for once.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I've been on this crusade all offseason but....when will people give credit to deep and effective BULLPENS as a huge source of success for teams like the Sox and Astros? Our problem is that our starters often leave games early due to high pitch counts, and we don't have quality middle relievers to hand the ball off to in order to get to the closer. And conversely, because our middle relief sucks most every year, the manager feels the need to overextend his starters trying to reach his one or two effective late game relievers, leading to injury and loss of effectiveness for said starters.

 

We need something like Politte and Cotts and Hermanson and Jenks and Marte. None are outstanding, but all are reliable and effective. Same thing with Houston's bullpen (though Lidge is outstanding, the others are decent, not great).

 

So with all this money we have to spend, and if we feel emulating the Sox and Astros success is a desirable goal, then Hendry simply MUST pursue middle relief and setup help this offseason. Bobby Howry and Scott Eyre are terrific free agents available this year. Jesse Crain and Justin Duscherer and Guillermo Mota have all been mentioned as possible trading chips by their respective teams. I won't even mention how much I covet guys like Scott Linebrink and Rafael Betancourt.

 

BULLPEN, BULLPEN, BULLPEN. Let's have a good one for once.

 

I agree with your point about bullpens, but the application is difficult. The nature of the bullpen, being that pitchers get so few innings, means year-to-year they can be unpredictable. Take that White Sox bullpen for example. Cotts and Politte were terrible last year, Hermanson was bad, Jenks only threw 20 innings in the minors and was pathetically bad. So how do you build an effective pen when numbers for most relief pitchers can vary wildly?

[BigbadB]

Scott Podsednik scored 80 runs this past year, which put him 68th in MLB in this category. Doesn't seem that great to me.

 

Is it really fair to compare Podsednik's runs scored to others, when Podsednik only played in 129 games?

 

Podsednik's runs scored would have been much higher if he played in more games. His runs scored would have been much higher if he had better production hitting behind him (after Konerko, there wasn't much else). That's what a .350+ OBP will get you. I don't like the caught stealings, which hurt the RBI chances behind him, but even with the caught stealing, he's far and away better than what the Cubs were throwing out there everyday.

 

The White Sox had a much better all around offense in 2004, therefore didn't need a key top of the order hitter like they did this year. Without Podsednik, they probably lose the division to Cleveland.

 

Here's why the 2004 offense was much better than the 2005 offense:

 

2005: guys with a better OBP than .335 (3)

2004: guys with a better OBP than .335 (7)

 

2005: guys with a better OBP than .350 (2)

2004: guys with a better OBP than .350 (6)

 

If you'd like to see a direct correlation between the White Sox poor offense and the Cubs poor offense, look no further than the OBP of guys who played everyday:

 

Pierzinski .308

Crede .303

Uribe .301

Everett .311

 

Patterson .254

Perez .298

Hollandsworth .301

Macias/Lawton/Burnitz/Blanco (combine these guys together for a below .300 OBP

 

You can't have a good offense when 1/2 of your offense hits like this. At least the White Sox maximized their line up for best overall production. The Cubs second best OBP guy last year (Murton) was getting on base regularly in the 6 hole for who? The two and three guys who SHOULD be the worst hitters on the team. Worst place to put a guy with a good OBP. It's the same thing Dusty did with Bellhorn. One of the best OBP guys on the team, and instead of expecting them to get on base like they are good at, Dusty wants them to drive in runs. Podsednik's value would be about as wasted as it could get hitting in front of Pierzinski and Crede rather than Iguchi, Konerko and Dye.

 

Of course, offense isn't what got the Sox to the playoffs in the first place. But, with the little offense they had, they scored the necessary runs to win more than they lost. Bottom line, make the best use of the players you have. Anything less will only hurt the teams chances.

 

Dusty's thought process? Let's hide the worst hitter on the team right in front of the best hitter on the team. How anyone in their right mind would even remotely consider this as a viable option for run scoring efficiency is beyond me. How many times would Lee have driven in Murton if he was hitting at the top of the order? How many times did Murton get stranded on base hitting 6th?

 

If you don't maximize your offense, you deserve the fate you receive. Like staying home come playoff time.

[scs_paradise]

there are probabilities for every state in a ballgame.

 

yes there are probabilities, but that just tells you what you would expect to happen if that exact scenario happened 100 times, it does not tell you what would happen this time.

 

stat heads would NEVER have brought up Gibson v. Eck in game 1 or Perez to hit a grand slam or Lee to have the year he did or Patterson to have the year he did etc.

 

Stats are a tool but some of you use it like an end all be all, this isn't a computer program, there are too many human variables to use it that way.

 

no, it doesn't tell you what will happen "this time." it tells you the likelihood that something will happen. a gut feeling doesn't tell you what will happen either (dusty's style of managing).

 

no method is clairvoyant.

 

no, stat hounds wouldn't have predicted the things you say (the odds were against them, not that they were impossible)...and no one else did either, so your point is...

 

at least in two of those situations someone predicted something good would happen or they wouldn't have been in those situations.

 

I'm not arguing against the use of stats as a tool, but I think in sports the correllation between past and current performance isn't as accurate as many give it credit for. Too many human variables, including variables like how hard a player will try. I do think a player tries harder when the game is on the line, (the reason closers are a hard role to fill), I think players play better for different teams, not just because of what statistical data surrounds them in the lineup but because they are where they want to be.

 

I would submit that gut feeling plays just as large a role as statistics and it should. If not, you could hire a computer program as your next GM and forget the whole human interaction thing...and save yourself some money

[scs_paradise]

Stats are a tool but some of you use it like an end all be all, this isn't a computer program, there are too many human variables to use it that way.

 

Stats aren't perfect, but that doesn't mean they aren't the most accurate way of determining something. If using the most accurate way of determining something makes it the end all be all, then so be it I guess.

 

them by themselves AREN't the most accurate way, which is what I'm trying to say. Prime example is the discussion about shef. Would shef put up the numbers expected from him as a Cub? Probably not, a decision made because of gut feeling and human decision making, not stats. Stats would say absolutely trade for sheff, gut feeling would say don't....

[BigbadB]

there are probabilities for every state in a ballgame.

 

yes there are probabilities, but that just tells you what you would expect to happen if that exact scenario happened 100 times, it does not tell you what would happen this time.

 

stat heads would NEVER have brought up Gibson v. Eck in game 1 or Perez to hit a grand slam or Lee to have the year he did or Patterson to have the year he did etc.

 

Stats are a tool but some of you use it like an end all be all, this isn't a computer program, there are too many human variables to use it that way.

 

no, it doesn't tell you what will happen "this time." it tells you the likelihood that something will happen. a gut feeling doesn't tell you what will happen either (dusty's style of managing).

 

no method is clairvoyant.

 

no, stat hounds wouldn't have predicted the things you say (the odds were against them, not that they were impossible)...and no one else did either, so your point is...

 

at least in two of those situations someone predicted something good would happen or they wouldn't have been in those situations.

 

I'm not arguing against the use of stats as a tool, but I think in sports the correllation between past and current performance isn't as accurate as many give it credit for. Too many human variables, including variables like how hard a player will try. I do think a player tries harder when the game is on the line, (the reason closers are a hard role to fill), I think players play better for different teams, not just because of what statistical data surrounds them in the lineup but because they are where they want to be.

 

I would submit that gut feeling plays just as large a role as statistics and it should. If not, you could hire a computer program as your next GM and forget the whole human interaction thing...and save yourself some money

 

A computer programmer wouldn't be a good GM. A guy who can read computer generated stats would likely be a better manager than a guy who relies on gut instinct. Dusty Baker time and again last year brought in Remlinger on gut instinct (or just plain stupidity) to face left handers. The computer generated stats says "DON'T DO IT, DUSTY", yet he did it anyway. What happened when he did it? Bad things.

 

In the last 3 years, Remlinger has a .215 BAA against right handers and a .284 BAA against lefties. Lefties have nearly as many hits, XBH's and RBI's as righties do, except in less than 2/3's of the at bats.

 

Looks like poop, smells like poop, it's probably poop. But, Dusty tastes it anyway.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Stats are a tool but some of you use it like an end all be all, this isn't a computer program, there are too many human variables to use it that way.

 

Stats aren't perfect, but that doesn't mean they aren't the most accurate way of determining something. If using the most accurate way of determining something makes it the end all be all, then so be it I guess.

 

them by themselves AREN't the most accurate way, which is what I'm trying to say. Prime example is the discussion about shef. Would shef put up the numbers expected from him as a Cub? Probably not, a decision made because of gut feeling and human decision making, not stats. Stats would say absolutely trade for sheff, gut feeling would say don't....

 

My gut feeling says that Nomar would make a heck of a reliever with his arm motion.

 

How in the world does your gut feeling prove you right? Especially on something that hasn't happened?

[scs_paradise]

Stats are a tool but some of you use it like an end all be all, this isn't a computer program, there are too many human variables to use it that way.

 

Stats aren't perfect, but that doesn't mean they aren't the most accurate way of determining something. If using the most accurate way of determining something makes it the end all be all, then so be it I guess.

 

them by themselves AREN't the most accurate way, which is what I'm trying to say. Prime example is the discussion about shef. Would shef put up the numbers expected from him as a Cub? Probably not, a decision made because of gut feeling and human decision making, not stats. Stats would say absolutely trade for sheff, gut feeling would say don't....

 

My gut feeling says that Nomar would make a heck of a reliever with his arm motion.

 

How in the world does your gut feeling prove you right? Especially on something that hasn't happened?

 

how do stats prove you're right especially on something that hasn't happened?

 

Let's not take the all or nothing approach here. Stats are a fantastic tool, so is a scout with years of experience at reading players.

[scs_paradise]

there are probabilities for every state in a ballgame.

 

yes there are probabilities, but that just tells you what you would expect to happen if that exact scenario happened 100 times, it does not tell you what would happen this time.

 

stat heads would NEVER have brought up Gibson v. Eck in game 1 or Perez to hit a grand slam or Lee to have the year he did or Patterson to have the year he did etc.

 

Stats are a tool but some of you use it like an end all be all, this isn't a computer program, there are too many human variables to use it that way.

 

no, it doesn't tell you what will happen "this time." it tells you the likelihood that something will happen. a gut feeling doesn't tell you what will happen either (dusty's style of managing).

 

no method is clairvoyant.

 

no, stat hounds wouldn't have predicted the things you say (the odds were against them, not that they were impossible)...and no one else did either, so your point is...

 

at least in two of those situations someone predicted something good would happen or they wouldn't have been in those situations.

 

I'm not arguing against the use of stats as a tool, but I think in sports the correllation between past and current performance isn't as accurate as many give it credit for. Too many human variables, including variables like how hard a player will try. I do think a player tries harder when the game is on the line, (the reason closers are a hard role to fill), I think players play better for different teams, not just because of what statistical data surrounds them in the lineup but because they are where they want to be.

 

I would submit that gut feeling plays just as large a role as statistics and it should. If not, you could hire a computer program as your next GM and forget the whole human interaction thing...and save yourself some money

 

A computer programmer wouldn't be a good GM. A guy who can read computer generated stats would likely be a better manager than a guy who relies on gut instinct. Dusty Baker time and again last year brought in Remlinger on gut instinct (or just plain stupidity) to face left handers. The computer generated stats says "DON'T DO IT, DUSTY", yet he did it anyway. What happened when he did it? Bad things.

 

In the last 3 years, Remlinger has a .215 BAA against right handers and a .284 BAA against lefties. Lefties have nearly as many hits, XBH's and RBI's as righties do, except in less than 2/3's of the at bats.

 

Looks like poop, smells like poop, it's probably poop. But, Dusty tastes it anyway.

 

Nobody would have blamed Baker for one time where he went against the stat trend because of a gut feeling and lost. but there is a saying about doing something over and over expecting a different result. But I don't see how a good mix of stats and experience is contradicting your point...

[RynoRules]

I've been on this crusade all offseason but....when will people give credit to deep and effective BULLPENS as a huge source of success for teams like the Sox and Astros? Our problem is that our starters often leave games early due to high pitch counts, and we don't have quality middle relievers to hand the ball off to in order to get to the closer. And conversely, because our middle relief sucks most every year, the manager feels the need to overextend his starters trying to reach his one or two effective late game relievers, leading to injury and loss of effectiveness for said starters.

 

We need something like Politte and Cotts and Hermanson and Jenks and Marte. None are outstanding, but all are reliable and effective. Same thing with Houston's bullpen (though Lidge is outstanding, the others are decent, not great).

 

So with all this money we have to spend, and if we feel emulating the Sox and Astros success is a desirable goal, then Hendry simply MUST pursue middle relief and setup help this offseason. Bobby Howry and Scott Eyre are terrific free agents available this year. Jesse Crain and Justin Duscherer and Guillermo Mota have all been mentioned as possible trading chips by their respective teams. I won't even mention how much I covet guys like Scott Linebrink and Rafael Betancourt.

 

BULLPEN, BULLPEN, BULLPEN. Let's have a good one for once.

 

Well put.

[MPrior]

I'm not arguing against the use of stats as a tool, but I think in sports the correllation between past and current performance isn't as accurate as many give it credit for. Too many human variables, including variables like how hard a player will try. I do think a player tries harder when the game is on the line, (the reason closers are a hard role to fill), I think players play better for different teams, not just because of what statistical data surrounds them in the lineup but because they are where they want to be.

 

You've mentioned these "human variables" a couple of times so far. And you're absolutely right. There are TONS of variables that can affect the outcome of a single given instance. But that's PRECISELY why we use stats. Because the only way to reliably account for those variables is to look at how that situation panned out over many, many occasions. If you do this, it dilutes the effects of those minutiae, and you get a general idea of what the player, independent of those variables, brings to the table.

 

You're right about another thing: stats don't tell you everything. But - and here's the key point - they tell you more than any other single method of evaluation, and that's why we use them. No, they don't predict what will happen in a single, given instance, but there is nothing that can do that.