Was Rose Really the 5th Best Player on The Team?

[princeton]

I disagree. There are Redszoners who affirm their stance on players they've never seen play. This is particularly true of judging minor leaguers or draft picks. These "scouting reports" are put together purely by statistical analysis.

princeton is outed

[SteelSD]

I disagree. There are Redszoners who affirm their stance on players they've never seen play. This is particularly true of judging minor leaguers or draft picks. These "scouting reports" are put together purely by statistical analysis.

Illogical.

If someone has never seen a player play, and they have only that player's statistics in front of them, the data analysis is used to form an opinion about said player's projections.

You can't validate an opinion about something until you first form an opinion about something. That takes information. Good analysis uses information to form logical conclusions that can be supported by the very data used to create the conclusion in the first place.

[dabvu2498]

dfs -- Good post!

Another way of looking at this might be: If we replaced Pete Rose on the BRM with another 3B who OPSed at .840-.850 and put up other similar numbers to Pete, without Pete's "intangibles," would the BRM have been as successful as they were? If you think so, I'd like to hear that argument.

Were Morgan, Bench, Perez, etc. better ballplayers? Statistics might show that they were. Were their statistical contributions more important than what Pete gave the team in stats and "intangibles." This particular example might be a tough one, since the other guys were discusssing have exceptional "intangibles" as well.

I just really get turned off when discussing ballplayers, especially "historical" ballpalyers, turns into a strictly statistical conversation. That's just me.

I also dislike spinach.

[RichRed]

I just really get turned off when discussing ballplayers, especially "historical" ballpalyers, turns into a strictly statistical conversation. That's just me.

I also dislike spinach.

Spinach is awesome. So was Pete Rose. But if I had to "draft" players from the BRM, the order for me would be Morgan, Bench (he'd be #1A), Rose, Foster, Perez, Concepcion, Griffey.

[Sea Ray]

Illogical.

If someone has never seen a player play, and they have only that player's statistics in front of them, the data analysis is used to form an opinion about said player's projections.

You can't validate an opinion about something until you first form an opinion about something. That takes information. Good analysis uses information to form logical conclusions that can be supported by the very data used to create the conclusion in the first place.

Very good. Then we are in agreement that the following is not true from Johnny F:

it's simply not true that people only use stats to affirm their stance.

My point is that many do use stats to affirm their stance and I simply used the example of never having seen a player play. As you state, if one has never seen player "A" play, then evaluation of said player is determined by that player's statistics and data analysis. What I don't see is what is illogical.

[SeeinRed]

Sorry, but that's just plain wrong.

Contrary to popular belief, many of us actually check stats before forming an opinion. Many of us modify our opinions based on what the stats tell us.

While I do acknowledge that some people cherry pick stats to support their own position, it's simply not true that people only use stats to affirm their stance.

No, claiming to do the opposite is just plain wrong. BTW, It was error on my part to make it sound like everyone does it all the time, but everyone does it from time to time, even you. You don't always check stats before taking a position, and thats only natural. Human nature creates the bias wether you know its there or not, unless you want to argue that you can look at something with no bias what so ever. Nobody looks at something without a pre-concieved feeling. Nobody. As minimal as it may be, its there.

Mark Twain didn't say that. In his autobiography, published posthumously, Twain attributes the phrase to Benjamin Disraeli, possibly in error.

The earliest record of the phrase is that of a 1895 speech by British economist and politician Leonard Henry Courtney (1832-1918) in which Courtney says the following:

"After all, facts are facts, and although we may quote to one another with a chuckle the words of the Wise Statesman, 'Lies- damn lies- and statistics', still there are some easy figures the simplest must understand, and the astutest cannot wriggle out of."- Leonard Henry Courtney

Could the "Wise Statesman" have been Disraeli? Maybe, but even Disraeli's biographer (Lord Blake) thinks it unlikely that Disraeli originated the phrase.

What is clear, however, is that Courtney (later Lord Courtney) is mocking the "Wise Statesman" who, in error, dismisses offhand that which he either cannot comprehend or does not care to understand. He's also saying that some arguments are so strong that even the stupid and the sly must concede the point.

And here's the actual passage from Twain's autobiography- in context- that cites the phrase:

Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

When viewed in proper context, Mark Twain is not using the "Lies- damned lies- statistics" argument to debase statistical analysis. What he's saying is that he is quite easily led astry by them, particularly when he tries to use them himself due to a lack of analytical ability. His own words tell us that he felt he wasn't any good at understanding and/or using statistics to draw sensible conclusions.

Twain was, in fact, poking fun at himself and Lord Courtney was poking fun at those who, without a second thought, would dismiss that which they could not and/or cared not to understand or accept.

As for the article? The writer's name might as well be Mark Twain.
__________________

SteelSD, I'm guessing you did some internet checking to find that out. If not, I bow to your knowlege. Yeah, I might have been wrong about the origin of the quote, but the quote does hold true.

I'm also guessing you have some statistical training your background? I would love to hear about it. There is nothing that I enjoy more than Statistics. I'm in my 5th year of college, and I have taken a lot of statistical analysis classes. I'm thinking about going in that direction with my degree. The one thing that I'm absolutely puzzled by is you constantly defending statistics as being undeniably wrong. Every professor I have ever had has always stressed the improtance of not relying on statistics analysis as beein 100% true, and in many cases statistics are flatout misleading. Thats because you can twist statistics to work into your favor in most every case. Statistics can support an argument, but they are by no means the argument ending tool that some people would like you to believe.

[vaticanplum]

Mark Twain didn't say that. In his autobiography, published posthumously, Twain attributes the phrase to Benjamin Disraeli, possibly in error.

"Ah, Hamlet didn't say that...I think I remember Mel Gibson accurately, and he didn't say that. That Polonius guy did."

(Many deep apologies...I just could not resist that...)

[SteelSD]

Very good. Then we are in agreement that the following is not true from Johnny F:

No, we are decidedly not in agreement. Johnny said:

"...it's simply not true that people only use stats to affirm their stance."

And he's 100% correct. I'm beginning to think that you don't quite understand what "affirm" means.

My point is that many do use stats to affirm their stance and I simply used the example of never having seen a player play. As you state, if one has never seen player "A" play, then evaluation of said player is determined by that player's statistics and data analysis. What I don't see is what is illogical.

What's illogical is the concept that a statistics-only analysis begins as an affirmation of an opinion when said opinion cannot exist until after the data in analyzed.

[SteelSD]

SteelSD, I'm guessing you did some internet checking to find that out. If not, I bow to your knowlege.

I knew of the origins of the phrase before yesterday, but why would recency be an issue? If you know something, you know something. When you learned it doesn't matter.

Yeah, I might have been wrong about the origin of the quote, but the quote does hold true.

No. The only truism related to those words is as to how ridiculous it is to carelessly cast aside that which one does not care to understand. The phrase of, "Lies, damned lies, and statistics", is garbage logic.

I'm also guessing you have some statistical training your background? I would love to hear about it. There is nothing that I enjoy more than Statistics. I'm in my 5th year of college, and I have taken a lot of statistical analysis classes. I'm thinking about going in that direction with my degree. The one thing that I'm absolutely puzzled by is you constantly defending statistics as being undeniably wrong. Every professor I have ever had has always stressed the improtance of not relying on statistics analysis as beein 100% true, and in many cases statistics are flatout misleading. Thats because you can twist statistics to work into your favor in most every case. Statistics can support an argument, but they are by no means the argument ending tool that some people would like you to believe.

Your math professors and I would agree. Statistical analysis, while it may strive to be 100% accurate, will never actually be 100% accurate. But that's not the point. The point is that the world isn't black and white. 2% wrong is not "100% wrong". Neither is 10%, 20%, or 40%. There are degrees of right and wrong. What we look to be is more right more often. I'd suggest that you may be misinterpreting what your professors are telling you. They're warning you. It's a good warning. But it's not a blanket statement that any wrong equals 100% wrong.

People can use statistics to misrepresent truth. It's far better for one to know their stuff in order to avoid being duped. But the interesting thing is that the folks with the most analytical knowledge on this board are also the least likely to attempt snake oil sales. The folks most likely to mistake truth for fiction and pass it along to you are those who know enough to be dangerous but not enough that they're able to identify possible holes in their positions before they take them.

Stats don't lie unless we let them.

[Sea Ray]

What's illogical is the concept that a statistics-only analysis begins as an affirmation of an opinion when said opinion cannot exist until after the data in analyzed.

Said opinion can definitely exist before the data is analyzed where sports are concerned. I can form an opinion of Ryan Freel as a player by watching him on TV, taking into account his hustle, foot speed, bat speed and defensive prowess. Then my opinion of him would be more complete if I also studied his stats.

[SeeinRed]

I knew of the origins of the phrase before yesterday, but why would recency be an issue? If you know something, you know something. When you learned it doesn't matter.

It is the same as you attacking my original post by trying to undermine the validity of a quote. You tried to attack my credibility by showing something I said was not reasearched. Yeah, I didn't research it, I stated it like my professor did because I liked the quote. I contend that it is just as petty to do what I did, as it is to reasearch, or make a comment about a quote just to try and make me look like an idiot. I actually didn't, and still neccessarily believe you learned about that before it was brought up by me, or in a similar situation.

No. The only truism related to those words is as to how ridiculous it is to carelessly cast aside that which one does not care to understand. The phrase of, "Lies, damned lies, and statistics", is garbage logic. The earliest record of the phrase is that of a 1895 speech by British economist and politician Leonard Henry Courtney (1832-1918) in which Courtney says the following:

"After all, facts are facts, and although we may quote to one another with a chuckle the words of the Wise Statesman, 'Lies- damn lies- and statistics', still there are some easy figures the simplest must understand, and the astutest cannot wriggle out of."- Leonard Henry Courtney

He is just sayin that all statistics are not lies. He doesn't say that all statistics are truth. Which is what I've been saying all along, even though my emphasis has been on them being wrong, or misused some of the time. Its funny how when I bring it up some people automatically take offense to it. Somebody always attacks what I say and defends their own usage of statistics. I never pointed anyone out, and to be quite truthful, I find most of your post quite logical, and quite informitive, even though I might not agree. Its the fact that you feel you have to defend yourself that bothers me. I understand statistics. I understand them well. Mostly what bothers me is the fact that people misuse them to prove a point. People think that they can use statistics to prove a point, but in reality, statistics are supposed to be used to form an opinion. Some people do that sometimes, but everyone misuses statistics from time to time. Even me, and even you. Its just human nature to try and argue the point you believe wether you are right or wrong.

Your math professors and I would agree. Statistical analysis, while it may strive to be 100% accurate, will never actually be 100% accurate. But that's not the point. The point is that the world isn't black and white. 2% wrong is not "100% wrong". Neither is 10%, 20%, or 40%. There are degrees of right and wrong. What we look to be is more right more often. I'd suggest that you may be misinterpreting what your professors are telling you. They're warning you. It's a good warning. But it's not a blanket statement that any wrong equals 100% wrong.

People can use statistics to misrepresent truth. It's far better for one to know their stuff in order to avoid being duped. But the interesting thing is that the folks with the most analytical knowledge on this board are also the least likely to attempt snake oil sales. The folks most likely to mistake truth for fiction and pass it along to you are those who know enough to be dangerous but not enough that they're able to identify possible holes in their positions before they take them.

Stats don't lie unless we let them.

Just so you know, I have had many discussions with many of my professors about just this. I don't think I've misunderstand the points of the argument. Your exact argument above is why the quote that you so enthusiastically protest exists. Statistics are a tool to find and answer, not an answer. Statistics give you a chance to find the outcome that is most likely to happen, not the outcome that will happen. That is where statistics are misused. That is where statistics lie. Statistics lie when used as the no questions asked end result, the end all answer. Some people know how to use them, and they use them right most of the time, like you. Other people don't know how to use them, but use them anyway. That is where I have a problem with statistics. Unless you have had a lot of training in statistics, or have studied them endlessly, you really shouldn't use them to make an argument. Statistics aren't simple. There is more than one way to interpret them.

You know, I fully expected you to be the one to argue this post SteelSD. I remember the Ups and Downs of Randomness thread. I have nothing but respect for you even though I disagree with you some of the time.I say that mainly for other people who think there may be hard feelings from this argument, but it is still truth. I would still like to know your statistics background. I'm not being sarcastic about that. I'm really interested in changing my direction in college to something more statistics based. You can message me if you don't want to put it here, but I would really like to hear.

[Rex Argos]

I hate it when a thread gets started with a simple question, and it turns into a philosophical p!ssin' match. Why can't some of you simply rank your top five?

[Always Red]

I hate it when a thread gets started with a simple question, and it turns into a philosophical p!ssin' match. Why can't some of you simply rank your top five?

Semper ubi sub ubi

What a great site!- yesterday we had a classical reference to Herculean labors, and today a Latin reference admonishing one to always wear underwear. Kind of Latin graffiti; I learned that one back in HS a long time ago; thanks for the memory!

You miss a day, you miss a lot around here!

OK: not may order of favorite BRM'ers, but the ones I think were the BEST:

1.Bench
2.Morgan
3.Rose
4.Perez
5.Concepcion

[SteelSD]

It is the same as you attacking my original post by trying to undermine the validity of a quote. You tried to attack my credibility by showing something I said was not reasearched. Yeah, I didn't research it, I stated it like my professor did because I liked the quote. I contend that it is just as petty to do what I did, as it is to reasearch, or make a comment about a quote just to try and make me look like an idiot. I actually didn't, and still neccessarily believe you learned about that before it was brought up by me, or in a similar situation.

You're taking things too personally. And yes, I did research on that quote a while ago after a someone else used it. Other common mistruths I've argued somewhere at some point:

"Speed never slumps"
"Perception is reality"

I have extreme dislike for convenient absolutism positioned as intuitive truth. Everything's relative.

He is just sayin that all statistics are not lies. He doesn't say that all statistics are truth. Which is what I've been saying all along, even though my emphasis has been on them being wrong, or misused some of the time. Its funny how when I bring it up some people automatically take offense to it. Somebody always attacks what I say and defends their own usage of statistics. I never pointed anyone out, and to be quite truthful, I find most of your post quite logical, and quite informitive, even though I might not agree. Its the fact that you feel you have to defend yourself that bothers me. I understand statistics. I understand them well. Mostly what bothers me is the fact that people misuse them to prove a point. People think that they can use statistics to prove a point, but in reality, statistics are supposed to be used to form an opinion. Some people do that sometimes, but everyone misuses statistics from time to time. Even me, and even you. Its just human nature to try and argue the point you believe wether you are right or wrong.

Just so you know, I have had many discussions with many of my professors about just this. I don't think I've misunderstand the points of the argument. Your exact argument above is why the quote that you so enthusiastically protest exists. Statistics are a tool to find and answer, not an answer. Statistics give you a chance to find the outcome that is most likely to happen, not the outcome that will happen. That is where statistics are misused. That is where statistics lie. Statistics lie when used as the no questions asked end result, the end all answer. Some people know how to use them, and they use them right most of the time, like you. Other people don't know how to use them, but use them anyway. That is where I have a problem with statistics. Unless you have had a lot of training in statistics, or have studied them endlessly, you really shouldn't use them to make an argument. Statistics aren't simple. There is more than one way to interpret them.

Well, other than on rather large detail, we actually agree. The gap is that statistics don't lie, but poor analysis can trick us. And I believe we agree that understanding how to properly interpret the data is the key to not being tricked. The only shield we have against being tricked is our knowledge.

The best use of "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is as a constant reminder to not be tricked (i.e. "question everything"). But I think we both know that the most common use of the phrase, unfortunately, is anything but that.

You know, I fully expected you to be the one to argue this post SteelSD. I remember the Ups and Downs of Randomness thread. I have nothing but respect for you even though I disagree with you some of the time.I say that mainly for other people who think there may be hard feelings from this argument, but it is still truth. I would still like to know your statistics background. I'm not being sarcastic about that. I'm really interested in changing my direction in college to something more statistics based. You can message me if you don't want to put it here, but I would really like to hear.

Respect back at'cha. As for my background...

Like you, I was first exposed to statistical analysis in college. I've been using high-level statistical analysis for years in sales and marketing. I've also worked in risk management for a large financial institution and have developed high-level analytics to help keep the Federal Reserve off their back come audit time. The interesting thing is that I'm actually more creative than I am analytical in nature. That probably benefits me because it allows me to think globally while being able to to bring order to chaos. I'm actually more often asked to develop analytical systems than to simply analyze data at this point.

And I was a latecomer to statistical analysis as it relates to baseball. I began researching sabermetrics because I ended up on the wrong side of a lot of debates.

And math is probably in the genes. My ability to use metrics pales in comparison to my younger sister; who's studied in Budapest, Hungary multiple times and is currently being paid to go to grad school to study actuarial science and theoretical math. My younger brother is going to be starting medical school this fall and his primary interest is diagnostics.

If you're looking to swing more toward a statistical analysis discipline, I might suggest actuarial science. It's a solid field that also happens to pay exceptionally well. That's a bonus.