THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Friday, August 26, 2011

According to Christopher Gasper of Boston.com, HR is a crappy stat

He said so right here:

In 2009, Ellsbury’s UZR — the number of runs he saved versus an average center fielder—was minus-9.7, one of the worst ratings among regular center fielders. Cameron’s was 11.4.
...
However, it’s worth noting that in the MVP-caliber season Ellsbury is having, restored in center field, he is suddenly among the game’s best defensive center fielders, according to the same statistical measure that once condemned him.

Ellsbury has an 11.2 UZR this season, second-best among regular center fielders.

That’s around a 20 run swing!  How can you possibly have a metric that adds 20 runs to his total value from one year to the next?  Obviously, the metric is crappy.

What’s that?  He didn’t say anything about home runs?  But Jacoby’s HR totals in his two full seasons of 2008, 2009 were 9 and 8.  And this year, he’s at 23 and counting.  He’s already bumped up his HR count by 15, which means he’s already added at least 20 runs to his value.

So, we have a problem if a metric shows Jacoby increasing his fielding by 20 runs, but we don’t have a problem if a metric shows Jacoby increasing his power by 20 runs?

The fact of the matter is that all metrics are based on observations, and some metrics have an additional uncertainty in terms of counting opportunities.  While most opportunities at the plate are created somewhat equal (Jacoby will face Verlander and Royals pitchers, just like everyone else will), not all opportunities on the field are created equal.

So, we’ve got an uncertainty level.  I will say that showing UZR to one decimal place is a problem.  It implies a level of precision that does not exist.

And then he goes on:

Another problem with numbers is that they’re only as good as their application. There is a baseball statistic called batting average on balls in play that applies to pitchers. Sabermetricians regard this stat as a measure of luck, positing that once a ball is put in play the outcome of the play is largely out of the pitcher’s control.

Based on that theory it’s simply good old-fashioned good fortune that Tigers ace and Cy Young-in-waiting Justin Verlander has a .234 BABIP and Red Sox righthander John Lackey, who earlier this season was getting hit harder than a piñata, sports a.335 BABIP.

Is there a stat to account for putting common sense in play?

Of course he would pick the example that would most support him.  How about Pedro Martinez in 1999 (23-4, 2.07 ERA, 313 K, 37 BB) and 2000 (18-6, 1.74 ERA, 284 K, 32 BB)?  Two superlative seasons, where Pedro was all a pitcher can be.  But his BABIP in 1999 was .325, and in 2000 it was .237.  Are we suggesting therefore that Pedro, when the ball was put in play, was really crappy in 1999 but was super awesome in 2000?  Or, maybe, just maybe, the number of hits a pitcher allows has alot of components to it, that goes beyond the pitcher’s talent level?

Dude, I have no problem when you say this:

Whatever happened to the good, old-fashioned eye test or context? Formulating an opinion has been replaced by formulas when it comes to dissecting and discussing the games we love. Statistics have overrun sports the same way weeds spread through a deserted parking lot.

If the 1950s-’60s-era debate about who was a better player Mickey Mantle or Willie Mays was happening today, fans would simply look at who had the higher OPS-plus (On base percentage-plus-slugging percentage adjusted for ballpark conditions). It was Mantle. Or they would calculate who possessed the higher average WAR (wins above replacement value). It was Mays.

Where’s the romance in that?

Go ahead and do that!  No one is stopping you from the eye test, from the romance, from writing an entire article without quoting a single number.  Go ahead and wow us with John Updike prose.  We LIKE to read stuff like that.  The best sports book I ever read was Ken Dryden’s The Game.  I have no idea if he ever used any numbers.  If he did, I don’t remember.  He wrote a fantastic book nonetheless, and I’d rather re-read that book, then re-read any saber book.

Instead of writing an article saying how you don’t like what we do, why don’t you write an article writing what you do like? And the challenge to you: do so without quoting us a single number.  Romance us.