Baseball Analysis 101: Top 5 Things that need to go

[Rush]

http://www.virtualsportsnet.com/201...ysis-101-the-top-five-things-that-need-to-go/

Top 5 Things that need to go from baseball analysis. Thoughts on the article?

 

[EmpireWF]

lol yeah, Pitching wins, RBI, AVG and E should all go away?

Why hate on RBIs? If nothing else, it shows a player is clutch if he has runners on base.

 

[Senser81]

I will list my thoughts on each numbered point...

5) Agreed. Errors don't really happen all that frequently to begin with, and the scoring of errors is extremely subjective. They might be able to tell you who is really bad at fielding, but it doesn't really differentiate the fielders. I liken it to judging CBs by their INT total.

4) Somewhat disagree. Batting average is a nice, straight-forward statistic. You take from it what you will.

3) Somewhat disagree. Its all about production, and RBI is a good indicator of production. Its like an offensive player's TD total...sure, its somewhat dependent on their offensive teammates, but show me someone with a high TD total and I'll show you a pro bowl player (or Vince Young).

2) Agree, except in the case of Lefty34.

1) Agree completely. Bert Blyleven not being in the HOF is a great example of wins being overrated.

 

[FedEx227]

Bert continuing to get passed up for the Hall is just ridiculous.

 

[Goober]

LOL lefty lives in his mom's basement.

Seriously though, I would agree with errors, a lot of times when an error happens, more than one player was at fault, handing out errors to individual players doesn't help anyone.

The other stats I'm fine with, obviously with baseball sabermetrics there are better statistics for hardcore fans to judge players, but with casual fans there's no sense in doing away with stuff like batting average and wins which have always been a part of the game.

 

[FedEx227]

It's just way too subjective to be considered a decent way of analyzing a player. It's up to the discretion of the game scorer, who for all we know could be bias or be a complete idiot. What I consider an error, might not be what he, or you, or Senser considers an error. It's tough to evaluate on that sort of plane.

Added in the fact that every error ISN'T the same. A player may receive more errors because he's getting to more balls. He's making plays on balls that another SS/2B/3B, etc. might not be getting to. Should he be punished because he attempted to put his glove on a shot through the hole when he could've just let it go?

Errors are bad. Unfortunately, there's not that much out there to help us with defense. UZR/150, UZR, Zone Rating, Defensive Wins Above Replacement are all useful tools but rarely tell the full story and are open to criticism.

 

[EmpireWF]

RBI is all about chances. But at the same time, guys with big #s should be given credit. Even if they have all the chances, who's to say they can't suck in big spots?

 

[Senser81]

3.) Yes, when you look at the RBI leaders for a season, it is very likely that that the seasonal leaders are damn good baseball players in other areas. My point is that it is such a bad comparative statistic that it shouldn't be used in a straight comparison of players or imply that any one player is better overall than a group of others, which is what a lot of people use RBI's to do.

2.)Aw...

1.) Exactly, after this most recent round of HOF voting, I looked at his statistics to see where I stood on the "did Blyleven get jobbed?" question, and seeing how awesome he was in the other pitching categories (ERA+, WHIP, BB/K etc) except for wins inspired the writing of this article.

For whatever reason I just assumed that Rush had written the article. Now that I am looking at it again, I see that you are actually the author. Since that is the case, I am modifying my response...

5) Strongly disagree
4) Strongly disagree
3) Strongly disagree
2) Vehemently disagree
1) Strongly disagree

 

[FedEx227]

I was wondering. God damn, Senser really giving it easy to Lefty this time around. I thought you went soft. hahaha

 

[FedEx227]

RBI is all about chances. But at the same time, guys with big #s should be given credit. Even if they have all the chances, who's to say they can't suck in big spots?

I agree. It can still be used, but it shouldn't be the "be-all". I think people should still look at RBIs in a sense, but understand that it's VERY VERY dependent on the guys hitting ahead of the one. Don't let it be the only thing you look at.

 

[FedEx227]

Go ahead and do it. Nobody is stopping you. I'll read.

 

[NAHSTE]

I think that the average fan is becoming sophisticated enough to take from stats what is necessary. I don't think people see wins, average, etc. as the tell all stats like they did in the 50s and 60s.

At least I'd hope not. I don't think these should be eliminated, but it is true we should consider other variables when judging a player.

With the rise of sabrmetrics though, fans have become more savvy with lucking at things like SLG, OPS, and VORP/win shares. There still isn't a consensus on an accurate defensive stat, at least not from what I understand.

Solid points raised, but I've already adjusted my own evaluation of players to look past luck-based stats like AVG and wins.

 

[dell71]

My take:

#5 - Maybe. I wouldn't eliminate them but I wouldn't be pissed if they did.

#4 - Definitely disagree. Batting average is a simple enough and still important stat. Yes, other stats are more in-depth & arguably better but it simply tells me how good a guy is at simply getting hits.

#3 - Again, strongly disagree. Like Senser said, it's somewhat dependent on your teammates but the player still has to produce in those situations to get the RBI. After all, teams win games by scoring more runs than their opponents, not by calculating OPS after nine innings.

#2 - Irrelevant. Though it does seem some want to eliminate what you can see in favor of what you can calculate.

#1 - This is a tricky one. I think there is some value there because you send a pitcher out there to outpitch the other guy whether that's throwing a no-hitter or giving up 7 to his 8. This is the reason the Cy Young winners usually have lots of wins. They are usually the best pitcher who contributed most to their team's success. However, I agree that's not the best way to judge a pitcher over the course of his career. There are plenty of other stats for that. Again, I wouldn't necessarily eliminate them but definitely would be in favor of downplaying their role as an absolute indicator.

Btw, I'm one who's perfectly fine with Bert Blyleven not being in the HOF. I just maintain my position that if he does get in then I might lead an angry mob to Cooperstown with pitchforks and torches if Mike Mussina doesn't.

 

[Lumpkin]

5) somewhat agree, too many plays are subject to ruling that end up with errors given to the wrong player or given when they probably shouldn't be.

4)disagree, I agree with your statement "there are facets of offensive baseball that batting average simply does not account for," however I do not think that is cause enough to erradicate it for good. It still gives a basic overview of a players success at the plate.

3)somewhat agree, I think if you were to compare players based on RBI's the supporting cast should be taking into account. I don't think the stat is completely useless.

2) agree, those jokes are made by the same crowd that turn there nose at any changes to "america's national pastime"

1) I think you had the right idea but a flawed arguement. While no one would say Garcia pitched well in that game, by giving up 7 runs and his team scoring 8, Garcia did pitch well enough for his team to win. I think a better example would have been a pitcher who leaves a game with a lead and than has the bullpen blow it. When this happens on a consistant basis it can take a huge chunk out of a pitchers win total. This was the case with Johan Santana a few years back (I want to say it was the year of the epic collpase (2007) but I'm not positive). He was pitching great but the bullpen cost him 5-6 wins and thus to those who only compare by win totals he lost some merit. Wins aren't a useless stat but should defintiely be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[NAHSTE]

What you are glossing over is how dependent those RBI situations are on a player's teammates: completely. It's not "somewhat" or "sort of" dependent on things outside of an individual player's control, it's completely out of his control whether a given plate appearance has the potential to create an RBI (save for the one-run home run).

And while the use of RBI's in outright comparisons has been mitigated somewhat by the emergence of other metrics, people still use RBI's as implicit comparisons to another player, team or the league.

Take, for instance, the example I used in the article: two players on different teams, both with the same production in rate statistics (HR rate, walk rate, AVG, OBP, SLG) but one player plays on a team where the other 8 hitters average a .400 OBP and the other player's teammates average a .200 OBP. At the end of the season, who is the better player?

Their rate statistics will be exactly the same, but their RBI totals will be vastly different, and the player that benefited from having great teammates in front of him will inevitably be labeled "better" (because of his mammoth RBI total) despite having more RBI's than his counterpart only because his teammates gave him more chances.

And people forget that to laud a player for having a high RBI total is to implicitly criticize others for not doing the same, despite all RBI totals not being created equal.

Nothing you said is false, but what team is gonna average a .200 OBP for the season?

Anyway, forgetting that, would you prefer if there was an RBIs converted %? Like Player X converted 40% of his RBI opportunities while Player X only converted on 32%?

 

[FirstTimer]

While all this is fun academic discussion to have it's all kind of pointless in the end. Each of these stats has merit. None of them should be taken as the end all be all of stats and be used alone to judge a player but used in the proper context they can tell a story and help give an analysis. Yeah they are stats that are sometimes overused by the casual fan but at the end of the day not all fans are virgin stat geeks like Lefty and most fans of the MLB are of the "casual" variety. Yes people should look deeper into the stats than they do but eliminating some stats just because some dumb fans use them as the bible is counter productive to the stat analysis driven sport that baseball is.

 

[FirstTimer]

Nothing you said is false, but what team is gonna average a .200 OBP for the season?

Anyway, forgetting that, would you prefer if there was an RBIs converted %? Like Player X converted 40% of his RBI opportunities while Player X only converted on 32%?

Isn't that kind of what Avg w/RISP is?

 

[NAHSTE]

Isn't that kind of what Avg w/RISP is?

Yeah, pretty much, lol.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Things to consider with pitcher W's...

-Alot of pitchers pitch "to the score". Spot a guy a 7 run first inning lead, and he'll groove fastballs all day and trust the gloves behind him. So what if he gives up 5 runs in 6 innings, if the team wins 13-5? That's a good start, because the idea is to pitch well enough to win, not keep your ERA+ & K/BB ratio sharp.

-If a pitcher makes enough starts, cheap wins and tough luck losses will largely balance out.

For the most part, if a pitcher racks up alot of wins, he's probably pitching pretty well. I don't think anyone really ranks pitchers by wins, it's just another number that helps tell the story.

 

[FedEx227]

UZR is awesome, plus this year and next we're going to start seeing the rise in laser sighted defensive analysis. Although I'm not sure the public is going to have access to the results