As another season approaches, and we prepare for arguments and counter-arguments and the like here, let's set the bar high.
Please, don't bring up batting average, RBI or pitchers' wins when making your case. If you do so, you will be fined (in imaginary money. It's not like I'm gonna track you down). Using those stats, here in 2008, is the equivalent of playing your music on cassettes.
The brilliant Joe Posnanski wrote a blog entry about new stats and old stats recently _ how do you think I got the idea for this entry? Original thought? _ which argues that the old stats aren't necessarily easier to comprehend. We just grew up with them, so they seem easier.
Since Joe's blog posts are, in his own words, "curiously long," I'll copy/paste my favorite part. Here he is, imagining a world in which batting average didn't exist, envisioning what the reaction would be if a blogger proposed it:
Blogger: I have come up with a new statistic. It involves balls put in play. I call it batting average.
Establishment: Great! How’s it work?
B: See, what we’ll do is, we’ll take the number of hits that the batter has and divide it by the number of at-bats that he has in order to determine how often he gets a hit.
E: That sounds like on-base percentage. What’s the difference?
B: Well, it’s all in what you call “at-bats” For one thing, we don’t count walks.
E: What do you mean you don’t count walks?
B: They don’t count. We take plate appearances and subtract walks. They never happened.
E: How can a walk never happen?
B: It just doesn’t.
E: Aren’t walks good things? Like in Little League, we always say “Walk’s as good as a hit.”
B: I hate walks. They’re gone. So let’s say a guy comes to the plate 12 times, and he gets four hits and walks twice …
E: Right … that’s a .500 on-base percentage.
B: Exactly, but if you just subtract the walks, you will see that he has a .400 batting average.
E: Um, OK.
B: But there are other things. If you hit a fly ball, and someone tags up and scores a run, that does not count as an at-bat.
E: Why not?
B: Because you are sacrificing yourself for the betterment of the team? I call it a sacrifice fly. Get it?
E: Well, what are you sacrificing if it doesn’t even count against your stats?
B: You just are, OK?
E: What if you hit a ground ball and the runner scores.
B: How’s that?
E: Let’s say the infield’s back and a guy hits a ground ball to get the run in. How do you score that?
B: No, that’s not a sacrifice fly.
E Why not? Doesn’t that accomplish the same thing?
B: It just isn’t. Come on, pay attention. What’s it called. Sacrifice FLY? Hello! He didn’t hit a fly ball.
E: It just seems to me …
B: Sacrifice bunts also do not count as at-bats. And when you get hit by a pitch … doesn’t count.
E You don’t get any statistical notice for getting hit by a pitch?
B: Like it never happened.
E: I’m afraid to ask this: What happens if you reach on an error.
B: That’s the beauty of this system. According to my new batting average, you’re out.
E: But you’re not really out.
B: I know. Isn’t it great?
E: Why does this have to be so complicated?
B: It’s batting average! It will take over the world!
The other two banned stats, in my mind, are pretty simple: RBI and wins reflect a player's team more than the player himself. Randy Johnson won 17 games for the 2006 Yankees even though he was largely awful, thanks to tremendous run support. Barry Bonds drove in just 66 runs last year because he played for a brutal Giants team which rarely put runners on base. And so on.
So join me. I'm not asking you to fully embrace VORP, or MLVr, or WXRL, although I will occasionally use these and encourage you to do the same. On-base percentage, slugging percentage, ERA (while quite imperfect), innings pitched and strikeouts are a fine starting point.
In the same vein, I don't want to competely discount the old-fashioned "human element" when discussing the game. I just want to use better stats, is all.
Comments (28)
Numbers - bah! The quants at Bear Stearns believed in their numbers too!
The number crunchers would have removed Bob Gibson from game 7 of the 64 series - but Johhny Keane said no - and won. The number crunchers would have agreed with removing Roger Clemens in game 6 of the 86 series - and were wrong.
I know you believe that there are many different ways in which to appreciate baseball, but I cannot find it in my retired heart to say that geeks rule.
.
Ken...what the number crunchers say about Grady Little when he left Pedro in against the Yankees ?
Pedro gave up a bloop to Posada, but then again Bill James probably wants a new stat to describe that!.
The average against Pedro 7th inning on was about .300 - which doesn't surprise me because the only reason they would take Pedro out if he had gone 7 strong innings was either a large lead or that he gave up a few hits and/or a run. Self-fulfilling prophecy!
James convinced the Red Sox that they didn't need a stopper, and that the 9th inning closer was overrated (just like the stolen base). Without that miracle comeback the Sox would have wasted $ 1/4 billion in payroll with no rings to show for it!
Hmmm...the Sox acquired Foulke in 2004 and won game 4 thanks to Roberts' stolen base (a real no-no for pencilheads).
If sabremetrics can justify pitchng Kyle Fransworth at any time, they are useless.
Actually, RMT, the decision to use Dave Roberts as a pinch runner in 2004 ALCS Game 4 was very much statistically based. The situation in which he went _ down one, bottom of the ninth inning, none out _ was about as ideal a scenario, statistically, as you can find to attempt an SB.
As for leaving Pedro in 2003 ALCS Game 7, Pedro's #s dropped precipitously after throwing his 100th pitch. Yes, Posada's hit was a bloop, but right before that, Matsui crushed a double to RF.
James absolutely whiffed on the "no-closer" thing. But he has been right far more often than he has been wrong.
Oh, and RMT, you are fined 5 imaginary dollars for using batting average in your first comment.
Ken, I take it your not a big Marty Noble fan!
I worked with Marty for 3+ years at Newsday and got along just fine with him. I also worked with him in planning 2 BBWAA dinners. Just because people disagree, doesn't mean they can't peacefully coexist.
I'll double the $ 5 fine as part of lunch if you or any pajama fan can statistically justify using Farnsworth.
In 2004, Roberts stole 5 bases in 7 attempts. The geeks insist on a 75% rate to justify a stolen base. But you are correct that the situation called for the attempt.
Actually, RMT, you and I are in agreement on Farnsworth. He's brutal.
But in the bigger picture, you are fighting an argument I didn't make. The point of this entry wasn't that we should rely solely on numbers; to the contrary, it's very important to hear from scouts, etc. I specifically said we shouldn't discount the human element.
The only point I made was that some of the numbers we use universally - batting average, RBI and wins - stink.
Ken:
You're the man! In a perfect world, you'd get into the writer's wing of the Hall in a few years!!
RMT:
"In 2004, Roberts stole 5 bases in 7 attempts. The geeks insist on a 75% rate to justify a stolen base."
Small sample size, dude. Ask Ken, he's patient enough to explain...
Ken: I don't want the people whose day job was to invent algorythms to produce derivative products that trashed the economy to apply their "expertise" to baseball.
I concur - the game has to be appreciated on numerous levels of sight, sound and feel. Then you can play with stats to justify/question what you saw.
up until the end of the 2004 regular season, Roberts had a success rate of about .784, which was distorted by his 33 for 34 streak with the Dodges in early 2004 (why did they get rid of him?). so by sabremetrics stats, he is at or just above the stolen base version of the Mendoza line.
RMT, LOL on economy-trashing. But do you honestly think that batting average is a good statistic? It wasn't invented by some genius _ clearly. The object of the game isn't to get hits and only hits. It's to get on base!
Thanks for the love, JoeNunz, although no thanks on the Hall of Fame thing.
Ken-
A pitcher's wins are indeed the worst metric of all and should be dropped. Why even award a win or loss to a pitcher when there are so many factors going into a team's victory, especially when he may exit after the 5th inning or enter in the 8th? ERA, while seriously flawed, is far superior.
RBIs could be improved to at least reflect a per-plate-appearance basis, or maybe supplemented to show how well a guy advances runners, including himself (if they score, so what?). For example, it may well be that singling to advance a runner from 1st to 3rd is more valuable than grounding out to score a guy from 3rd and getting a "lucky" RBI. A guy can make 50 RBIs on ground outs alone if he is dealt consistently good hands.
As for batting, why not supplement simple BA with a weighted composite of BA (say 50%), OPB (25%) and slugging pct (25%)to get a fuller picture?
Anyway, Ken, please keep up your reform efforts and we'll see what sticks in the mainstream! I suggest you provide a historical perspective if possible to see how the conventionally "great" and "underrated" players have ranked over the decades using these new-wave stats. Maybe it's a book idea.
And thanks for the mention on the Big Red. One upset would be huge!
Ken:
Less stats, more commentary about what will happen next.
I am with Joe Nunz - HOF for you - but will you wear a Mets, Yankees or UM hat? (And is it true that Barry Larkin got a UM hockey scholarship because they were outof baseball scholarships one year/)
Ken:
I agree with rmt: Less Stats! More commentary! About what will happen next!
Commentary should be based on gut reactions, unsubstantiated opinions, Mike and the Mad Dog commentary, how many rings a player has and whether Michael Kay thinks he's a gamer.
best regards,
VORPis4Losers.com
Ken, just out of curiosity, why no thanks on the HOF? You dont want it? That is one of the weirder comments sorta like when Herman Edwards said he wouldn't attend a Jets parade if they won the Super Bowl.
Also, couldn't disagree with you more. I just bought a new car and dont want you thiefing me when you see me so I'll just say that those catagories do have their worth.
I think the most overvalued stat is strikeout. Who cares how you get the out? ERA is much more important. That's why I thought Nolam Ryan is so overrated.
OK, Richie, let's deal with the more important issue first:
Strikeouts are overrated?
Strikeouts are the only type of out which are not dependent upon the defense (except for the catcher securing the ball). As you know, once a batter makes contact with the ball, crazy stuff can happen. Jorge Posada hits a bloop, two-run single in 2003 ALCS Game 3, as RMT noted higher up in the comments. Or a grounder finds a hole. That is why the strikeout is far and away the best type of out for a pitcher, and why the best pitchers are those who strike out the most.
As for the HOF, I don't believe that journalists should be part of the institution of baseball. When a reporter is paraded on the podium along with players, executives and broadcasters, then that reporter very much becomes part of the institution of baseball. I think that journalists should be part of the institution of journalism.
And just so we're clear, while I appreciate JoeNunz's kind words, by no means do I think I'd ever be a candidate for the Spink Award. But if I were, speaking on a purely theoretical basis, I would decline.
Ken - 30 years from now, you'll take the podium for the Spink if it's offered to you. I'll bet and your grandkids a dozen donuts each...
But Marvin Miller, Bill James and David Wright will get in before you...
Joe: I don't want to encourage additional talk radio commentary, John Sterling, Berman, Vitale, etc. - I want more from Hernandez and Darling (and Flaherty) about how they reacted in similar situations, and more from reporters regarding what they see in the clubhouse and on the road during a 6 month season.
As a nod to sabremtrics and the "steroid era", why dont' we just replay all games by computer simulation and filter out any performance 1 standard deviation away from the norm to see what happens?
No A's wins in the late 80's/early 90's?
New MVP's?
Ken I agree the strikeout is the best out. But my point is I'd rather strikeout none and give up 2 runs than strikeout 10 and give up 3 runs. That's why I think the ERA is a better stat than the K. Because you can strikeout a lot of people and give up a lot of runs. Nolan Ryan is a great pitcher, but Greg Maddux is better.
I also think you devaluize pitchers who get credit for victories. There's something to be said for a pitcher who gives up one less run than their opponent. BTW, I guess you didn't vote Jack Morris in the HOF then right? Just guessing, I dont remember.
As for your HOF...well lets just say I'll bet the whole rack of D&D that in 30 years if they tell you you're in, you'll show up. Though I love your point of view on it. You're right, journalists shouldn't be part of baseball, just report on it.
ok, I'm here for one more comment and then I'm out...I suppose somebody's gotta moderate this mess...Ken's gotta get back to checking on how much heart the Mets and Yanks will have this year.
Richie:
Without knowing ANYTHING else about a pitching performance who do you think has a better chance of giving up LESS runs...the 10 strikeout guy or the zero strikeout guy?
Greg Maddux is number 11 ALL-TIME in career strikeouts...so he is a terrible example of a pitcher who was great because of reasons other than strikeouts...
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/SO_p_career.shtml
RMT:
Funny you should mention…I have actually run a few simulations of several teams through the years to see what happens if you change a few variables. I then take any performance that is greater than 1.0 standard deviation (actually 1.248 to be exact) from the norm and reduce its impact by running a quick regression analysis.
Anyway, here’s where I come out:
Late 80’s / 90’s A’s without Steroids: 1 fewer pennant (1990) ; though they still win the ’89 World Series
Late 80’s Mets without cocaine: No playoff appearances
Late 90s/Early ‘00s Yankees – replace Jeter’s heart with A-Rod’s: No playoff appearances; no rings; YES Network does not exist; Michael Kay has no radio show; Paul O’Neill spending 15 years in prison for several road rage incidents.
And once again, I feel as though I should pay JoeNunz for standing guard while I put my son to bed.
Richie, what Joe said is exactly what I would say re: strikeouts. I did vote for Morris for the HOF.
RMT, you and I are going to have to hash this out over lunch.
If I a) get nominated for the Spink; b) accept the nomination; and c) win the election, I will purchase the D&D that's near Steve from South Amboy. but I'm confident that we'll never even get to Point A.
Marty Noble rules!
I know Greg Maddux has a lot of accumulated strikeouts. Pitching 21 years will do that for you. But he only finished top 3 in K's per 9 three times and only once hit 200 K's (though 3 times he topped 196 so for all intensive puproses I'll give him 4 seasons).
So he's not your prototypical strikeout pitcher.
And you're both misremembe...I mean misunderstanding my point. I agree a strikeout is the best out and the most useful out. And if you toss up 7 or better, chances are you had a good game. But I think ERA is a much better stat.
And Ken, how can you vote for Jack Morris if you aren't a big fan of the victory column (avoiding fine) and love the ERA??
Richie, ERA is OK, but it's more dependent on luck and circumstances than is a strikeout. If a player makes an error with two outs, and then a team proceeds to score 17 runs, all 17 of those runs are "unearned." And the ERA remains at 0.00.
Another example: A pitcher with Adam Everitt as his shortstop is going to accrue more groundouts _ and therefore, record a better ERA _ than one with Derek Jeter as his shortstop.
Morris was a huge innings eater and pitched one of the best games in postseason history. That's why he got my vote.
OK...I think we're closer to agreeing than not. I am 50/50 with Morris. I just wonder if we're over valuing that one game or if it deserves that much value? I know he's pitched other great ones as well.
If I had your responsibility, that would be my most researched player. Because I go back and forth on him.
Ken -
"Morris was a huge innings eater and pitched one of the best games in postseason history. That's why he got my vote."
don't let the firejoemorgan guys get a hold of that line...
Let's get Bert Blyleven in first and then Jack Morris can get in line.
LOL, JoeNunz. Blyleven got my vote, as well.
Joe, lets get Dante Bichette in before both of them. Sometimes I think it should be renamed to the Hall of Longevity, or the Hall of Better than Average, or the Hall of That Guy Was Great to The Media!