THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Getting pretty annoyed with people writing things like Will did.

I don’t understand how one can be a fan of the game, without wanting to know the in-depth stats underlying what they just saw or might get to see soon. BA, home/road splits, & ERA, were advanced stats to me when I was 9, but OPS, WAR, & ERA+, aren’t advanced stats to me now.

Sabermetrics is a science like any other science.  It just happens to deal with a pastime, and it just happens to have an evil twin (the mainstream media).

You don’t see meteorologists, physicists, cosmologists, astronomers, physicists, etc. spending their time trying to make their work palpable to the general public.  Most of them of course. There are some that do, just as in sabermetrics, like a Neyer or a Posnaski.

It’s a silly and a tired argument…

re: OPS

I think a lot of fans just look at on-base and slg separately, so this seems a little silly to say they don’t look at OPS when it is just the combination of what people for sure are looking at.

#3/MGL - Except that most physicists don’t spend much time complaining that the general public doesn’t know the theory of relativity. As long as sabermetric people are going to complain that the media/public don’t value players correctly, for example when voting for a Cy Young, then they have a responsibility to try to educate. That said, the criticism is too broad - (I think) valid for many of those people that worry about MVP voting, or Hall of Fame voting, and invalid for those that are trying to develop better metrics solely because they want to better understand the game of baseball.

3/MGL:
5/Ken has some good points, plus your statement is contradictory.
“You don’t see meteorologists, physicists, cosmologists, astronomers, physicists, etc. spending their time trying to make their work palpable to the general public.  Most of them of course. There are some that do..”

So they do or they don’t?

The truth of the matter is they do, and with eloquence and frequency. Pick up Scienfitic American. Science. Nature. A Brian Greene book. Richard Dawkins. Psychology Today. Phyics Today. And on and on and on. Statisticians have an amazing head-start based on prior interest in the subject matter, so they/we should be doing better - far better. Yes, there are a few bloggers here and there, but given the amazing opportunity there is to introduce math and science and statistics to an already interested public, the approach has been far too antagonistic, unlyrical and unsuccessful.

I respect Tango’s personal point of view - he doesn’t really care - but I do think it’s a missed opportunity.

From what I’ve gathered, sabermetricians have been far less antagonistic about their views than they were 10-15 years ago. There was more of a “push back” against sabermetrics back then. Now, there are more people than ever before ready to look into baseball at the level that is done at FG or B-Ref or BP.

But it doesn’t mean that every sabermetrician needs to tailor his craft towards helping people still struggling with OPS to understand the most recent developments in sabermetrics. MGL, Tango, Patriot, and more than a few others have mentioned that they do this because it’s interesting to them, not because they want to educate others.

MGL’s point is apt; not every physicist explains the theory of relativity to laymen, just like not every sabermetrician explains how to derive a better B component for Base Runs to laymen. There are people like Posnanski, Neyer, and Dave Cameron who go out of their way to try and explain things like wOBA and WAR, and that’s great. But not everyone needs to do it.

Right, 5 and 6 make good points.  I have said this before - baseball is not important enough in the grand scheme to motivate me in any way shape or form to want to “educate the masses.” Other saberists like to do that.  I agree that it is too broad a brush to criticize sabermetricians in general for not doing a good enough job to educate the public.  Since it is not necessary (in my opinion), it is strictly a personal thing.

In many other disciplines, is IS important. For example, do we want parents to forgo vaccinations for their children because they are afraid of autism?

To me, the only important thing about sabermetrics is that it is a great tool to teach people (especially sports fans) to be critical and reasoned thinkers.  For example, if sabermetrics were a required course in public school, fewer kids would blindly swallow all the nonsense they hear and read on TV, the radio, and internet.

To me, the only important thing about sabermetrics is that it is a great tool to teach people (especially sports fans) to be critical and reasoned thinkers.  For example, if sabermetrics were a required course in public school, fewer kids would blindly swallow all the nonsense they hear and read on TV, the radio, and internet.

I think this is it exactly.  Whether most people use BA or OBP or WAR is of very little importance and I honestly couldn’t care.  That people are able to think critically is of enormous importance and that’s what being picky about all these details is about.

Coming at this from a hockey perspective as opposed to baseball, but I see no reason to “educate” fans.  Hockey analysis has two purposes to me: 1) be interesting; 2) change the way coaches and executives think about the game.

Fans, as a general rule, disagree with the way (old-school, not just new-school) that NHL teams analyze the game.  That’s pretty crazy when you think about it - baseball teams no longer systematically undervalue OBP, and fans don’t typically assert that teams are wrong for doing so.  I suppose there’s an opportunity for someone who has the patience to explain hockey analysis to the masses and can find some value in doing it.

On the other hand, we do have to thank Bill James for writing the books that convinced baseball executives to buy in to analysis.

For what it’s worth, now that Bill Simmons has embraced statistics in baseball, it’s going to help a bit. I don’t really see him reading this blog, but the fact that he mentioned FIP multiple times on PTI this week has to help some.

"On the other hand, we do have to thank Bill James for writing the books that convinced baseball executives to buy in to analysis.”

Why?  Who is the “we” and of what value to the fans is statistical analysis by teams?

As an anecdotal point, our math class learned about permutations and early probability theory when our class was following the ‘86 WS.
Unfortunately, as Red Sox fans.

@MGL - “royal we”?

Those of us who might want to see our ideas incorporated by team management.  It’s of zero value to the fans.

That’s not true. It’s about putting a better product on the field.

Better product on the field?  Is there any evidence that teams are playing significantly better players than they used to?  I could be wrong, but there were never more than a couple dozen players in the Roberto Petagine mold riding the pine.  Contracts were allocated a little differently, but the free talent market never had more than 30 wins in it.