Firstly, I offer an apology for the lack of baseball writing in recent weeks. It turns out we here at Somebody to Leon are fan-freaking-tastic at keeping scorecards, and woefully inept at entering the data into our spreadsheets. We'll try and do better.
I want to talk about a conflict within the game of baseball. Some of you will be familiar with the arguments presented in this post- others will be hearing them for the first time. This is my take on the apparent schism between "stats people" and "baseball people".
Truthfully, I don't think the divisions listed above are actually real, although people do certainly position themselves as one or the other. Individuals who have gained an in-depth knowledge of baseball statistics have done so because they love the game. They are passionate about understanding what makes a player or a team successful. They watch a lot of baseball and take pleasure in the nuance and history of the game. They are not, as many people in the mainstream media like to say, "geeks who live in their mother's basement". This attitude has probably arisen because the media members who hurl these insults have not taken the time to learn about new ways of thinking. Or maybe they feel threatened by new voices in their occupational sphere. Either way, they're getting it wrong more often than not. In my opinion, baseball is currently a sport that is covered best by a small community of bloggers and "stats" oriented writers. Read almost any of the links on this blog and you're likely to find something that is more thoughtful, more original, better researched, and funnier than 90% of what you find the talking heads from ESPN (except you Rob Neyer) or the newspapers saying.
It's not that traditional baseball people don't have a lot to offer. People who have played the game have a wealth of firsthand knowledge about what it feels like to turn on a fastball, what it looks like when a pitcher's shoulders are flying open upon delivery of a pitch, or how your mind is affected after an 0-5 night at the plate. They can tell you how recognize a changeup and they can help you integrate the moving body parts that constitute the game of baseball. That knowledge is valuable, and I love hearing anecdotes from managers, color commentators, and players, but it's not everything.
The notion that people who haven't ever put on a uniform have nothing to offer is ignorant and insulting. This is essentially the same elitist attitude that governments have used for years to keep their citizens from questioning highly suspect and sheltered patterns of decision making. Perhaps it's no coincidence that when people talk about negotiations within the Beltway, they speak of the "inside baseball" of what went on during a meeting, hearing, or session. Look at it this way- baseball is a business and operates as such. If you're running a business and someone comes to you and presents compelling evidence that your company is using antiquated modes of evaluating performance and is not taking advantage of opportunities in the marketplace, wouldn't you listen? You wouldn't do what many managers, general managers and media members do and deride those who are offering you sound advice.
It's not that baseball people hate stats; they actually love stats. The problem is a lot of them love stats that aren't particularly useful. They value too highly a pitcher's wins, losses, and ERA. Wins are largely dependent on the fielding behind the pitcher and the quality of his own offense, so it seems pretty clear this is a less than ideal way of evaluating a pitcher's true skill. ERA is a little better, but is also dependent on defense and the ballpark where the game is being held. When speaking of batters, batting average seems to be of the utmost importance. Luckily, some very smart people have come up with better ways of measuring a hitter's total contribution to the team's ability to win baseball games. How many times the batter hits the ball and reaches base safely is important, but it does not tell the whole story.
During tonight's Braves broadcast, I heard broadcaster Joe Simpson dismissively answer a question about WHIP (Wins+Hits per Innings Pitched). First of all, I'm not taking potshots at Joe. I love Joe...always have and always will. He smart, funny, and actually pretty receptive to more modern baseball thinking, especially when it comes from his main broadcast partner, Jon "Boog" Sciambi. But when tonight's conversation led to all the "new" stats, it was clear that Simpson didn't think much of WHIP's statistical cousins and the people who care about them. "Trust your scouts, trust your scouts", he shouted as he launched into a rant about how people who haven't played the game have no business evaluating players.
Don't get me wrong, the input of scouts should be trusted. But their opinions (and those of other "baseball people") should not be trusted so much that hard data is ignored. For instance, earlier in the game, Joe said that he thought that Chipper Jones should have won a Gold Glove in 2007 over fellow 3rd baseman David Wright. His reason? David Wright had more errors in the field (21 to Chipper's 9).
Here's why his logic is flawed: Errors are only part of the picture. We can now measure the range of a fielder pretty accurately and David Wright had much better range than Chipper in 2007. Wright is making more errors because he is getting to balls that most fielders would not even touch! It's highly likely that the young and agile Mr. Wright saved more runs with stellar defense than he allowed with his errors. Wright also had 324 attempts with which to throw out baserunners while Chipper only had 226. So the Met's man at the hot corner had nearly 100 more chances to make (or mess up) a play.
Here are some other common reasons for unfortunate baseball thinking...forgive the snark.
1. Aesthetics/ Personal Preference: "He looks like a ballplayer" is something we often hear. That's great, but I'll take the fat, slow guy with great numbers over the guy who looks sexy hacking at the first pitch and striking out a lot.
2. Tradition: The stolen base looks cool and it has been a part of baseball for a long time. I get it. This does not mean it's always a good idea. We know that if runners are not stealing at certain success percentage (usually b/w 70-80%), stealing is not a gamble worth taking. If you're below the break even point, you will get caught enough times to hurt your team more than your successful steals help them. Some guys should be stealing less, some could probably steal a little more, and some shouldn't be stealing at all. It's not witchcraft, it's just run expectancy tables that come from some simple statistics. If I tell you that you're going to fail the majority of times you attempt a particular non-essential challenge, do you keep attempting it? What if I also say that you're more likely to acheive your goals by not attempting the challenge? I think most people would say, "Perhaps I've been going at this the wrong way."
3. Memory: Oh she's a fickle mistress, that memory. We tend to remember certain events more than others. Spectacular successes and failures stick out more than a handful of more mundane occurances. No one is immune to this tendency. When I say, "Dude, Miguel Tejada freaking OWNS Jamie Moyer!!!" , I'm basing this statement off of a series of memorable hits which constitute a ridiculously small sample size. Chances are, Miguel and old man Moyer are likely to perform as they have over a much larger sampling of games the next time they face each other. The larger career sample size beats the miniscule one that we remember. Luckily we have databases that keep track of such things so we don't have to rely on faulty memories.
4. Tradition: Closers. Closers are dumb. I don't mean the men themselves, although I'm not sure Jonathon Papelbon is exactly a Mensa member in hiding. I mean that the idea of the closer (which isn't even an old tradition) is not a good one. Your best relievers should be used in the situations where they are needed most- the high leverage situations. Arbitrarily assigning this player to the 9th inning is a poor allocation of resources in many cases. Years of statistics tell us that the 3 run lead is damn near unassailable, and yet we often see good relief pitchers come in during these situations. Ironically, it's the "save" stat that is responsible for so much of this foolishness about closers.
5. Asinine Sports Cliches: Let's call this the David Eckstein Phenomenon. For years, broadcasters and coachs have praised the tiny infielder because of his willingness to "get his uniform dirty". Unfortunately, aside from seeing a decent amount of pitches per plate appearance, he is not a very good baseball player. Other talent masking maxims used to describe players include, "He plays the game the right way" or "He's a gamer", or "He's scrappy".
In the end, my point is that we're all baseball people. We all love the game for its beauty and grace, for its excitement and endless potential for discussion. There's no reason that statistics and firsthand experiences can't be combined to create a greater understanding of our favorite pastime. Furthermore, I believe that the teams that truly integrate these two forces will experience years of unchallenged success. We're already seeing this as teams take positive steps toward a more holistic approach to talent evaluation, scouting, drafting, strategy, and building a roster (see Tampa Bay Rays and Boston Red Sox). Let's hope that people entrenched in the traditions of baseball can discard their fear of change so that some meaningful dialogue can occur. There are brilliant baseball people from all walks of life- somebody get them in a room and build a winner!
P.S. If anyone is curious about some of the topics raised here, I recommend:
-"The Book: Placing the Percentages in Baseball" by Tango, Lichtman, and Dolphin
- Any of our links, but especially Fangraphs and The Hardball Times. I check em' everyday.
- FireJoeMorgan - a super snarky, but very funny (one of the posters is a writer for "The Office")
critique of how horrifically baseball is covered by the mainstream media. It will make you
laugh, cry, clench your fist, and rue the day you ever heard the name "Bill Plaschke".
- "Moneyball" by Michael Lewis. It's not about the death of baseball as we know it, it's actually
about smart people doing smart things. It's rational yet emotional, and immensely readable.
One day, some of the people who bash it might actually read it too.
No comments:
Post a Comment