Bloops: Baseball, Stats, Chance & You
Posted by Steve Lombardi on March 10, 2011
This morning, over at BaseballThinkFactory.org, I noticed a posting regarding the new book "The Beauty of Short Hops: How Chance and Circumstance Confound the Moneyball Approach to Baseball."
This is a McFarland release. Personally, I like McFarland because they're willing to publish a lot of baseball books that may have a harder time somewhere else. But, since they usually price their books high, it's difficult for something from them to be a huge seller - at least in my humble and uninformed opinion.
On Amazon, regarding the aforementioned book, it says: Sabermetrics, the search for objective knowledge about baseball through statistical analysis, has taken over the national pastime. The authors argue that this approach began as a useful corrective but has come to harm baseball. The book demonstrates that the so-called moneyball approach, based on sabermetrics, offers only limited guidance for assembling a team, managing games, and evaluating player performance. Equally important, the obsession with statistics and vision of the game as wholly predictable obscure baseball's spectacular improvisational quality. It is the game's unquantifiable and relentless capacity to surprise--the source of wonder so central to its greatest stories and personalities--that informs any real appreciation of baseball.
So, what do you think? Is baseball more "chance and circumstance" than anything else? And, have sabermetrics taken away from the "real appreciation of baseball"?
A long time ago - or at least what seems like a long time ago - I saw another blogger make the comment "Nothing in baseball happens on average." And, I love that thought - it's what makes baseball so special to me.
There’s a line from the very first episode of Star Trek Deep Space Nine entitled “Emissary” where the character of Captain Benjamin Sisko uses the game of baseball to explain the concept of linear time and essentially how humans experience life:
“The rules aren’t important…what’s important is – it’s linear. Every time I throw this ball a hundred different things can happen in a game…He might swing and miss, he might hit it…The point is you never know…You try to anticipate, set a strategy for all the possibilities as best you can…but in the end it come down to throwing one pitch after another…and seeing what happens. With each new consequence, the game begins to take shape…”
This is so true. In baseball, you can be armed to the teeth with a thousand scouting reports on player tendencies and statistical play/run expectancy tables; but, they’re only worth the paper that they’re printed on – because each time the pitcher lets the pill loose, you never know what might happen.
However, on the other hand, I love how sabermetrics vet out the numbers to show us what's more important - for example, OBA vs. BA - and also make the numbers relative so that we can compare players across different eras, etc. And, I sincerely feel that sabermetrics plays an important role in assisting teams evaluate players - or that it should.
As you can see, I can't say there's a right or wrong here. And, I understand where both sides on this debate are coming from, etc.
In any event, I do know that the readers of this blog who leave comments herein are an astute group. And, I was curious on what discussion this topic would stimulate. So, have at it y'all. On your mark, get set, go!
March 10th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
"The book demonstrates that the so-called moneyball approach, based on sabermetrics, offers only limited guidance for assembling a team, managing games, and evaluating player performance."
-- Sounds like what it really demonstrates is yet another misunderstanding of what "the Moneyball approach" is all about. But let's give them a little more rope....
""Equally important, the obsession with statistics and vision of the game as wholly predictable obscure baseball's spectacular improvisational quality.
-- Well, now I'm 100% certain that neither the authors nor the blurb writer "gets" sabermetrics. I don't know any serious saberist who claims that this approach makes baseball "wholly predictable" or anything close to that.
Indeed, one of the advances of modern statistical analysis is to acknowledge the volatility of perceived performance, and the role of "chance and circumstance" in that volatility. Thus, while the traditionalists saw Allan Anderson as a coming star based on his 16-9 record and league-low 2.45 ERA in 1988, a saberist would have seen red flags in the 3.7 K/9 rate and .261 BABIP and called him "hit lucky" that year. The traditionalist would have seen confirmation in Anderson's 17-10 record the next year; the saberist would have seen his own confirmation in Anderson's 3.80 ERA, and dismissed the W-L record as a product of the absurd run support of 5.81 R/G that was lavished on Anderson that year. Ultimately, Anderson's ERA ballooned to 4.53 in 1990 and 4.96 in '91, with a combined 12-29 record, and he was gone from the majors at 27. A saberist would not have called that outcome "wholly predictable," but simply more likely than that Anderson continue posting a .630 W% while being utterly unable to miss bats.
One of the silliest claims made by the anti-sabermetrics crowd is this notion that studying the game's statistics takes the fun out of it. Takes whose fun out? Obviously, those of us who like it feel that it adds to our fun. For those who don't care for it, I can't imagine why my fun should impact theirs; after all, I never complained that the "RBI crowd" was spoiling my day. Might this claim really be just an unconscious admission that they know sabermetrics is a better approach, and they resent that?
Another silly position is that there is a "stats crowd" and a "non-stats crowd." I've never met a baseball fan who didn't drop stats references into every conversation about the game; the real distinction is that the "non-stats" fans talk about Wins and Batting Average.
Both groups think their approach to understanding the game makes it more predictable; after all, that's the main reason people think about things. The main difference between these groups in this regard is that those who imagine themselves as "non-stats" are unaware of their implicit assumptions that performance in Batting Average, RBI and Wins is predictable.
March 10th, 2011 at 6:13 pm
John, I can only add that your writing is an extreme pleasure to read, and beautifully covers everything I wanted to say -- particularly the multiple reasons the phrase "vision of the game as wholly predictable" is ridiculous. To your point "For those who don't care for it, I can't imagine why my fun should impact theirs" -- I remain entirely puzzled by the defensiveness and shoutiness of the "non-stats" crowd.
March 10th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
Sabremetrics have a place in the front office. As the commenter above explained in the Allan Anderson example, the sabermatrician would have come out ahead after four years despite "losing" the first two.
That being said I think on the field the team needs to be governed by a baseball guy. Someone who does not care that one guy on the bench has a better WAR or something like that. (splits and matchups should be the extent of sabremetrics in the dugout).
Bruce Bochy doesn't strike me as a guy who knows what an ERA+ is and that works fine for me.
March 10th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
@John ...
First, speaking of writing, I loved your review on Amazon of Howard Bryant's bio of Aaron. I agreed with the stylistic comments as well as the errors of fact picked up.
Second, it does sound like a bit of straw man bashing.
That said, of course not everything is measurable, or, at the least, yes, there's an element of luck in baseball. We even have a measurement for that, if you wil — batting average on balls in play.
March 10th, 2011 at 8:21 pm
You ignore data at your peril.
But I don't think any sabermatrician would say that the game is utterly predictable. Or predictable in the least. What is predictable is that Tony LaRussa will always go for the platoon advantage, Adam Dunn will always strike out a lot, and the Pirates will lose 90+ games.
But among the four major sports, baseball is the most random. Upsets may happen, but they happen more often in baseball. The Pirates were wretched, but they went 4-2 against the Phillies last season. That's predictable?
March 10th, 2011 at 8:37 pm
"Sabermetrics, the search for objective knowledge about baseball through statistical analysis, has taken over the national pastime."
No, they haven't.
"Is baseball more "chance and circumstance" than anything else?"
Yes
"And, have sabermetrics taken away from the "real appreciation of baseball"?"
How much one appreciates baseball is an individual thing, so, the answer is no.
If need a formula or a spreadsheet to know OBP is more important than BA that only means your own personal knowledge of the sport is less than your neighbor.
What matters in the long run is you both agree, not how you got there.
March 10th, 2011 at 8:57 pm
The claim that sabermetrics squeezes romance or delight from baseball is similar to the claim that science eliminates out enjoyment or delight in nature. These are both misunderstandings. A baseball fan with no knowledge of sabermetrics makes assumptions about the probability of what will happen in a game every moment. When Albert Pujols comes to the plate the casual fan has certain expectations, when the bases are loaded the casual fan has certain expectations, when the score is 8-0 the causal fan has certain expectations. Without such a sense of probabilities, baseball is just chaos, one meaningless random event after another. The fun of watching baseball is that it plays out in the context of our knowledge of what is likely, and seeing how those expectations are confounded or fulfilled. Sabermetrics at its best replaces a shallower and more superficial sense of probabilities with a deeper and more nuanced one. Just as one can appreciate more deeply a painting by Vermeer if one is familiar with some art-historical context, so one can appreciate even more the progress of a baseball game if you can see the many subtle aspects of the game brought to light by sabermetrics. Sabermetrics is no more for everybody than is the study of art history, and a fan can enjoy baseball enormously without a sabermetric background as much as a museum visitor without an art history background can enjoy a Vermeer. But if sabermetrics is itself limiting your enjoyment of the game than you may be approaching the game with the wrong state of mind.
March 10th, 2011 at 9:38 pm
Sounds like the authors overstating their thesis to sell some books.
The same fan will react much differently while watching the late innings of a single game than they'll think analyzing an off-season trade or debating postseason awards. Sometimes Mark Lemke is the hero and Mighty Casey strikes out. But that doesn't mean that you stop looking for the signal underneath the noise.
Anyhow, the book is getting a lot of free press this week from here and Neyer. I hope its written well enough to deserve the press and its not just a hack job on a strawman premise.
March 11th, 2011 at 7:05 am
Some of the 'chances' come from the inadequate of the umpires who show even more tendency to mess up nowdays, due to their jealousy and envy to the highly paid players.
Some fans cherish the "Human Factor", but it should be counted as a variable which mess things up. Any thinking person should abhor the behavior of the umpires whose behaviors are completely unpredictable and random.
March 11th, 2011 at 7:53 am
"you never know what might happen"
"@*&#! You!" said Tom Niedenfuer after Game 5 of the 1985 NLCS.
March 11th, 2011 at 8:01 am
#10. Cabriel
I don't think you could be further from the truth on this one.
About a decade ago, the umpires went through a true holy war, where they sought to smash the individual differences and tendencies of umpires. Back in the day, one umpire was known as a "low ball guy", another "an outside guy". Each umpire had their own stance behind the plate and their own personality in confronting umpires. Those days are gone. Umpires used to travel in set crews. Hell, there isn't even such a thing as an NL umpire or an AL umpire anymore.
Nowadays, standardization is the buzzword. Individual plays are reviewed by MLB and umpires are open to sanction. There is a laser device that tracks balls and strikes, and umpires are expected to adjust or leave.
It was unfortunate that several plays gave a false impression in so many important games last year, but umpiring in the major leagues is light years better than it ever was.
p.s. smart post John. I rarely sidle up to a novel-length post like yours, but it was worth it.
March 11th, 2011 at 9:31 am
I always think of an analogy to playing poker.
If you have pocket aces, you should call any pre-flop bet heads up against another player. No matter what he has, the odds are in your favor. Will you win every time? No. Will you regret the times you lose, bemoaning the fact that you "knew" you shouldn't have called that time? Probably. But the fact remains, you call every time. You play the odds. There are no guarantees. But you can tip things in your favor and hope for the best.
March 11th, 2011 at 10:24 am
Wow, a post about baseball *and* the best Star Trek show all at once... excellent.
March 11th, 2011 at 10:33 am
Lots of good points here made by the "old reliables'.
It is obvious that the author is attacking "Moneyball" as a marketing point, using the strawmen of "statistics are ruining our enjoyment of baseball". I don't think his problem is with people using statistics per se, but with the SABR-types using advanced stats HE IS NOT FAMILIAR WITH, as opposed to the ones that he (and most other fans) has used.
For countless decades, baseball fans used about a dozen stats (at most); the "Holy Trinity" of BA/ HR/ RBI for batters, and Wins/ ERA/ SO for pitchers. Throw in SB, walks (for pitchers), maybe 2Bs and 3Bs, and a few others, and their statistical universe was complete.
So now comes along these analysts with their blizzard of acronyms; not just OBA, SLG, WHIP, and ERA+, but really advanced ones such as VORP, DIPS, WAR, and FIPS. It'd not surprising that many older fans feel confused by this explosion of information, and reject it. It is even less surprising that many older baseball writers feel _quite_ threatened by the new advanced baseball stats; after all, for many years, they were The Keeper Of The Sacred Baseball Knowledge,and now these un-credentialed outsiders have the audacity to tell him that his writing in his chosen field is lacking, because they have more useful stats.
I've never understood why someone would totally reject advanced statistical analysis, and believe that their "gut feeling" is superior than any numerical analysis; to me, this reflects a disturbing lack of intellectual curiosity. In a multi-billion dollar business, strictly "gut feeling" is a poor way to make decisions.
I watch several hundred baseball games a year, and I do not see any conflict between enjoying the games on their own, and understanding the process better through advanced statistics.
March 11th, 2011 at 11:13 am
I grow weary of these debates over the validity of sabermetrics... What John said is spot-on, as are other comments about how there is room for both advanced analysis and taking in a leisurely game at the ballpark.
Rather than address the false dichotomy upon which that book is based, I'd like to take issue with what capnjiffy wrote in #13 -- The Next Generation was CLEARLY the best Star Trek show...
March 11th, 2011 at 12:12 pm
#15/... Neil Paine Says: "...I'd like to take issue with what capnjiffy wrote in #13 -- The Next Generation was CLEARLY the best Star Trek show..."
Agreed - I prefer TNG to the original series {heresy!}, though I like all the spin-offs except the most recent.
To get technical, some years ago Bill James made the point (in his book on win shares?) that baseball IS NOT strictly linear, which is why Pete Palmer's "linear weights"system does not evaluate offensive events as well as other methods (and don't really work for defense).
Posts #1 and #7 really stood out for their eloquence in refuting the central premise of this book we are discussing.
March 11th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
It was mentioned when people brought up the "strawmen" comment, but it continues to bother me how people, wrongly, equate sabermetrics with moneyball.
Sabermetrics is the in-depth study of better ways to evaluate baseball, through well-researched statistics.
Moneyball is a method by which a team with limited resources seeks out under-priced resources and attempts to exploit market inefficiencies to outperform their meager payroll.
Some of what happened with Billy Beane and the Athletics in Lewis' book involved sabermetrics - BABIP, OBP, etc. But their method had far more roots in ECON 101 than a doctorate in sabermetrics.
March 11th, 2011 at 11:44 pm
Right on, Ryan. "Moneyball" ideas were in play long before Billy Beane, notably:
-- The early practitioners of platooning, including Casey Stengel; and
-- Branch Rickey, Bill Veeck and others daring to draw from the pool of unwanted black talent.
March 12th, 2011 at 8:22 am
>About a decade ago, the umpires went through a true holy war, where they sought to smash the individual differences and tendencies of umpires. Back in the day, one umpire was known as a "low ball guy", another "an outside guy". Each umpire had their own stance behind the plate and their own personality in confronting umpires. Those days are gone. Umpires used to travel in set crews. Hell, there isn't even such a thing as an NL umpire or an AL umpire anymore.
Actually that was a regress, not a progress.
Before that there were good umpires and bad umpires. Now, after the 'standardization', they are all bad.
March 12th, 2011 at 10:42 am
very, very funny cabriel
March 16th, 2011 at 10:06 pm
Well, this is interesting...
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/635405-farewell-to-stats-baseball-needs-more-story-less-sabermetrics