Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

The League of Ordinary Gentlemen: sports metrics and the problem with unconventional wisdom

or..."If most people think you should punt, you probably shouldn’t.”

The more that I think about it, the more that I think the “metrics” school of sports analysis is the perfect example for understanding the limitations of insurgent intellectual movements. I have never known any ideology, group or position so likely to throw the baby out with the bathwater than the movement often (and unhelpfully) referred to as the “Moneyball” tendency.

That sucks, because I find the new metrics in sports, and particularly in baseball, to have an awful lot of useful, generative ideas about strategy, about talent evaluation, and about sports appreciation. But it’s sometimes so buried in such absurd, over-the-top “us-vs.-them”-ism that it becomes very difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. It is indeed true that OBP was for a long time a criminally underrated stat; it is not true that “a walk is as good as a hit”. (Just ask the coach with a man on third and two outs playing a team with a great double play combo.) It is true that Joe Morgan says a lot of stupid things about baseball; it is not true that the Fire Joe Morgan crew “knows more” about baseball than Joe Morgan. Who we should choose to listen to about effective baseball strategy is a different question. But who knows more? The guy who played and coached and lived baseball for decades. That’s who. Sorry.

...Ultimately, the problem with these new metrics is that their apostles are so consumed with the desire to buck the conventional wisdom that they cloud their own ability to reasonably evaluate sports. The tendency to reflexively contradict the conventional wisdom is just as distorting as the tendency to reflexively support it. More so, I would argue; the conventional wisdom is often conventional because it is banally true. Which is exactly why we should take the valid and valuable criticisms and minor revolutions that go on in insurgent intellectual movements to heart, and use them to our advantage, but to also approach them with a healthy amount of skepticism.

Repoz Posted: November 17, 2009 at 03:07 PM | 18 comment(s)
  Related News: GeneralSabermetricsProjections

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 1 pages
   1. Chris Needham  Posted: November 17, 2009 at 03:24 PM (#3389758)
Vote for Zobrist or Die, Ahole!
   2. Shooty Did Not Kill McGurk  Posted: November 17, 2009 at 03:27 PM (#3389763)
It would be a horrible thing for humanity if people can no longer reasonably evaluate sports.
   3. sunnyday2  Posted: November 17, 2009 at 03:33 PM (#3389769)
The main point seems to be to side with the second-guessers re. Bill Belicheck's controversial decision the other day. It didn't work and so it was the wrong decision, the writer says. Belicheck and others say it was the right decision because it would have resulted in a better outcome X percent of the time, assuming that percentage is greater than 50.

The irony here is that the writers says

But who knows more? The guy who played and coached and lived baseball for decades. That’s who. Sorry.


But I guess that this doesn't apply to football because in this case, it's the guy who has played and coached and lived football for decades AND the metrics crowd on one side, while the writer is on the other, and so the guy who has played and coached and lived football is wrong in this case.

So it really has nothing to do with whether a guy has played and coached and lived, it's whether I agree with them or not.
   4. haven  Posted: November 17, 2009 at 03:50 PM (#3389784)
But I guess that this doesn't apply to football because in this case, it's the guy who has played and coached and lived football for decades AND the metrics crowd on one side, while the writer is on the other

To be fair to the writer, from what I've seen as a reaction just about everyone else except Belichick that played or coached football agree with the writer. Even those with ties to Belichick.
   5. SoSH U at work  Posted: November 17, 2009 at 03:54 PM (#3389791)
But I guess that this doesn't apply to football because in this case, it's the guy who has played and coached and lived football for decades AND the metrics crowd on one side, while the writer is on the other, and so the guy who has played and coached and lived football is wrong in this case.


Well, it should be properly listed as "Every other coach and player plus this writer on one side vs. Belichick and the metrics crowd" on the other.

I generally support the idea of going for it on fourth down more than football teams typically do. I wouldn't have done it if I were the Pats, in part because, from what I've seen, I'm not sure all of the studies can really address the specific situations in the proper context.

Or, to put it another way, to the best knowledge, teams that go for the first down inside their own 30 while leading by 6 with a little more than 2 minutes left end up losing 100 percent of the time.
   6. JPWF13  Posted: November 17, 2009 at 03:55 PM (#3389792)
it is not true that “a walk is as good as a hit”

Never heard a "stathead" or "Moneyball tendency" say that, I think it's most often said by little league coaches
he tendency to reflexively contradict the conventional wisdom


That's funny, I haven't noticed that, what I have noticed is the tendency of the MSM and some "old time" baseball guys to reflexively contradict whatever the "statheads" say- even if all the staheads have effectively done is rephrase something the MSM/old timer believes in or believed in anyway.
More so, I would argue; the conventional wisdom is often conventional because it is banally true.

sometimes yes, and sometimes conventional wisdom is not wisdom at all, it's "conventional" because it's what a plurality at any given time THINKS, and the plurality THINKS what or does because it has been taught to. When I was growing up I thought the most important baseball stat was batting average, why? because I was told it was, and virtually everyone agreed, it was (and remained for a long time) conventional wisdom that the guy who won the "batting" title was the best "hitter".

Of course being a fan of a team that had a habit of losing despite "doing things the right way", I was quite receptive to the idea that much of what passed for conventional wisdom was crap.

Also I have always found it hard not to notice that what may be "conventional wisdom" to one person is no such thing to someone else. Someone may think that A is true, and may think that everyone else also thinks A is true, therefore A is conventional wisdom- except that person may be wrong, they may be a minority in thinking A is true.
   7. Cris E  Posted: November 17, 2009 at 03:57 PM (#3389795)
Which is exactly why we should take the valid and valuable criticisms and minor revolutions that go on in insurgent intellectual movements to heart, and use them to our advantage, but to also approach them with a healthy amount of skepticism.

And by that I think he means

But who knows more? The guy who played and coached and lived baseball for decades. That’s who. Sorry.

This guy is dumb, a bad writer, or dumb AND a bad writer. He wants to judge decsions strictly by their outcomes, but you can't *make* decisions by their outcomes. You have to use some criteria beforehand, and this is where you judge: did I include all relevant data? did I disregard chaff? did I weight things correctly? Did I listen to the right people or trust my gut? Getting to the right answer (assuming everything is black and white enough to so judge) is part of it, but hardly everything.

Is choosing heads or tails correctly a good decision? Is weighing all the evidence well but having something not work always wrong? This guy is a knob.
   8. JPWF13  Posted: November 17, 2009 at 03:58 PM (#3389796)
I generally support the idea of going for it on fourth down more than football teams typically do.


There was one college coach who once said that the way to decide whether or not to go for it on 4th was to ask yourself, what does my opponent want? If he's going to be relieved that I'm punting, if the last thing he wants to see is me going for it, then I should go for it.
   9. whygavs  Posted: November 17, 2009 at 04:07 PM (#3389813)
It is indeed true that OBP was for a long time a criminally underrated stat; it is not true that “a walk is as good as a hit”. (Just ask the coach with a man on third and two outs playing a team with a great double play combo.)


I'll grant him that I'd rather have a hit in that situation, but why, exactly, does a double play combo matter at any point in an inning in which there are two outs?
   10. JPWF13  Posted: November 17, 2009 at 04:34 PM (#3389862)
but why, exactly, does a double play combo matter at any point in an inning in which there are two outs?


"great double play combo" = good 2b +SS

a good 2b and a good SS matter whenever there is a runner on 3rd with less than 2 outs, because it is less likely he'll be able to score on an infield out...

and well gee, umm, that guy on 1st is simply an added force out opportunity?


Ok, I got nothing
   11. Matt Clement of Alexandria  Posted: November 17, 2009 at 04:41 PM (#3389869)
This guy is dumb, a bad writer, or dumb AND a bad writer.
This is stupid, and pleasantly ironic.

It's not a well-argued piece. But deBoer is one of the better writers on the internets, and we shouldn't let one poor outcome - this bad article - lead us to judge the broader quality of his writing. I don't really get what he thinks he getting at - that we make generalizing judgments by extrapolating from a large sample of outcomes in no way prevents us from distinguishing between better and worse decisions with similar outcomes. But the precise problem with the piece enjoyably rebounds on this ludicrous bit of commentarial name-calling.
   12. Matt Clement of Alexandria  Posted: November 17, 2009 at 04:43 PM (#3389872)
I also definitely agree with Freddie on the FJM thing. Ken Tremendous can turn a phrase, but his analysis consisted of collating VORP. I'd much rather hear what Morgan has to say - when he talks about how to play the game of baseball, rather than how to build a team, he's consistently interesting.
   13. JPWF13  Posted: November 17, 2009 at 05:16 PM (#3389909)
Ken Tremendous can turn a phrase, but his analysis consisted of collating VORP.


Analysis? What analysis?
I kind of liked him because I agreed with his conclusions most of the time, but seriously, if I wasn't sabr inclined nothing in his rants would have persuaded me towards his views, he'd say that looking at vorp is better than looking at RBIs, I agree, but if I didn't agree, if I was ambivalent, he would have given me no reason whatsoever to look at Vorp over RBI, he never explained or justified anything, ever as far as I can tell.

Yes I know, trying to explain to the MSM why RBIs are overrated is tedious, and repetitive and some people will never get it, but sometimes you just have to give it a shot.

why is OPS (or even better OPS+) better than batting average? It's not hard to explain that IN TERMS THE CASUAL FAN CAN UNDERSTAND, it really is not. Batting average is hits/AB, that means it values a bunt single the same as a home run- that's not right, no one denies that. Ok OBP values a walk as much as a homerun, but slugging % values a HR as 4* a single, and doesn't value walks at all*, add OBP and SLG them together and voila.

*BTW OPS times PAs times a Constant makes for a better run estimator than any metric used in baseball prior to Pete Palmer... OPS+ works even better, it scales up remarkably well with actual runs scored...
   14. Blackadder  Posted: November 17, 2009 at 06:06 PM (#3389947)
Ugh, in TFA he has a criticism of Barnwell's discussion of the Belichick decision that is just shockingly confused.
   15. Bob Dernier Cri  Posted: November 17, 2009 at 06:27 PM (#3389961)
a criticism of Barnwell's discussion of the Belichick decision that is just shockingly confused

Agreed, though the "confusion" may just be hyperbole. (Barnwell is a bit hyperbolic, too.)

Basically, if the odds were with you, you shouldn't give up your strategy because you failed in a single instance. Sticking to your guns after one bad outcome does not mean that you've abandoned the entire notion of inductive reasoning.
   16. Harry Balsagne Teaches The Correct Way to Hit!!  Posted: November 17, 2009 at 06:47 PM (#3389972)
I'm starting to dislike the influx of "yeah conventional baseball analysis is flawed and stats are OK sometimes but not so great either" articles more than the shrill "stat-zombies are teh devil" ideology-war articles. This one is only interesting because it bizarrely skews into an anti-intellectual diatribe.
   17. PreservedFish  Posted: November 17, 2009 at 07:14 PM (#3389994)
I have said this before, but the general tenor of statheadism is much friendlier, and much more open to conventional wisdom, than it was years ago.
   18. John DiFool2  Posted: November 17, 2009 at 07:43 PM (#3390007)
The main point seems to be to side with the second-guessers re. Bill Belicheck's controversial decision the other day.


Has this been discussed on the site the past two days? I rarely peek into the Dugout (and never in the Lounge). Odd that we wouldn't tackle it.
   19. I Munson'ed myself (BBF)  Posted: November 17, 2009 at 11:44 PM (#3390175)
This title is already taken in movies. And its a great sad documentary on the PBA.
Page 1 of 1 pages

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

<< Back to main

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
greenback
for his generous support.

My Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Vivid Seats is a sports ticket broker, concert ticket broker and theater ticket broker offering the best baseball tickets like Yankees tickets, Cubs tickets, and Red Sox tickets, as well as Police reunion tour tickets and Jersey Boys tickets.

We have baseball tickets, the NFL schedule, college football tickets and Cowboys tickets. We have NBA tickets like Celtics tickets and Lakers tickets. Plus, buy concert tickets, Patriots tickets and Colts tickets. Also check out our MLB baseball schedule

Baseball Bats

JustGreatTickets.com provides the best value for Chicago Cubs Tickets, MLB tickets including Red Sox Tickets, Yankees Tickets, SF Giants Tickets, LA Dodgers Tickets, Cleveland Indians Tickets. Get the best concert tickets like Jonas Brothers tickets and more Chicago Tickets.

Concerts Theatre NFL Angels Dodgers MLB Celtics Theater NBA Tickets Venues NHL Lakers Tickets NFL Yankees NHL Phillies NBA Wicked Marlins MLB Concerts Cubs Mets Red Sox Wicked WWE Red Sox Mets Yankees Dodgers

Major League Baseball: All Star Game, New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox, LA Angels, Washington Nationals, Chicago White Sox, and the Chicago Cubs.

Find terrific deals on Yankees tickets for the new home, Cubs tickets for classic Wrigley, or Red Sox tickets for Fenway with OnlineSeats. We have seats for every baseball game, including Dodgers tickets.

Page rendered in 0.6358 seconds
82 querie(s) executed