March 18, 2011

Bruce Jenkins Wants To Know Why You Drive On A Parkway And Park In A Driveway

Bruce Jenkins, San Francisco Chronicle:
It won't be long before we get the first wave of nonsense from stat-crazed dunces claiming there's nothing to be learned from a batting average, won-loss record or RBI total. Listen, just go back to bed, OK? Strip down to those fourth-day undies, head downstairs (to "your mother's basement and your mother's computer," as Chipper Jones so aptly describes it) and churn out some more crap. For more than a century, .220 meant something. So did .278, .301, .350, an 18-4 record, or 118 RBIs. Now it all means nothing because a bunch of nonathletes are trying to reinvent the game?
I know you'll need a minute or two to digest that before we continue with the rest of this post.

I understand. Take your time. (By the way, hat (guy?) tip to SoSH.)

























Okay? Amazing, isn't it?

Grant Brisbee of McCovey Chronicles was equally impressed:
I look forward to his next column, in which he absolutely skewers police officers for liking donuts. Don't get him started on airplane peanuts. ...

My favorite part was when the guy who called out "stat-crazed dunces" ended his rant by holding hands with his favorite stats. ...

The best way to mock this, though, would be a good dose of flattery-by-imitation. Here's the template:
For (some extended period of time), (this outdated stuff) meant something. So did (other outdated stuff). Now it all means nothing because a bunch of (pejorative) are trying to reinvent the (subject)?
Such as...
For several centuries, boiling lead meant something. So did trebuchets, mangonels, and battering rams. Now it all means nothing because a bunch of gunpowder fetishists are trying to reinvent the rules of modern combat?
See? Fun. Have at it.
And they do ...:
For eons now, throwing our feces out of our windows and into the street meant something. So did walking through those feces on our way to the apothecary. Now it all means nothing because a bunch of civil engineers are trying to reinvent the sewage system?

For centuries, snake oil meant something. So did trepanning, the four humors, and leeches. Now it all means nothing because a bunch of lab-coated microscope-squinters are trying to reinvent medicine?

For every year in human history up until the point where I started feeling old and confused and underappreciated, all the ways that we did some things meant something. So did all the ways that we did all the other things. Now it all means nothing because a bunch of people who are younger than me are trying to reinvent the ways we do things?

For 1000's of years, assuming celestial bodies were Gods meant something. So did thinking the earth was flat. Now it all means nothing because a bunch of penis-faced scientists are trying to reinvent astrology?

For decades, slavery meant something. So did the subjugation of women. Now it all means nothing because a bunch of hippies are trying to reinvent civil rights?

For many millenia, crawling around on all fours meant something. So did slithering, oozing, flopping, writhing, and squirming. Now it all means nothing because a bunch of bipedal baboon-babies are trying to reinvent the concept of effecient movement?
And, from marcello:
I was certain he had written the following before:
For more than a century, .220 meant something. So did .278, .301, .350, an 18-4 record, or 118 RBIs. Now it all means nothing because a bunch of nonathletes are trying to reinvent the game?
Using my mother’s computer wizardry, I found out I was right (ironic title is ironic):
But no matter how modern-day statisticians try to downplay traditional numbers, there’s a volume of meaning in .178, .230, .289 and .337, at least when based over a long period of time. That’s a wonderful little taste of truth.
So not only is he an idiot, not only has he learned nothing about the game of baseball in almost 6 years, he’s also just recycling material.
Oh, man, that older article is also pure gold:
"Interesting team. They've got one guy leading the league in WHIP and another in VORP."

For heaven's sake, speak English. This is the new cool trend in baseball, quoting esoteric statistics as if they've been part of the game's fabric for 50 years. Go ahead, disappear into a basement somewhere and play around with numbers. Be sure to remember HEEP, SKANK and VLZSKS, while you're at it. We'll be out in the sun, discussing a little thing we like to call "runs batted in."
Hey, Bruce, let me introduce you to someone. Maybe you've heard of him. Branch Rickey? Did some stuff awhile back, led to some pretty big changes in the game, actually. Couldn't speak a damn bit of English, though.

Finally, I'll leave you with several slices of heaven from FJM.

58 comments:

Jeremy said...

I'm not scared to learn, "new" stats just don't have any meaning, nor do I want to relearn some math to understand them. ERA+? Higher or lower is better? Fuck if I know. I know an era should be low. WHIP? Is that how many times you hurt them with the leather? UZR? It has to be re-explained to me every time I see it. So if these new stats are meaningless to the unwashed masses, why bother?

This comes from a longtime fan of the game. Not afraid to learn. Just, what the fuck does it mean?

I see you use stats I don't understand all the time. There are so many it would add 15 to 20 minutes to each article I don't have time for. (To look them up, since I don't typically see them outside this blog, since I don't read too many others) so I just take your word for it that they mean something that you know they mean and ignore them.

Not dissing the blog, this is the only one I come to for baseball.

laura k said...

"new" stats just don't have any meaning

Do you mean, they don't have any meaning that you care to understand? Because obviously, they have meaning.

So if these new stats are meaningless to the unwashed masses, why bother?

Not everyone has the same interests, and that's fine. But it's not fine to ridicule other people's interests, or to assume those interests are meaningless.

Who exactly do you mean are "the unwashed masses"? Why do you assume these stats are meaningless to them? Because they're meaningless to you, and you are generalizing your own feelings to others?

laura k said...

Not afraid to learn. Just, what the fuck does it mean?

Not afraid, but perhaps unwilling. That's your perogative. I don't spend a lot of time thinking about some of the newer stats either. There's only so much time in the day, and I'm very busy with other things, and this isn't in keeping with my focus and my priorities.

But I don't assume that because I'm not interested, the stats are meaningless, and people who use them are weird, or are sucking the life out of the game, or any number of assumptions.

I'm sure you can see the difference, yes?

laura k said...

Re Jenkins, this

stat-crazed dunces

and

(to "your mother's basement and your mother's computer," as Chipper Jones so aptly describes it)

is really beyond the beyond.

When people have to resort to ad hominem attacks, they are out of ideas.

And hey, anyone who doesn't know what ad hominem means, you could look it up.

Or, you could call me an intellectual elite, admonish me to "speak English", say I am an ugly dyke (a typical flame at female sports fans) and believe that your ignorance makes you superior.

laura k said...

PS: WHIP is just about the easiest baseball stat to understand. Any unwashed mass can get it.

Anyone who includes WHIP on the list of incomprehensible baseball stats is not trying. That's totally fine if you're not interested.

But don't call a simple stat like WHIP meaningless or esoteric or beyond the mental capacity of an average fan.

Jeremy said...

RE: The unwashed masses: I don't see them on the MLB sites, I don't hear fans I know and have grown up with talking about them, and I don't hear about them during game broadcasts.

They are "meaningless," to me, in that there is no weight to them.

Look, I know if a batting average is around .300, thats pretty damn good. I know if an ERA is below 3.00 for a starter, over their career, they are probably not going to give up too many runs in a game.

But I don't know what these new stats "mean" and I only see them on this blog on a regular basis. If they are so useful and have such a meaning to all involved, why aren't they more ubiquitous?

I started to look them up when I started seeing them here. I've been coming here for like 5 or 6 years now and I still don't know what an ERA+ is. or a WHIP. or any of the other stats used here to describe the worth of a player with a number. I don't begrudge you, I didn't say I did, or anyone else who uses them, but, I ask, what do they mean, if they are only used by a handful of people who really know the value of these numbers? And for that matter, why should it matter to me?


And, you say, they obviously have meaning? If it was obvious, wouldn't I understand that meaning? Since I don't, and like I said, i'm not afraid to learn, how is it so obvious? I have tried to understand them, but an ERA+ is usually some 2 or 3 digit number that is just a number. How does it relate to what a pitcher does on the field? When I looked at the formula used, it didn't make sense except that some guy found a way to put some of the numbers together to come out with another number to match other pitchers against each other. Higher or lower is better, and better yet, why? And whats the actual meaning behind the number?

Batting Average? pretty easy to understand, doesn't take too much to figure out, even if it means a player has about a 25% chance to hit a ball (which when you think about it is pretty dismal)

ERA? Well, thats the number of runs given up per nine innings pitched. Thats also pretty obvious. You don't want a guy with a lifetime ERA of 9.32 starting your 4th game in a best of 5 series when you've only got 2 wins.

But ERA+? if a guy has 90... or 113... or 200.. 200 what? it doesn't track back gracefully, except for the convoluted formula behind it. You have to know a hell of a lot more. (I just looked it up, looks like a lot of.. intangibles) I don't keep track of which park is a pitchers or hitters park. Do you mean I'm supposed to, now, in this era of new stats, when before I didn't? Why does it matter?

I didn't assume those peoples interests were meaningless, just that the numbers are meaningless to me.

And I wasn't dissing anyone. If you took it that way, I apologize.


Wow. Guess I hit a nerve.

laura k said...

No, you didn't hit a nerve. You didn't offend me and I certainly hope I didn't offend you.

Perhaps the use of the word "obviously" is a mistake, because as you said, the meaning is not obvious to you.

However, my point in using that word is that the stats have meaning, they are not without meaning.

Some of the meanings are extremely easy to understand - WHIP, for example. Others are more complex and more difficult to understand.

But why they are not used more, or why you don't know more fans who use them, is not a function of their meaning or lack of meaning.

(more soon...)

laura k said...

If they are so useful and have such a meaning to all involved, why aren't they more ubiquitous?

Sports media is very conservative and unwilling to take the lead on ideas they consider new. Most fans get their sports info from this media, so they repeat what they hear.

Many in the mainstream sports media are genuinely threatened by a new media world that increasingly has no use for them, so instead of learning more, they ridicule, deride and attack. If said unwashed mass keeps hearing these stats are stupid, nerdy, useless... why would they look into them further?

Why does it matter?

It matters if you care about more sophisticated measures of how well a player is doing.

It matters if you accept the fact - not opinon, fact - that many commonplace statistics really measure very little.

I didn't grow up in a sports world, so I came upon the standard stats as an adult. Not knowing anything about any of this, I asked, "What good is knowing how many runs a player batted in if you don't know how many men were on base when he was batting? Shouldn't that number be expressed as a percentage?"

It seemed obvious to me. A guy who posts here who comes from a non-baseball country told us the same thing: he never knew about the old way of looking at baseball, so the newer ways instantly made more sense to him.

You seem to be lumping all the progressive stats together, as if they are all equally complex and equally (to you) meaningless. But seriously, you can't get your mind around hits and walks allowed by a pitcher per innnings pitched? Perhaps rather than throw out the whole lot of them, allow yourself to contemplate one stat and see if it might have value to your understanding of the game.

To me, understanding how many runs and walks a pitcher allows per inning greatly increases my understanding of whether or not that pitcher is any good. And that's why WHIP has meaning to me.

laura k said...

Also, to clarify, what I found offensive was what Bruce Jenkins wrote, not what commenter Jeremy wrote.

* * * *

This blog is hardly the only place to use more progressive stats, but I'd be interested in hearing others' thoughts on why more some more progressive stats haven't been more widely adopted.

laura k said...

Batting Average? pretty easy to understand

A, you weren't born knowing what batting average is. If you learned that, you can certainly learn what WHIP, OPS and ERA+ is.

And B, you may feel it's easy to understand, but it doesn't provide a very accurate measure how well a player hits. And shouldn't that be more important than sticking to what you know and rejecting what you don't know?

Pokerwolf said...

Sports media is very conservative and unwilling to take the lead on ideas they consider new.

Indeed. Look how long it's taken them to show OPS as a stat and to talk about it.

I have to agree with Laura's comments about "learned stats" too. Especially batting average.

FenFan said...

Jeremy, I’m a long-time fan of the game, too. I don't understand every "new" statistic being used by baseball analysts, and that's okay. Not understanding UZR isn't going to take away from my enjoyment of the game. If I want to rely on the old standards (batting average, RBI, W-L, ERA, etc.), that’s my prerogative.

However, to criticize those who use these statistics to study the value of a ballplayer in the manner that Jenkins uses is just plain juvenile.

allan said...

I was busy with work and missed the fun! And then I lost my long reply. Here it is again, more or less:

So if these new stats are meaningless to the unwashed masses, why bother?

Baseball is meaningless to most people -- why bother with it at all? Most people do not go to the theatre – why bother with it at all? Most people never go to Fenway Park – so why bother with it?

If someone loves a sport (or an author or a band or a place), he often wants to learn as much about it as he can. Simple as that.

ERA+? Higher or lower is better? Fuck if I know.

Higher is better. ... now you know.

WHIP? Is that how many times you hurt them with the leather?

Walks and Hits allowed per Innings Pitched. Or Baserunners Allowed Per Inning (BAPI!). I have no idea why they bring it out to 3 decimal places (to make it look different than ERA?), but under 1.000 is great, over 1.500 is bad.

See how easy this is?

UZR? It has to be re-explained to me every time I see it.

Each fielder is responsible for a portion of the field. If a ball is hit into that area, he has got to catch it or somehow track it down. When you are in the field, getting outs is good. An outfielder who catches a lot of fly balls or an infielder who gets to a lot of grounders will likely generate more outs for his team. If you put a slug like Doug Mirabelli in center field, a lot of catchable fly balls will drop in for hits (not outs). UZR is the percentage of outs made per # of balls hit into the player’s area (or zone). If 100 balls are hit into your area and you record 83 outs with them, your UZR is .830. If you generated only 27 outs on those 100 balls, then it’s .270. Higher is obviously better.

allan said...

Part 2


I don't see them on the MLB sites

They are there. Here are pitching stats for the Red Sox this spring.

But I don't know what these new stats "mean" and I only see them on this blog on a regular basis. If they are so useful and have such a meaning to all involved, why aren't they more ubiquitous?

You admit you “don't read too many other [blogs]”, so how would you know if they are being used elsewhere or not? P.S. They are. (And a lot of ones I do not use are all over the place, too.)

...but an ERA+ is usually some 2 or 3 digit number that is just a number. How does it relate to what a pitcher does on the field?

...but an ERA is usually some 2 or 3 digit number that is just a number. How does it relate to what a pitcher does on the field?

Batting Average? pretty easy to understand, doesn't take too much to figure out,

Actually, it is one of the more complex stats ever devised.

But it is limited. It says a single is exactly the same as a home run -- and thinks walks are so useless that the hitter's entire time at the plate should be erased from history. (A guy walks and he is 0-for-0.)

I don't keep track of which park is a pitchers or hitters park. Do you mean I'm supposed to, now

No. You can do, or not do, whatever you like.

Why does it matter?

Seriously?

Some parks have deep fences, some have short porches, some have very little foul territory, some have huge swaths of it, some parks are at a very high altitude, some are at sea level, some are in cold climates, some are in very hot climates. These differences can affect what happens in a game --a lot!

None of us were born knowing anything about baseball. None of us came out of the womb knowing about slugging percentage or ERA or VORP – or even what a strike zone is or which way to run around the bases. Yet we learned.

And there should never be a time in your life when you decide you have learned everything there is to know.

laura k said...

Oh sure FenFan, say what I meant in a fraction of the words, while I blather away. Way to be succinct. :)

Jeremy said...

Thank you Laura, you've given me a perspective that I can appreciate.

I will think about this.

And in my own informal survey, I asked a few people (baseball fans) what ERA+ and OPS were and only one out of 5 knew what even one of those was. Another thought it was simply ERA. And even after looking up ERA+ I found it very hard to explain.

Admittedly,while WHIP is a NEW stat, I understand what goes into it. That helps me a lot. If I can understand the mechanics behind it, I can understand the number. I will take your suggestion and try to understand one at a time.

laura k said...

I asked, "What good is knowing how many runs a player batted in if you don't know how many men were on base when he was batting? Shouldn't that number be expressed as a percentage?"

You should have seen the look on Allan's face.

laura k said...

Thank YOU, Jeremy!

****

When it comes to informal surveys, we often know people who know the same things we do. That's one reason the blogosphere is so great - we can connect with people who know so much more about so many different things.

laura k said...

ERA+ is probably a bit more difficult to understand than WHIP. But OPS?! Every baseball fan should know what OPS is.

Who used to call it SLOB (Slugging + On Base)? That's how I first heard of it.

laura k said...

I wonder if, in addition to conservative mainstream media, this has something to do with a macho mentality.

You know the whole stereotype about men not wanting to ask for directions. Our society places such a premium on independence, self-sufficiency - so many people can't ask for help. Admitting they don't know something is like a sign of weakness. And about sports?! How could they not understand everything there is to know about sports?! What kind of men would they be?!

I wonder if this partly explains the defensiveness of people like Bruce Jenkins. Why else would they constant say that people who use these stats are wimps, losers, living in the mother's basements (i.e., not real men)?

allan said...

You should have seen the look on Allan's face.

The look of love.

SLOB - Allen Barra, I believe.

allan said...

Admittedly,while WHIP is a NEW stat, I understand what goes into it. That helps me a lot. If I can understand the mechanics behind it, I can understand the number.

No stat can tell you everything, but WHIP is way better than ERA for a relief pitcher, because of his low innings or short outings.

Papelbon comes in with 2 outs in the 9th, Sox up 6-4, allows a cheap solo dong and gets a strikeout for the save. Boston wins and Bot's ERA for the game is 27.00.

allan said...

What if you live in a flood area and blog from your mom's attic?

laura k said...

What if you live in a flood area and blog from your mom's attic?

Sorry, attics are for madwomen only. Wimpy men, please confine yourself to basements. Don't mix your stereotypes!

allan said...

There are tons of places to get definitions of these things.

ERA+ adjusts a pitcher's ERA according to (a) his ballpark and (b) the overall ERA of his league.

An average ERA+ is 100. How far above 100 you go is how far above the league average you were. How far below 100 you go is how far below the league average you were.

It is the same deal with OPS+ -- above and below 100.

Both stats allow you some ability to compare players across vastly difference eras.

In 1968, Yaz hit .301/.426/.495 for a 170 OPS+.

In 1930, Bill Terry hit .401/.452/.619 for a 158 OPS+.

Because overall offense was through the friggin roof in 1930 and was down in 1968. So despite lower averages, Yaz had a better year stat-wise.

And that is why Pedro in 1999 and 200 cleaned the clock of every pitcher who ever lived, even though his ERA was higher than a lot of other guys throughout history.

You would probably agree that it was WAY easier to post a 2.20 ERA in the Deadball Era than it was in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Now we have a way to tell just how much easier or harder it was.

laura k said...

I find with the more progressive, less typical stats, it helps if someone gives you a benchmark of what's good, what's average, and what sucks.

Part of why BA, RBI and ERA seem easy, is because, as Jeremy said, we know certain benchmarks - .300, 50, 3.0, whatever.

And then you could relate the benchmarks to players. Pedro's ERA+ in 1999 was X, while the league average ERA+ was Y, and [some shitty pitcher]'s ERA+ was Z.

In case you are thinking of teaching a course in this.

laura k said...

Ha! I posted that re benchmarks and players before I saw Allan's comment directly above mine.

allan said...

Sports media is very conservative and unwilling to take the lead on ideas they consider new.

That Rickey article from 1954 that I linked to begins:

"Baseball people generally are allergic to new ideas. We are slow to change. ... If the baseball world is to accept this new system of analyzing the game — and eventually it will — it must first give up preconceived ideas. I had to. The formula outrages certain standard that experienced baseball people have sworn by all their lives. ... It is the hardest thing in the world to get big league baseball to change anything ... But they will accept this new interpretation of baseball statistics eventually. They are bound to."

Sounds like it could have been written yesterday.

Jeremy said...

I find with the more progressive, less typical stats, it helps if someone gives you a benchmark of what's good, what's average, and what sucks.

Part of why BA, RBI and ERA seem easy, is because, as Jeremy said, we know certain benchmarks - .300, 50, 3.0, whatever.

And then you could relate the benchmarks to players. Pedro's ERA+ in 1999 was X, while the league average ERA+ was Y, and [some shitty pitcher]'s ERA+ was Z.



This. This has a lot to do with it. High/low is better? A higher X stat may be good, but why? and what do you compare it to?

Thats a lot of what I was getting at with my first post. Maybe I was being grumpy, but as I've shown I am not the only one who doesn't know the meaning of these stats. And that was kind of my point. Everyone knows the old school stats. The new ones are used a bit more selectively (I could only find WHIP and OPS on MLB.com) and are NOT ubiquitous. It may be in the "blogosphere" as some have pointed out, but even the MLB themselves aren't using these stats. If they are so important, why aren't they?





Without knowing, or being told, that WHIP is more useful for relief pitchers than ERA, I wouldn't know how to apply it.

laura k said...

It may be in the "blogosphere" as some have pointed out, but even the MLB themselves aren't using these stats. If they are so important, why aren't they?

I think you're asking the wrong question.

First of all, many people affiliated with MLB do use progressive stats. The Red Sox, for example.

Second, MLB as a whole is an incredibly hidebound, conservative organization, very slow to embrace change. To assume that if MLB's not doing something it's not worth doing is a bit ridiculous.

Is it so difficult to imagine that something could be very useful - that some statistics actually do measure more accurately and more in-depth - and yet have not been widely adopted?

Is the dominant way of doing things always right?

Is the most popular book, movie, actor, whatever, always the highest quality?

It would be nice if the baseball establishment would get on board with this, but you're saying that because they don't, you shouldn't?

Perhaps you're hitching your wagon to the wrong star. Instead of saying why TF should I care about VORP, ERA+ and WHIP, perhaps you should say, why TF should I care what MLB does? Or what the mainstream sports media thinks. Or what five of my friends know.

allan said...

Without knowing, or being told, that WHIP is more useful for relief pitchers than ERA, I wouldn't know how to apply it.

Once you know what it measures -- the average number of baserunners a pitcher allows per inning (again, it's only hits and walks, but that's mostly where the runners come from) -- then you could go over to Baseball Reference and check out the leaders in various pitching categories for 2010.

1. Lee (TOT) 1.003
2. Hernandez (SEA) 1.057
3. Weaver (LAA) 1.074
4. Cahill (OAK) 1.109
5. Marcum (TOR) 1.147
6. Braden (OAK) 1.157
7. Guthrie (BAL) 1.161
8. Verlander (DET) 1.163
9. Lewis (TEX) 1.189
10. Sabathia (NYY) 1.191

So if you are allowing less than 1.2 runners per inning, you're Top 10 material.

You can go to BRef's 2010 Red Sox page and see what the pitchers did last year. Then go here to Player Standard Pitching and click on WHIP to sort by WHIP.

Lester (1.202, 13th in AL) and Buchholz (1.203, 14th) were good and Lackey (1.419, 36th) and Beckett (1.535, not enough innings to qualify) were horrible.

But maybe it seems like 1.2 and 1.5 are about the same. What is the difference of 1/3 of a runner per inning? Assuming the starter goes 6 innings, that's 2 extra baserunners per start, which can lead to longer innings and more pitches thrown. And at 32 starts a year, that's an additional 64 baserunners that another pitcher doesn't have to deal with.

Same thing with fielding. If a shortstop gets to 64 more ground balls than another shortstop, that is a huge advantage -- even if the guy who is getting to more balls makes a few more errors. Because even if maybe 3 of the 64 grounders are errors for the guy with range, they are a full 64 more hits for the other team with Jeter out there.

allan said...

Something to remember about how conservative MLB is:

On-base percentage did not become an official stat until 1985.

Think about that. Getting on base is the most important thing a batter can do. It's his only job. It doesn't matter how he does it, because any way he gets on base is better than making an out.

And the National League was in business for almost 110 years before major league baseball decided that the percentage of how often a guy gets on base was important enough to keep track of.

So when will MLB embrace VORP or xFIP? Roughly 4835.

Patrick said...


Thats a lot of what I was getting at with my first post. Maybe I was being grumpy, but...


Lots of people got to learn the hard way what type of language is acceptable in here. The common denominator for what's acceptable in blogs is much lower than this site.

laura k said...

several slices of heaven from FJM

I just read this - wow. Terrific stuff.

allan said...

I just read this - wow. Terrific stuff.

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Laura read FJM and said it was "terrific" and "wow". This is huge!!!

March 18, 2011 -- a historic day in JoS history.

allan said...

Lots of people got to learn the hard way what type of language is acceptable in here.

I don't think it was a question of language. I'm sure Jeremy's questions are not uncommon among a lot of baseball fans.

I would assume that someone who has been reading JoS for 5 years would be somewhat of a stathead -- or at least be open and receptive to new ideas -- but maybe that's a misconception on my part.

Better ways of thinking about the game and measuring player value and contribution are certainly not going to take hold until more people understand the thinking behind those ways -- and are able to ask what might seem like dumb or naive questions.

I think that is something the stat community -- for lack of a better term (we all use stats, RBI and batting average are stats) -- needs to focus on or consider (and I have read discussions here and there). How to break through to the average fan.

Because even though all of the old guard will eventually retire and die, there are plenty of young fans reading Jenkins and Morgan and CHB and adopting the same attitudes.

allan said...

FJM on Jenkins, August 2008.

It's posts like that what created the Legend of FJM. Damn.

laura k said...

Laura read FJM and said it was "terrific" and "wow". This is huge!!!

Oh ha ha, not really huge. You linked to a very good post, I can always appreciate that. But I couldn't read a steady diet of that, it would grow old very very fast.

laura k said...

I think that is something the stat community -- for lack of a better term (we all use stats, RBI and batting average are stats) -- needs to focus on or consider (and I have read discussions here and there). How to break through to the average fan.

Maybe someone will find a way to make it fun and easy for fans. But you're talking about an entrenched culture (sports) and the general culture that is trending ever dumber.

tim said...

WOW.

I owe a large part of my knowledge of these crazy newfangled stats to JoS and Allan (and of course, the Red Sox in general) using them - I knew they existed, but actually seeing them used led me to look them up and actually understand what they are.

For hundreds of years, burning garbage meant something. So did CFCs, landfills and the milk man. Now it all means nothing because a bunch of environmentalist whack jobs are trying to reinvent waste management?

/feebleattempt

tim said...

say I am an ugly dyke

You're one of the most beautiful levees I've seen!

tim said...

As for the general acceptance of these stats, I can't see that ever happening. At least not in this generation or the next couple...although the internet and the way teams evaluate players will go a long way in determining that. The sustained success of the Red Sox over the past few years should be used as a benchmark for teams going forward to model their player scouting/evaluation...

I tried discussing the meaninglessness of pitcher W-L with some people recently and it was completely futile. Stuff like:

"His team picks him up if he's pitching well so he'll get a win"
"If he gets a loss its probably because he gave up too many runs"
"Well, you have to look at his ERA too...he could be lucky sometimes, but still, only the best get to 20 wins"
"If your team wins 20 games with you on the mound, that's pretty good"

allan said...

For tens of thousands of years, drawing crude lines in the dirt with a stick meant something. So did grunting for hours at each other in mono-syllables. Now it all means nothing because a bunch of quiche-eating, PBS-bag-toting elites are trying to reinvent the way we communicate by using universally-accepted shapes as "letters" and grouping them together into "words" that have "meanings" and when presented in a precise order can convey "thoughts" and "feelings"?

allan said...

I tried discussing the meaninglessness of pitcher W-L with some people recently and it was completely futile.

I have said W-L is totally useless, but maybe it is .01% useful. (Maybe.) It tells you something, but not very much. There are too many other noisy variables to make W-L that important in analysis. And there are other stats that can tell you more about the exact same thing you are hoping W-L will do.

Why look at something through the end of a straw when you can enjoy the view through a super-wide picture window?

allan said...

Posnanski highlights the same quote in My Mother's Basement (in which he talks about the actual basement and the fun he had it in as a child) (my emphasis):

I've always liked and admired the work of Bruce Jenkins. But the top quote is so annoying and bizarre and convoluted and maddening ... how could anyone fighting for the integrity of resplendently crappy stats like batting average, wins and RBIs call ANYONE ELSE a "stat-crazed dunce?" Why are people who hate advanced stats so interested in the underwear bloggers wear? ...

Also ... the nonathletes line at the end is nonsensical. Does Bruce think that athletes invented batting average and RBIs? Does he think Walter Johnson sat at home and devised the archaic rules to define a pitcher's win? Lou Gehrig said "we ought to give an RBI to the guy who drives in a run?" I never stop being amazed by how much people who hate stats because they're "flawed" quote so much more obviously flawed stats.

More than anything, though, I have to ask: How could Bruce really think that one of the biggest cliches of our time -- the blogger in the mother's basement cliche -- was invented by Chipper Jones? ...

My mother's basement was a wonderful place. It is, in so many ways, where I became a man. I visit there often in my mind. I'm usually wearing pants.

***

allan said...

Over at Beyond The Box Score, the paragraph was posted and there was this comment from lightbulb:

"I think I'm going to buy that URL
fourthdayundies.com. I’ve been wanting to start a saber blog, just didn’t have the inspiration for a great URL. Thanks Jenkins!"

laura k said...

Why are people who hate advanced stats so interested in the underwear bloggers wear? ...

:>)

the nonathletes line at the end is nonsensical.

True, but it's a clue to what he's really saying. Athletes are tough guys, real men. Statheads are, you know...

Signed, one of the most beautiful levees Tim has ever seen

FenFan said...

Baseball is very conservative. Instant replay is another perfect example. I don't have any numbers to back up these comments but I believe the general consensus among fans and baseball writers -- the same ones we disagree with here -- is to implement a replay system beyond home run calls. Even Don Denkinger and US President Obama support replay in baseball. We have the technology to make it relatively painless. Instead, Selig continues to dig in his heels because he doesn't want to hurt the integrity of the game. Huh?

Oh sure FenFan, say what I meant in a fraction of the words, while I blather away. Way to be succinct. :)

I'm going to show those comments to my wife. She thinks I'm too wordy sometimes. ;)

laura k said...

I'm going to show those comments to my wife. She thinks I'm too wordy sometimes. ;)

She may be right, maybe sometimes you are. ;) But I always am.

allan said...

Wow. Guess I hit a nerve.

A difference of opinion is not an argument.

An alternate point of view is not an insult.

***

I have enjoyed this thread.

allan said...

A commenter in Pos's thread:

"That quote from Chipper Jones is taken out of context. He isn't talking about statheads; he's talking about the trolls who frequent the AJC's website and write things like "Stick a fork in him." As Jones well knows, his internet defenders use advanced stats to make their case for him. For example, his ability to take a walk, as reflected in his on-base average, shows him to be more valuable in the lineup than a quick glance at his batting average would make it seem. Defensive metrics also show him to be a better third baseman than is generally assumed.
So way to go, Jenkins. Not only are you trading in cliches, but you have to take quotes out of context in order to even do that."

****

laura k said...

Oh man, he even managed to screw over the baseball player he quoted! I'm glad you posted the clarification.

I also enjoyed this thread. I would hope that everyone who frequents this blog knows we can respectfully discuss and disagree.

About baseball, that is. :)

Amy said...

I am still working through all the comments here, but had to respond to this:

I would assume that someone who has been reading JoS for 5 years would be somewhat of a stathead -- or at least be open and receptive to new ideas -- but maybe that's a misconception on my part.

I am not a stathead, and I admit that I just cannot remember what some of the stats mean or what is good or bad, as Jeremy says. I have learned some well enough to make sense of them---like WHIP and OPS, but to be honest, I still don't know what is a good OPS from a bad one.

Could be just my inability to learn new things as easily as I once could---like learning a new language is so much easier for kids than for adults. But I am still trying and certainly not dismissive of how these stats can be valuable to assessing a player's value to a team. I just read along and hope something sticks!

BTW, the NYTimes began running a regular column last season that explained and relied on these "new" stats, so perhaps these are becoming more mainstream and will someday replace the "old" stats as the common language for baseball fans.

laura k said...

BTW, the NYTimes began running a regular column last season that explained and relied on these "new" stats, so perhaps these are becoming more mainstream and will someday replace the "old" stats as the common language for baseball fans.

This is a column I'd like to see Allan write for a news or sports site one day.

Amy said...

Here is a link to the first column in that series:

Keeping Score

It ran throughout the season.

Amy said...

It might have been more in the Bats column that ran throughout the season. As here .

allan said...

I still don't know what is a good OPS from a bad one.

Someone listed them this way:

.750 - Mediocre
.800 - Serviceable
.850 - Solid
.900 - Great
.950 - All-Star
1.000 - Pujols

Boston's team OPS last year was #1 in MLB: .790.
The AL average was .734.

AL 2010 OPS Leaders
1. Hamilton (TEX) 1.044
2. Cabrera (DET) 1.042
3. Bautista (TOR) .995
4. Konerko (CHW) .977
5. Beltre (BOS) .919
6. Cano (NYY) .914
7. Scott (BAL) .902
8. Ortiz (BOS) .899
9. Choo (CLE) .885
10. Longoria (TBR) .879

Amy said...

Thanks, Allan! That helps a lot. Now if I can just keep that in my head. Perhaps a helpful way of doing that for me (and for others like Jeremy) is to think of it as a grading scale. 75 = C, 80 C+/B-, 85 = solid B, 90 = A, 95 = A+.

Now...I just need some devices for doing the same with ERA+ and VORP and WHIP. At least that would be a start!