Resistance To Stats

[Bobcat J]

And, on the other hand, backing up beliefs with skillfull observation makes it easier to buy what you are saying and generally helps others learn something.
Rem

I completely agree with this. I'm not sayin that stats are the end all be all, though I think that they are very helpful. Simply pointing out, in response to an earlier post, that making statements without anything to back it up and then relying on the "Its my opinion so you it can't be wrong" argument is not conducive to a full discussion. I think the info that one adds to the discussion can be observation.

[Rob Dicken]

who is making up stats?

OPS = On Base Percentage Plus SLugging

It's a made up statistic that will tell you, as the guy who started this thread was saying, A+b=c. You can look at OBP and SLG alone and tell if the guy is a good player, why do you have to add them?

And this is hitting the point he was talking about right on the button....baseball is the greatest game on earth, but whatever happened to going to the game and worrying about the game being played, instead of the black and white figures you see in a book?

[Chip R]

Let's be honest here. It's not like people don't like or understand stats. They just don't like or understand (or want to understand) certain stats. The same person who doesn't like OPS will say they don't like all these stats because they take away from the "magic" of the game will turn right around and spew off someone's batting average.

[Jaycint]

I get what you're say Abner, however I really doubt that the resident stat guys here at RedsZone go to the park and think about the number crunching all that much. Matter of fact I'd say for the most part they go and enjoy the game the same way the more traditionalist faction here does.

I'm sure they soak up the atmosphere, eat hot dogs, drink beer and get caught up in the emotion just like everyone else. I highly doubt they bring along a calculator and crunch numbers between innings. Heck even if they did want to bring one I suppose they probably wouldn't as it would greatly reduce the odds of female companionship later on in the evening.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I feel pretty safe in stating that the stat guys enjoy the game while they're at the ballpark just as much as anyone else. I think this site is more of a forum for them to discuss their numbers and ideas than the ballpark is.

[rdiersin]

OPS = On Base Percentage Plus SLugging

It's a made up statistic that will tell you, as the guy who started this thread was saying, A+b=c. You can look at OBP and SLG alone and tell if the guy is a good player, why do you have to add them?

And this is hitting the point he was talking about right on the button....baseball is the greatest game on earth, but whatever happened to going to the game and worrying about the game being played, instead of the black and white figures you see in a book?

This is a bit off topic, so please forgive me Ltl Abner, but I think the reason behind adding them is that together they give a better representation of what is "good". And it does, OPS correlates well with runs scored. Personally it has always bothered me a little bit, because it seems more than a little ad hoc, but it does work.

I don't think anyone worrys only about the numbers and not the game being played. Actually I find that to be the beauty of probability. Even under the least expected case, there's still a chance, however small it is, that something good, or bad depending on the situation, could happen. This isn't resisitance toward statistics, but rather the celebration of the inherent randomness. As a fan it is great, seeing the unexpected happen. However, as an engineer, it is that error or risk that keeps me up at night (not in baseball, ), and similarly a teams moves should be to mininimize that risk/error. That is where the statistics have their uses.

[Johnny Footstool]

I love to watch the Reds play, and I semi-enjoy watching other teams. I love it when Adam Dunn lines a single to left center and knocks in Freel from second base. I love seeing Eric Milton strike out the side. I get excited just like everyone else when Royce Clayton somehow smacks a double down the line.

I guess I'm just a more concrete thinker than the non-stats crowd. I want (need?) to know why these things happen, how they happen, and how often. Stats tell me those things. They also give me a pretty good idea of what to expect in the future, so I'll know not to expect Dunn, Milton, and Clayton to come through very often.

For me, stats don't take away from the game -- they add a whole new dimension to it.

BTW - Chip is right to point out that every baseball fan uses and likes statistics to some degree. Batting average, RBIs, even wins and losses -- every fan has a group of statistics they follow and use to judge players and teams.

[RedEye]

The things that can be quantified amaze me. I'm glad that there are smart people running my favorite team who pay attention to them. I'm convinced and happy that they're paying attention to the unquantifiable aspects of ballplayers, too. Having enough of both will produce a winning team. In the end that's what we all want.

I sure hope you're right, but it's still puzzling to me that these 'smart people' were just responsible for trading two everyday players for two relievers and a ball of bags. This leads me to another question...

Do we know anything in-depth about how Krivsky's FO evaluates players? How much faith do they put in statistics and how much do they put in traditional baseball lore? Most importantly, do we have confidence that they are using this knowledge to make financially sound market decisions?

I like the fact that the new FO is ready to move to make a deal. However, I have quite a few nagging doubts (mainly because of The Trade) about whether these guys are really being SMART about their decisions.
I tend to be one who thinks a healthy dose of nerdy stats evaluation (of the searching, creative, SABR kind preferably) is what it takes to field a competitive, small market team. Listening to Narron, watching the line-ups he puts out there, and then listening to Krivsky and Bob laud Narron's strategy, I'm starting to wonder whether these guys really are smart about stats and player value.

I disagree with Krivsky and Buster Olney's claims that MR pitchers are 'rising in value' and that you simply have to go get them. The fact remains that most GM's--of course Billy Beane, heck even Jim Bowden--can restock a bullpen during the offseason with hard-throwing minor league starters and savvy journeymen. And when I see Bob Wickman changing teams for a far lower price than Austin Kearns and Felipe Lopez, it makes me wonder whether we could have gotten MR pitchers for cheaper, either before the deadline or in the off-season.

Okay, that was a bit all over the place... but am I making sense here?

[westofyou]

but whatever happened to going to the game and worrying about the game being played, instead of the black and white figures you see in a book?

Henry Chadwick says hi.

Stats vs. Traditionalist... blah, blah, blah.

Learn the history of statistics in the game before pretending it's a new thing to fight daily.

From my vantage point each side holds some truths and there is alot of bull on both sides too.

[Rob Dicken]

Henry Chadwick says hi.

Stats vs. Traditionalist... blah, blah, blah.

Learn the history of statistics in the game before pretending it's a new thing to fight daily.

From my vantage point each side holds some truths and there is alot of bull on both sides too.

I'm not saying it's wrong with using statistics, at all. I am just saying, that if a person believes in something, such as being a traditionalist as opposed to a stats only person, then why explain themselves. That's who they are, and what they like to do. Getting too statistical, as the author of this thread is trying to say, can sometimes ruin the fun that this game is imposing, because there's always the probability, that despite statistics, a player can come through.

And you're right, both sides have their advantages and disadvantages....but, on either side of the spectrum, no one should be criticizing.

[Chip R]

I'm not saying it's wrong with using statistics, at all. I am just saying, that if a person believes in something, such as being a traditionalist as opposed to a stats only person, then why explain themselves. That's who they are, and what they like to do. Getting too statistical, as the author of this thread is trying to say, can sometimes ruin the fun that this game is imposing, because there's always the probability, that despite statistics, a player can come through.

They don't have to explain themselves if they don't want to. But then that person should not expect an explanation from or ridicule a "stats only" person. Live and let live. As for getting too statistical, fun is in the eye of the beholder. If a person can use stats to enjoy the game more i.e. have more fun, I say God bless 'em. And if someone feels that too many stats takes away their fun away from the game, that's fine too. Whatever trips your trigger.

You know what I would like to see? For one day no one mentions any stats on here. No batting average, no ERA, no OPS, no Zone Rating, no VORP, no HRs or even hits. It would be an interesting exercise to say the least.

[westofyou]

You know what I would like to see? For one day no one mentions any stats on here. No batting average, no ERA, no OPS, no Zone Rating, no VORP, no HRs or even hits. It would be an interesting exercise to say the least.

Yep... it would be the big sound of .....................

[dabvu2498]

You know what I would like to see? For one day no one mentions any stats on here. No batting average, no ERA, no OPS, no Zone Rating, no VORP, no HRs or even hits. It would be an interesting exercise to say the least.

Ever see the Beavis and Butthead episode where they're not permitted to laugh for a whole day in school??? (It also happens to be Sex Ed. day.)

[Rob Dicken]

They don't have to explain themselves if they don't want to. But then that person should not expect an explanation from or ridicule a "stats only" person.

That's a far cry of what is happening. I have in no way actually ridiculed a stats only person, but I have been called stupid and told my opinions don't matter because I don't like a certain statistic...got negetive reputation for it, and got warned 2 times.

I'm not going to continue to dwell on the subject, but some people don't play a very fair game here.

[westofyou]

That's a far cry of what is happening. I have in no way actually ridiculed a stats only person, but I have been called stupid and told my opinions don't matter because I don't like a certain statistic...got negetive reputation for it, and got warned 2 times.

I'm not going to continue to dwell on the subject, but some people don't play a very fair game here.

Dude, you said you didn't care to listen to anyones opinion if they haven't played the game, then you didn't quantify what that exactly meant all while you told everyone how stupid stats were.

Yeah... it's everyone else.

[Rob Dicken]

Dude, you said you didn't care to listen to anyones opinion if they haven't played the game, then you didn't quantify what that exactly meant all while you told everyone how stupid stats were.

Yeah... it's everyone else.

AFTER I was told my opinion didn't count.

All I said, was Zone Rating wasn't something I was familiar with, and have never went by it.

Get your facts straight.

That crap doesn't warrant to be blasphemed and given negetive reputation points and warnings. Then we had people going to my baseball league's website, and questioning my knowledge on baseball based on my team having a losing record.

Let's not dwell on this. We may not agree on certain things, but the outcome of it was not warranted, plain and simple.


BTW. Casey Stengall wasn't a good manager until he got to New York.