Ups and Downs of Randomness, Observation, Stats and Baseball

[SeeinRed]

I think thats the rub - How much weighting you give to statistics and how much weight you give to observation. That my lud will be a question that only the baseball gods can answer...

I hear that, but my point is that there is a place in the middle that is the right answer. Where that is, nobody knows, but to say that one side is more important than the other is just crazy. I have been preaching that stats can't be used to DEFINATIVELY predict the future because of the human intangibles, but in the same reguard, just because a guy is a great competitor with the tools to play the game, doesn't mean he will be a great player either. There is no sure way to predict the sucess of a player in the future, but the best way to make an educated GUESS at that is to take statistics, and observations from scouts as a package. Dontrell Willis is a good example. His stats are good, but some people worry about his mechanics. Do you take a long term risk on the guy knowing that he may get injured? It all depends on wether you trust statistics or scouts more. Just so you know, I'd take the risk. I like the stats on this one. Not saying the Reds should go get him though.

[Nugget]

I agree with it all but Dontrelle. The argument about stats versus observations has been a hot topic even during the tmie of the last GM hiring rounds.

What I don't like about the Dontrelle risk is that most of the rumours look like you would overpay for Dontrelle even if he didn't get injured. Unlike the Oakland trades the Marlins appear to be asking for considerably more plus Willis' desire to stay with the REDS once FA appears would be questionable too.

[SeeinRed]

I agree with it all but Dontrelle. The argument about stats versus observations has been a hot topic even during the tmie of the last GM hiring rounds.

What I don't like about the Dontrelle risk is that most of the rumours look like you would overpay for Dontrelle even if he didn't get injured. Unlike the Oakland trades the Marlins appear to be asking for considerably more plus Willis' desire to stay with the REDS once FA appears would be questionable too.

I couldn't agree more. But it was just a hypothetical situation in an attempt to relate it to stats vs. the human. I don't want to start a "Reds should/shouldn't pursue Willis" argument. I've seen what those can do.

[RFS62]

The concept of "all things being equal" in the coinflip exercise is what separates it from meaningful application in the everyday managing of a baseball team.

That's why advance scouting is so important.

The advance scouts tell you things about the "current" conditions that large sample sizes may miss.

If a player is injured or having some kind of problem that takes him out of his "norm", you may chose to approach him in a different way. If the league has found a hole in a player's swing, the approach now changes and it's a different set of circumstances than before.

Players get hot and cold, change approaches and adjust based on changes the other team implements towards him, and even personal problems can factor in to performance at any given time.

Stats are much more meaningful in large sample sizes, I agree. But doesn't this mean that the subjective analysis of smaller periods of time, such as advance scouting, is more useful to a manager in crafting his approach to the opponents?

[gonelong]

Stats are much more meaningful in large sample sizes, I agree. But doesn't this mean that the subjective analysis of smaller periods of time, such as advance scouting, is more useful to a manager in crafting his approach to the opponents?

Yes and No.

IMO you still have to meld the two together, and much of the subjective is just that, subjective. It really depends on who your advanced scouts are, how well they do their job, and much much management is willing to use and trust their data.

You go to watch the Braves play the Mets this week because you have both coming in for a series. Pitcher A strikes out Batter B. Was it because Pitcher A has his slider working or because Batter B can't lay off the slider?

In the mean time Batter B has taken his off day to work on his swing and notices he isn't laying off the slider like he should be.

You come into the series and he is letting them pass, works the count, and your pitcher gets behind and has to come in to him and ... POW - 3 run homer.

GL

[RFS62]

Yes and No.

IMO you still have to meld the two together, and much of the subjective is just that, subjective. It really depends on who your advanced scouts are, how well they do their job, and much much management is willing to use and trust their data.

GL

I sometimes feel like the very word "subjective" gets a bad rap around here. There have been so many subjective arguments smacked down with pure statistical analysis, that any subjective argument immediately get's the hairy eyeball from many of us here.

Not all subjective judgment is the same. The expertise and experience of the observer varies greatly and is of major importance in any subjective argument.

[gonelong]

I sometimes feel like the very word "subjective" gets a bad rap around here. There have been so many subjective arguments smacked down with pure statistical analysis, that any subjective argument immediately get's the hairy eyeball from many of us here.

It is what it is.

The older I get and the more experience I gather the more hairy my eyeball gets to subjective analysis/arguments about ANY subject. I realize people have agendas and biases, even if they are doing their level best to represent things as well as they can.

I have turned an even more <pun alert>calculated</pun alert> eye towards baseball when I am confronted by "baseball men" that have opinions that line up with neither my subjective or objective analysis.

OTOH, I am not blinded by the numbers. I realize a 22 year old kid is not a finished product. I realize a pitcher might need a few years before he really pays off. I realize that a players attitude can affect his teammates, and that a player is not just the sum total of his OPS.

I also see that many fans, players, broadcasters, scouts, GMs, managers, etc. are lousy at subjective analysis. It doesn't mean they all are, by any means.

Not all subjective judgment is the same. The expertise and experience of the observer varies greatly and is of major importance in any subjective argument.

I agree 100%, I think that goes without saying.

Which is what I was trying to say with this:

Was it because Pitcher A has his slider working or because Batter B can't lay off the slider?

and this:

It really depends on who your advanced scouts are, how well they do their job, and how much management is willing to use and trust their data.

GL

[GullyFoyle]

I sometimes feel like the very word "subjective" gets a bad rap around here. There have been so many subjective arguments smacked down with pure statistical analysis, that any subjective argument immediately get's the hairy eyeball from many of us here.

I think this is because to know someone else's ability to judge the game takes a lot of time and interaction with that person. Everyone and his mother can come in here and say "I saw this and xxx and yyy and I've been doing it forever". But until you know that person and their skill level how much weight does their opinion have.

Statistics in general mean the same regardless of the person saying them. The problem, I think, with stats is that people not use to thinking about them don't understand their implications, what they cover and don't cover and what part of the game they take in and don't take in. Runs Created and VORP are great stats but trying to explain to someone how they are created and what they cover on the field of baseball is difficult.

Anyway, my hope with this thread was to give a little more info about what I had learned about a very basic part of statistics.

[gonelong]

I think this is because to know someone else's ability to judge the game takes a lot of time and interaction with that person. Everyone and his mother can come in here and say "I saw this and xxx and yyy and I've been doing it forever". But until you know that person and their skill level how much weight does their opinion have.

Statistics in general mean the same regardless of the person saying them. The problem, I think, with stats is that people not use to thinking about them don't understand their implications, what they cover and don't cover and what part of the game they take in and don't take in. Runs Created and VORP are great stats but trying to explain to someone how they are created and what they cover on the field of baseball is difficult.

Anyway, my hope with this thread was to give a little more info about what I had learned about a very basic part of statistics.

Spot on.

Spot on.

You did, and I appreciate it.

GL

[GullyFoyle]

TANGENT ALERT

True and I agree with that but I wouldn't say the 0 for 4 is totally useless, just as the season long statistic is not totally useless.

My question, to those here who have more knowledge about statistics than I do and have time on their hands, is...

I know there is a way to determine whether or not a given sample size is large enough to provide any quality information. But I think I fell asleep that day in Stats class.

Would anyone care to give a short refresher on what that is? (I think how it works might beyond a message board in complexity).

[Johnny Footstool]

Great post. This is why "playing the percentages" bugs me in so far as how it's typically used. Let's pretend our manager is named Lony RaTussa, and we have player A and player B.

Player A
Season line: .280/.350/.470
Career line vs. Pitcher Z: 5-24, 1 2B, , 6Ks

Player B
Season line: .250/.310./.390
Career line vs Pitcher Z: 4-9, 1 HR, 5 RBI

It seems like every game Mr. RaTussa coaches we get treated to some crap about how player B really hits Pitcher Z well and that's why he's getting the start.

Baseball gives managers too much opportunity to tweak and "play the percentages". As such, they are almost unamimously over-reacting to small sample size and failing to let things play out.

Of course, all this is horribly complicated by the fact that players are not static entities with fixed outcome percentages (like dice). Sometimes that .333 hitter really IS playing like crap and his 1-14 streak is indicitive not of a random streak, but of a change in his "true" ability. What separates the good managers from the bad ones is the ability filter out the randomness.

While Joe Torre has been given some of the best talent, I commend him for being willing to let things work themselves out, rather than tinker needlessly.

In LaRussa's defense, he doesn't rely exclusively on the small samples. He also incorporates scouting in his analysis. He has a good idea what kind of stuff a pitcher has, and what pitches a batter can handle. He blends those matchups and the stats (small samples that they are).

He's not Montgomery Burns "playing the percentages" and sending Homer to pinch-hit for Darryl Strawberry to avoid a lefty-lefty matchup.

[RFS62]

I think this is because to know someone else's ability to judge the game takes a lot of time and interaction with that person. Everyone and his mother can come in here and say "I saw this and xxx and yyy and I've been doing it forever". But until you know that person and their skill level how much weight does their opinion have.

Statistics in general mean the same regardless of the person saying them. The problem, I think, with stats is that people not use to thinking about them don't understand their implications, what they cover and don't cover and what part of the game they take in and don't take in. Runs Created and VORP are great stats but trying to explain to someone how they are created and what they cover on the field of baseball is difficult.

Anyway, my hope with this thread was to give a little more info about what I had learned about a very basic part of statistics.

Yeah, I really appreciate your input.

From my point of view, I have no real interest in doing the math myself, much less searching for newer and better metrics.

But I do want to know what the sabrmetrics community comes up with as a consensus. I trust them to hammer it out and tweak the formulas.

And even OPS and RC/27 have been tweaked and modified since their appearance. Bill James himself questioned his past work on clutch hitting, which I thought was fantastic as it showed that the truth is what he's really after.

The whole thing is in a state of evolution. Scouts rely on stats and scientific measurements constantly, and have since day one. The stats they rely upon are just different, less comprehensive. But the basic idea of using statistics to measure performance is as old as baseball itself.

[SteelSD]

You're thinking too much. Injury could change that outcome. Maybe player A is peaking and player B hasn't peaked yet. The outcome is all we are looking at right now, not what happens to get that outcome, because the factors that are not considered are unpredictable. Injuries don't only happen to the ones who are "injury prone." As a general rule, the future is always a guess.

Sure injury could alter the future. That being said, we can use analysis involving all available data (both objective and subjective) to identify injury risk. A bunch of folks on this very board predicted Paul Wilson going down. Ditto for Eric Milton's awful 2005 due to an incorporation of objective data (past performance history, knee injury that will never heal).

RFS also noted advanced scouting and that is important. You send an advance scout out to gather information and find that the team's leadoff hitter has a tweaked calf muscle the team hasn't told anyone about. Certainly that can alter short-term gameplanning versus an opponent because the information, while observational or anecdotal in nature, is still valid information.

But the problem with too many conclusions derived from observation is that they simply doesn't hold up to the validity litmus test. One of the reasons that's so is the random nature of the game noted by the thread starter. Catch a player during a random cold streak and it may make one think that said player isn't very good when the opposite is true. Seeing something and knowing whether or not you're seeing truth is the primary difference between good scouts and bad scouts.

Thats why I put Money Ballers in quotes. Meaning so called Money Ballers who look too much at stats. I realize MoneyBall can and has worked in real world applications. I never said that anybody looks solely at stats, but in the same way you say the subjective can be dramatically overvalued, I say it can also be dramatically undervalued.

Actually, you said this:

But the human factor cannot be overlooked, which is part of the problem I have with the "Money Ballers" who say that stats are all that matter.

If you believe that, then you're arguing against a position that doesn't exist. If you have, however, revised your position to allow for the possibility that "Moneyballers" (whoever they are) understand that objective and subjective data need to be incorporated in an analysis, then you're closer to truth.

The key is balancing the two and I'd suggest that the folks you consider to be unbalanced are a heck of a lot more balanced than you think. You might say "too much stats". I might say "not enough information". The validation is in who's right more often. And I don't particularly care how someone gets to "more often right" as long as they get there.

And you're right that statistics cannot be used to predict what is to happen with 100% accuracy. But that's another argument no one has ever made. Instead, we're talking about probability and really nothing but probability. Knowing that, we also know that the most valid information does the best job of projecting what is most likely to happen in the future.

[Cyclone792]

This is a fascinating thread, and I've been trying to dig up some time this morning to chime in.

Anyhow, last fall the authors of Baseball Prospectus published Mind Game, which was essentially an analysis of how the Boston Red Sox approached every detail with the 2004 season, and especially the 2004 postseason.

I don't have the book at my disposal right now since I'm typing this at work, but one particular topic I remember the BP authors diving into was the extreme high level of advance preparation the Red Sox put together on the Cardinals prior to the 2004 World Series. In fact, the book's research goes so far as to even claim that the totality of Boston's preparation on the Cardinals just blew away the advance preparation St. Louis had on Boston. Essentially, the statistical edge and advance scouting edge Boston had on the Cardinals provided them a major advantage heading into the Series, and may have played a key role in the Red Sox sweep.

What's very interesting about the in-depth details provided in the book is that the Boston Red Sox, a highly sabermetric leaning franchise led by Theo Epstein and housing Bill James in its front office, just went out and floored Walt Jocketty and Tony La Russa in advance statistical and scouting preparation. It wasn't that the Red Sox prepared better solely with the use of statistics - they did do that - but also that their advance scouting reports were remarkably and accurately prepared.

It was the combination of using both objective and subjective measures at the highest level that set the Red Sox apart from the Cardinals, and Boston's goal was to arrive as close to absolute truth as possible using every possible measure available to them, with an excellent combination of statistical and scouting tools.

[RFS62]

It was the combination of using both objective and subjective measures at the highest level that set the Red Sox apart from the Cardinals, and Boston's goal was to arrive as close to absolute truth as possible using every possible measure available to them, with an excellent combination of statistical and scouting tools.

As well it should be. I heard James on XM months ago talking about how much he had learned from the Red Sox scouts since he's been there.

Balance between the disciplines. That's the optimum baseball mind, IMO.