# Better descriptive stats?

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 1 of 3 123 Last
• 07-14-2013, 01:46 PM
RedsManRick
Better descriptive stats?
Ever since I was kid, I had an intuition that bugged me about baseball stats. What are we trying to measure? Ultimately, I've come to realize that we ended up crafting statistics without full recognition that they were of varying use for the two basic kinds of questions we ask:

What happened?
What's likely to happen next?

We realize that these are highly correlated, but also that there are nuances, exceptions, etc. In short, we have to grapple with the difference between "descriptive" and "inferential" statistics. And this constantly frustrates us. We want the elegance and simplicity of descriptive statistics with the real world value of of the inferential.

Case in point: "Batting average". It's a simple measure of fact, descriptive, right? It's just "hits" per "at bat". Two numbers. Of course, as well all know, it's hardly that simple.

We realize that sometimes when a player bats the ball and reaches first base, it's not because he hit the ball well but because the fielder screwed up. So created a special stat called a "hit", in which we subjectively decide whether the action of "batter hits ball and reaches base" is really earned or not. If the fielder "should have" made the play, we don't give the hitter credit for getting a "hit".

We also realize that sometimes the batter doesn't get a fair chance to hit the ball. So we take all the times he walks up to hit and subtract out the times when he gets walked (be it earned via 4 balls, HBP or catcher's interference). It wouldn't be fair to count those plate appearances against him as if he failed to hit, right? And of course, sometimes the batter still did something good by advancing a runner even though he didn't reach base himself, so we should subtract out those sacrifices too, right?

You get the idea. We took something that has the appearance of the record of a simple frequency of an event and we layered in a bunch of conditions to it so that it would be (supposedly) more meaningful -- it would tell us more about the player and about his contribution to the event, if maybe a little less about the event itself.

If we just want to show what happened in the past, why are we making it so convoluted? And if want to measure "how good" the player was, shouldn't we be accounting for a lot more than that? It always seemed like we had something that didn't actually do a good job at telling us much of anything -- other than create an artificial sense of what it meant to be "good" at hitting.

So, as I walked my dog this morning, I got to thinking. I know how to take the inferential stuff to a more useful place (e.g. wOBA), but would there be more value in just getting a clearer picture of "what happened". Instead of the still complicated slash line, can we make it simpler?

So I pulled together these little tables. Imagine if this is what showed up on the TV screen instead of AVG/HR/RBI. Firstly, note I use percentages instead of counts -- there's a reason we currently show AVG instead of hits -- the same logic should apply to any outcome showed in such a context. The second thing to note is that I only went to two digits. What's the purpose of the 3rd digit on than the appearance of meaning. Does knowing a guy gets a walk 12.3% of the time give us more information than knowing he walked 11.9%? Or if you prefer do you knowing any more about a .275 hitter than a .281 one? I agree it just creates the appearance of knowledge.

Code:

```Name                        PA        Hit%        Walk%        Out% Shin-Soo Choo                430        23%        20%        57% Joey Votto                424        26%        20%        54% Jay Bruce                407        25%        8%        67% Brandon Phillips        383        24%        9%        67% Zack Cozart                375        21%        4%        74% Todd Frazier                348        21%        13%        67% Devin Mesoraco                191        20%        12%        68% Xavier Paul                184        22%        13%        65% Ryan Hanigan                168        17%        16%        67% Derrick Robinson        147        23%        11%        66% Chris Heisey                113        19%        5%        75% Jack Hannahan                101        20%        11%        69% Cesar Izturis                90        19%        10%        71% Donald Lutz                59        24%        2%        75%```
But that might not be quite enough info, so what if we broke it down in two meaningful pieces of each of those (sorted in descending order of value):

XBH: Extra-Base Hit
Sng: Single
eBB: Earned Walk
uBB: Unearned Walk
PO: Productive Out (Sacrifice)
upO: Unproductive Out
Code:

```Name                        PA        Hit%        Walk%        Out%                XBH%        Sng%        eBB%        uBB%        PO%        uPO% Shin-Soo Choo                430        23%        20%        57%                8%        15%        14%        6%        1%        57% Joey Votto                424        26%        20%        54%                8%        18%        16%        4%        1%        53% Jay Bruce                407        25%        8%        67%                11%        14%        7%        1%        1%        66% Brandon Phillips        383        24%        9%        67%                7%        17%        7%        3%        2%        65% Zack Cozart                375        21%        4%        74%                8%        14%        4%        1%        5%        70% Todd Frazier                348        21%        13%        67%                8%        13%        10%        3%        1%        66% Devin Mesoraco                191        20%        12%        68%                6%        15%        10%        2%        2%        65% Xavier Paul                184        22%        13%        65%                8%        14%        11%        2%        0%        65% Ryan Hanigan                168        17%        16%        67%                5%        12%        11%        5%        1%        66% Derrick Robinson        147        23%        11%        66%                5%        18%        10%        1%        1%        65% Chris Heisey                113        19%        5%        75%                11%        9%        4%        2%        4%        71% Jack Hannahan                101        20%        11%        69%                5%        15%        9%        2%        1%        68% Cesar Izturis                90        19%        10%        71%                4%        14%        8%        2%        1%        70% Donald Lutz                59        24%        2%        75%                3%        20%        2%        0%        0%        75%```
So I'm not proposing anything. I'm not doing any analysis. I'm just posing the question: would looking at the data this way add value -- particularly in a broadcast context in which high quality analysis and interpretation of nuance is unreasonable to expect.
• 07-14-2013, 01:49 PM
Tom Servo
Re: Better descriptive stats?
Great stuff, RMR!
• 07-14-2013, 01:54 PM
dougdirt
Re: Better descriptive stats?
I don't like the productive out, because it is rather limited. Why do we give someone credit for a sac fly as a productive out, but not a ground out to second base that also scores a run? If we can accept that a player "tried" to hit a deep fly ball, why can't we accept that they tried to hit a grounder to the second baseman who was playing normal depth? In both cases I refuse to believe that the player tried for that outcome, but it was a happy accident.
• 07-14-2013, 02:17 PM
RedEye
Re: Better descriptive stats?
Love this. Any way you can make that table more readable though? Right now it is just a jumble of numbers on my screen.
• 07-14-2013, 02:30 PM
UPRedsFan
Re: Better descriptive stats?
I like it a lot. Wonder how these percentages compare to Pit and StL?
• 07-14-2013, 02:32 PM
dougdirt
Re: Better descriptive stats?
Quote:

Originally Posted by RedEye
Love this. Any way you can make that table more readable though? Right now it is just a jumble of numbers on my screen.

Looks fine to me. Anyone else having problems?
• 07-14-2013, 02:37 PM
RedEye
Re: Better descriptive stats?
Quote:

Originally Posted by dougdirt
Looks fine to me. Anyone else having problems?

Maybe it's b/c I'm on my iPhone?
• 07-14-2013, 02:40 PM
dougdirt
Re: Better descriptive stats?
Quote:

Originally Posted by RedEye
Maybe it's b/c I'm on my iPhone?

Yes, having an iPhone is always the problem. You should fix that and get one of those cool Android devices.
• 07-14-2013, 02:48 PM
Norm Chortleton
Re: Better descriptive stats?
Quote:

Originally Posted by dougdirt
I don't like the productive out, because it is rather limited. Why do we give someone credit for a sac fly as a productive out, but not a ground out to second base that also scores a run? If we can accept that a player "tried" to hit a deep fly ball, why can't we accept that they tried to hit a grounder to the second baseman who was playing normal depth? In both cases I refuse to believe that the player tried for that outcome, but it was a happy accident.

I agree that we should keep track of productive outs. I don't think we should reward a player by not making a ground out count as an AB (only because it would screw up 100 years of how we have kept stats), but I do think there should be a category for it.

BTW, players can't always hit a ground ball to second on command, but they should be able to hit the ball to the right side on command. If it's a hit, fine. If it's a ground ball that advances the runner, fine. If it's a line drive right at someone, oh well, it was still a good AB, just not a productive one.
• 07-14-2013, 02:50 PM
dougdirt
Re: Better descriptive stats?
Quote:

Originally Posted by Norm Chortleton
I agree that we should keep track of productive outs. I don't think we should reward a player by not making a ground out count as an AB (only because it would screw up 100 years of how we have kept stats), but I do think there should be a category for it.

BTW, players can't always hit a ground ball to second on command, but they should be able to hit the ball to the right side on command. If it's a hit, fine. If it's a ground ball that advances the runner, fine. If it's a line drive right at someone, oh well, it was still a good AB, just not a productive one.

It is just silly to me that at the point in the game where guys probably could actually have some control over where they hit the ball, they decided a fly ball that scored a run on an out didn't count, but the groundball that did the same thing does.
• 07-14-2013, 03:01 PM
mth123
Re: Better descriptive stats?
Quote:

Originally Posted by dougdirt
It is just silly to me that at the point in the game where guys probably could actually have some control over where they hit the ball, they decided a fly ball that scored a run on an out didn't count, but the groundball that did the same thing does.

I get your point, but the distinction is probably that the fly ball usually gets the job done and the defene can't do anything to counter whether it is hit deep enough. A grounder to second is really at the defense' discretion. The IF could play-in and prevent it from being successful.
• 07-14-2013, 03:09 PM
nate
Re: Better descriptive stats?
Nice idea.

I've always liked "hit type percentages" as an easier to grasp version of wOBA.
• 07-14-2013, 03:11 PM
dougdirt
Re: Better descriptive stats?
Quote:

Originally Posted by mth123
I get your point, but the distinction is probably that the fly ball usually gets the job done and the defene can't do anything to counter whether it is hit deep enough. A grounder to second is really at the defense' discretion. The IF could play-in and prevent it from being successful.

The pitcher could have just struck the batter out. The defense could have put in a guy with a better arm in the outfield. They could have signed a sumo wrestler to literally sit on home plate so you couldn't score.

I know, extremes.... I just don't like it.
• 07-14-2013, 04:49 PM
RedsManRick
Re: Better descriptive stats?
Here's a graphical version of the 6 stat version. It sure reinforces just how much of hitting is failure as well as how much Votto & Choo have outpaced everybody else and how poorly Cozart has hit.

Support I could have sorted by wOBA, but you get the idea.
http://i.imgur.com/Jtlck7G.png?1
• 07-14-2013, 05:25 PM
FlightRick
Re: Better descriptive stats?
I like this. Anything that not only pushes more-useful information out there, but does it in an intuitive/easy-to-understand-for-everyone way is good.

For purposes of TV broadcasts, I think it'd be super simple to present, too. I'm not concerned about the distinction between earned BB and unearned, but you could make a chyron/graphic that includes the rest of the 6-outcome stat line that looks nice and compact:

Code:

```19/1b  JOEY VOTTO ============================= 2013 season: HIT%(xbh)    BB%    OUT%(sac) 26% (8%)    20%    54% (1%)```
Would it be at all helpful to do the same thing for pitchers? Hits allowed pct. (xbh), walks allowed pct., and outs pct. (Ks) across the graphic, maybe? If nothing else, it's equally informative for both starters and relievers. [Unlike the metric crap-ton of other ideas I have for reforming pitching stats.]

Rick
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 1 of 3 123 Last