|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
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.
|
Support BBTF
Thanks to Ray (RDP) for his generous support.
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Sox Therapy: A Winning Ballclub? (22 - 10:53am, May 26)Last: booondNewsblog: Berardino: Heath Bell says he’s no meathead (3 - 10:53am, May 26)Last: Gonfalon BubbleNewsblog: YESNetwork: A look at five Yankees' cases for enshrinement in Monument Park (5 - 10:49am, May 26)Last: Tom NawrockiNewsblog: Carlos Pena defies the traditional numbers (1 - 10:43am, May 26)Last: Bob Dernier CriNewsblog: Wilmoth: Nate McLouth Designated For Assignment (15 - 10:42am, May 26)Last: DL from MNNewsblog: HP: Baseball is leaving the human factor behind (62 - 10:40am, May 26)Last: Bob Dernier CriNewsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread, May 2012 (1836 - 10:37am, May 26)Last:  Famous Original Joe CNewsblog: Matschulat: Did I Miss The "Paul Konerko Is So Overrated OMG" Bandwagon? (35 - 10:33am, May 26)Last: Bob Dernier CriHall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1973 Discussion (16 - 10:29am, May 26)Last: DL from MNNewsblog: Maddon on Red Sox beaning Luke Scott: 'I think it's ridiculous, I think it's absurd, idiotic' (13 - 10:22am, May 26)Last: Crispix AttacksHall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1972 Ballot (30 - 10:10am, May 26)Last: DL from MNNewsblog: The Hall of Very Good: Former Cards Slugger Critical of "LaRussa's Regime" (6 - 7:16am, May 26)Last: Shooty: Applying to be Fearless LeaderNewsblog: CSN to host ‘Phillies at the Beach’ on Memorial Day (19 - 7:11am, May 26)Last: GodNewsblog: T.R. Sullivan: Of Frank Robinson, Milt Pappas and Jim Palmer (10 - 7:09am, May 26)Last: GodNewsblog: Bud Selig -- No need for more MLB replay for now - ESPN (88 - 6:12am, May 26)Last: Lassus
|
|
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.
1. Chris Needham Posted: November 17, 2009 at 09:24 PM (#3389758)The irony here is that the writers says
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.
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.
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.
Never heard a "stathead" or "Moneyball tendency" say that, I think it's most often said by little league coaches
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
"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
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.
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...
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.
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.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main