Resistance To Stats

[Ltlabner]

I've been thinking a lot about stats latley. If you don't like posts that are train of thought type disertations then save yourself the two minutes and move on.

These are just some of my thoughts about stats. It's not a rant against stats, an argument that we should ignore stats or an attept to put them down. If you are going to read this and then tell me how unobjective I am and I don't understand how probablity works then you've missed the point I'm trying to make.

I've been thinking latley why my hackles are raised when someone rips off a list of stats about baseball. Why does that bug me? There's nothing wrong with stats...in fact, it's an important part of achiving baseball sucess.

I think part of my resistance to "stats" is rooted in a desire to maintain the magic of the game. I don't want to boil it all down to a mechanincal explination of "1 + 1 = 2". I don't want to spend hours pouring over an array of numbers that explain why player A is sucessfull and player B isn't. I don't want to try to put the game in a neat and tidy box with a bow on top. I don't want the game to be cut and dried.

I spend every day of my working existance trying to boil complex sales situations into mechanical expliantions, pouring over an array of numbers to explain why sales are doing A,B and/or C and tying to sum up my profession in a neat and tidy box. Baseball is....a form of entertainment and the greatest game on the planet.

I want to watch a baseball game and feal that the batter can launch a fastball into the RF seats for a game winning homer and I don't want someone to rattle off that the probability of this happening, durring the day, against lefthanders on teams that start with the letter C is only 13.48%.

I want to absorb the magic of a double play without having to do the mental gymnastics to calucate whether if the 2B was moved to SS if it would increase the percentage chances for double plays to increase by 3.4%.

I want to see a pitcher reach back for a little extra something and fool the batter and make them look silly. I don't care that their K/9 has increased over the past week and their VORP is up .34%.

I want to shut my eyes and imagine what it would be like if Koufax was on the mound instead of Milton and how amazing it would be to see just one pitch of his. I don't care that the current batter has a 27.56% OPS vs righthanders.

When I walk into the ballpark I want to leave the cut and dried business of life behind and be absorbed in baseball. It's entertainment that I enjoy. Stats are a tool I use in my working life. Never shall the two meet.

I took 5 quarters of stats at university. I use them daily in my working life. They are a great tool for understanding baseball and achieving more success if used properally. I'm glad we have tallented people like Cyclone here to do the hard work of crunching numbers and presenting the data. But when I watch baseball I want to feel like a little kid at the ballpark with my father for the first time enjoying the wonder of the sport, not be trying to break it down to it's last mathmatical equations.

Just some crazy ramblings of the weird stuff that goes on in my brain.

[redsmetz]

From Bull Durham


Walt Whitman once said, "I see great things in baseball. It's our game, the American game. It will repair our losses and be a blessing to us." You could look it up.

I know what you mean. I love to go to the ballgame and yack with folks around me, talk about games we've seen, places we've gone for games, players who've played down through the years.

My dream vacation is to some day take a week or two and just drive and watch baseball. If we're traveling through a town and there's a little league game going on, stop and watch. Take in a minor league game or an American Legion game; whatever. I got goose bumps when I first walked into the Hall of Fame. I love the field there - it is sheer beauty.

[Tommyjohn25]

I couldn't have said that any better myself Lt. One of the best posts on here in a long time, especially after a tough loss today.

Well done, I shall now shower you with rep. :thumbup:

[BuckWoody]

I tend to be on the same page. I really appreciate stats and enjoy reading through a lot of the discussions on here that center on them, but there is a great human element that is central to the game of baseball that stats can't quite totally capture.

[DeadRedinCT]

I think Homer Simpson said it best:

You can use statistics to prove anything. 38% of all people know that.

[BoydsOfSummer]

Enjoy the game anyway you want to,it's your leisure time.

[smith288]

That takes way more than two minutes to read... Of course I chew on plastic water bottle rings.

[Rob Dicken]

I said this same sort of thing here about a week ago, and got blasphemed for it. I stated an opinion on that I think Ken Griffey, Jr. belongs in CF. I got KILLED with people basically telling me, that I am stupid for thinking Ken Griffey, Jr. belongs in CF, because his ZONE RATING is terrible. Who the hell cares? I don't pay to go to a baseball game, and sit and look at a stat book all night to tell me personally who the best player on the team is. Why's PERSONAL judgement such a bad thing? That's traditional baseball.

Why should I even have to have a reason for thinking Ken Griffey, Jr. belongs in CF? If I believe he should, then I believe he should, but that doesn't make me a bad person for thinking so. And saying that I could care less about made-up statistics, shouldn't warrant me in getting bad reputation here, or let alone being warned to a 60% rating.

I definitely feel what you are saying on this subject, dude. I've said it before, and I'll say it again....use the system you're familiar with. If Zone Rating or OPS floats your boat, then so be it. For me, I will stick with the traditional scoring to let me know who the best player is, and use my personal judgement.

I don't think I, nor anyone for that matter, should ever have to apologize for what you believe in.

[Unassisted]

It's OK not to like stats. But it's important to respect the wisdom that they can provide.

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.

[Bobcat J]

I don't think I, nor anyone for that matter, should ever have to apologize for what you believe in.

Proclimations of belief that are made without any support are hollow and add little to discussions. Imagine a doctor publishing a paper where she says that she beleives Tylenol is the cure for cancer without showing any study or information that supports the claim. Should that just be accepted? Should she be un-challenged because that's what she beleives? No. This is the sort of thing you learn in high school.

On the other hand, backing up beliefs with information makes it easier to buy what you are saying and generally helps others learn something. Redszone has always felt more intellectual than most other sites. Its a place to gain a better understanding of the game. If you choose not to add to the discussion, its cool. But, you shouldn't expect to jump into a discussion between folks who are clearly looking for something more than talk radio fare and not be called out for offering up platitutdes.

[Rob Dicken]

Proclimations of belief that are made without any support are hollow and add little to discussions. Imagine a doctor publishing a paper where she says that she beleives Tylenol is the cure for cancer without showing any study or information that supports the claim. Should that just be accepted? Should she be un-challenged because that's what she beleives? No. This is the sort of thing you learn in high school.

On the other hand, backing up beliefs with information makes it easier to buy what you are saying and generally helps others learn something. Redszone has always felt more intellectual than most other sites. Its a place to gain a better understanding of the game. If you choose not to add to the discussion, its cool. But, you shouldn't expect to jump into a discussion between folks who are clearly looking for something more than talk radio fare and not be called out for offering up platitutdes.

This is the thing I am talking about...

You're comparing a career (doctor), to believing in certain statistics of a baseball game....A BASEBALL GAME!!! You're comparing something completely opposite of the point.

The point is...why should ANYONE here have to explain why they don't like certain statistics, and why they like doing it the old fashioned way, or the traditional way? They don't need to. They don't need information to back up their belief.....a claim, yes....a belief, no.

That's like saying you need to back up yourself with evidence why you believe in Jesus or God.....it follows the same lines.

[Jpup]

And saying that I could care less about made-up statistics

who is making up stats? :confused:

[Ron Madden]

I said this same sort of thing here about a week ago, and got blasphemed for it. I stated an opinion on that I think Ken Griffey, Jr. belongs in CF. I got KILLED with people basically telling me, that I am stupid for thinking Ken Griffey, Jr. belongs in CF, because his ZONE RATING is terrible. Who the hell cares? I don't pay to go to a baseball game, and sit and look at a stat book all night to tell me personally who the best player on the team is. Why's PERSONAL judgement such a bad thing? That's traditional baseball.

Why should I even have to have a reason for thinking Ken Griffey, Jr. belongs in CF? If I believe he should, then I believe he should, but that doesn't make me a bad person for thinking so. And saying that I could care less about made-up statistics, shouldn't warrant me in getting bad reputation here, or let alone being warned to a 60% rating.

I definitely feel what you are saying on this subject, dude. I've said it before, and I'll say it again....use the system you're familiar with. If Zone Rating or OPS floats your boat, then so be it. For me, I will stick with the traditional scoring to let me know who the best player is, and use my personal judgement.

I don't think I, nor anyone for that matter, should ever have to apologize for what you believe in.

You have every right to post your opinions. We all share that same right, weather we agree or disagree.

We all have our own opinions and ideas, that's what makes RedsZone so special. We come here to discuss baseball, mostly everything and anything concerning the team we all love. Discussion is Good.

If we can keep an open mind during these discussions we all have a pretty good chance of learning something.

[remdog]

On the other hand, backing up beliefs with information makes it easier to buy what you are saying and generally helps others learn something. Redszone has always felt more intellectual than most other sites. Its a place to gain a better understanding of the game. If you choose not to add to the discussion, its cool. But, you shouldn't expect to jump into a discussion between folks who are clearly looking for something more than talk radio fare and not be called out for offering up platitutdes.

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. Observations are also a place to gain a better understanding of the game. You might review an excellent thread by Team Clark (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48273&page=3) where he explains why Todd Coffey's numbers have jumped recently (tipping pitches) and proceeds to tell you exactly what he has been doing that 'tips' the pitch. The numbers tell you that Coffey was getting hard. Observation tells you why and how. If all you have to offer is numbers and choose not to add to a discussion between folks who are clearly looking for something more than black and white numbers don't expect not to be called out for offering up platitudes.

Rem

[Ltlabner]

Sigh....I figured my post would end up in a debate about stats vs. non stats. This misses my point completley.

All I was trying to express was that a certian part of me is resistant to stats because I want to maintian baseball as one of the few places where the answers aren't cut & dried, and it's still possible for people to beat the odds and have an important home run even though probability says they will not. I want to sit at the ballpark and let the game unfold and take in the entertainment, not loose sleep because player A has a lower OPS than player B. Thats all I was trying to express.

Obviously you need backup for your observations (enter stats stage left). If you proclaim Fred Farkenparkis as the next Babe Ruth and his stats show him to be a turkey then you'll look pretty silly. And you need to do solid statisistical work when making player moves. With the size of the assets involved a GM would be irresponsible to bring a player to town simply because they think it would be cool.

But my post isn't talking about using stats for decision making. Thats when they are critical to making good decisions. My post is talking about something entirely different.

[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? :confused:

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. ;)

[westofyou]

BTW. Casey Stengall wasn't a good manager until he got to New York. Actually he did real well in Oakland, plus the PCL was lobbying for 3rd League recognition then, his success helped.

[westofyou]

Get your facts straight.

Facts are lifes stats eh?

[Chip R]

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 saying you have and I know that wasn't your intent. What I am saying is that others here, and elsewhere, will attack and ridicule people who use a lot of the non-traditional stats. If you don't believe in those stats, that's fine. We're all different and we all have different ways of enjoying the game. Saying there is only one way to enjoy watching baseball is ignorant. When I go to a game, I like to keep score. Other people like to go out and talk to their buddies or scope babes. Still others like to have a few adult beverages and heckle either one or both teams. And others just like to go and watch the game and not do anything else. As long as what they do does not take away from my enjoyment of the game, I have no problem with it.

[Ltlabner]

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.

It's not an either/or propostion. One uses stats to help them to make the decisions to get the ballplayers in place for the best chance of success while at the same time enjoying the randomness of the game.

I was only sharing my thoughts and feelings on the subject. It's one small reason to why I sometimes am resistant to stats. Again, it's not an either/or situation as I have enjoyed learning about a new aspect of the game I hadn't paid much attention to previously. I really appreciate Cyclone et al and the effort and time they put into sharing the information and exposing me to something new.

I was thinking on a broader scale beyond just stats vs no stats. I was trying to examine why I sometimes am resistant to go down that road and thought maybe some might enjoy my bizzare thought process and it would spur others to examine their thoughts also (and might spur some conversation).

[Brutus]

The names change.

The faces change.

But the results do not.

In fact, the more things change the more they stay the same around here. Time for a group hug?

I honestly think westofyou said it best - in reality, there is a balance between stats and tradition in baseball.

Tradition is where much of the strategy lies. There are things in all of professional sports that no amount of statistics can measure. There are things in players that you can't account for by numbers. Simply adhering to statistics to win every argument or prove your every opinion would be foolhardy.

By the same token, statistics are a measure of performance. These numerical details account for a player and the job they are to do on the field. It's a checks and balances system and a way to compare performances on the same scale. Some of the newer statistics have been shown to be much more accurate of measuring against the ultimate goal of run production offensively, making it more worthwhile to at least consider these stats whenever discussing players. To ignore them or completely discount them would also be foolish.

But while both sides and both points have merits, I believe there should always be that delicate balance. Numbers don't explain away everything and tradition, strategy and intangibles also doesn't solve everything. There are probably extremists for both sides that post in these arguments every day on this forum, and both sides are probably off base for it.

Ultimately though, it would be a disgrace to both the managers that won many baseball games based on classic strategy as well as a disgrace to the many respected historians that have put these statistics to use to authenticate the corrolation with these stats and ultimate production to ignore one or the other entirely. Hopefully no one makes that mistake, because I believe they would be missing the big picture.

[Rob Dicken]

Actually he did real well in Oakland, plus the PCL was lobbying for 3rd League recognition then, his success helped.

He was OKAY in Oakland. Real well is kind of pushing it. 2nd, 4th, and a 1st place berth is his finishes before being called to take over the NY job.

So success wasn't really experienced until New York.

[westofyou]

He was OKAY in Oakland. Real well is kind of pushing it. 2nd, 4th, and a 1st place berth is his finishes before being called to take over the NY job.Oakland was small market then too. He won the 1948 PCL Championship and also led the 1944 Brewers to the AA championship.

Now is that "pushing it"?

[Rob Dicken]

Oakland was small market then too. He won the 1948 PCL Championship and also led the 1944 Brewers to the AA championship.

Now is that "pushing it"?

Double A? Yes. He was also then fired from being a minor league coach before he went to Philadelphia I believe.

[westofyou]

Double A? Yes. He was also then fired from being a minor league coach before he went to Philadelphia I believe.
American Association.

To knock Casey Stengal for his record with the Braves (The Judge had lost all interest by then) or the Dodgers(hard to win when the Bank holds the note on the team) is a reach, both Franchises were the equal to the Reds in the early 30's that speaks volumns about their transition from the deadball era to the modern era.

BTW I pretty sure he was never in Philadelphia for a job.

[Rob Dicken]

BTW I pretty sure he was never in Philadelphia for a job.


You're right. It's amazing how many websites have false information....:thumbdown

He did play for the Phillies, however. ;)

[BoydsOfSummer]

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.

There isn't a "stats only" person anywhere in the members list. I feel very safe in saying that.

The game without the stats isn't the same. The stats without the game is,well,there are none. I can't imagine life without either.

Stats and box scores are like reading a book to me,they tell me a story. They can be used as a history book. They can be read to tell me the story of games I can't catch. Heck,they can be read like a far-out sci-fi book by looking into the future and predicting things.

For me,not using and evaluating stats would be like going through life illiterate. Sure,you can live a full life,but you'd be missing out on a bunch of good stuff along the way.

[Rob Dicken]

There isn't a "stats only" person anywhere in the members list. I feel very safe in saying that.

The game without the stats isn't the same. The stats without the game is,well,there are none. I can't imagine life without either.

Stats and box scores are like reading a book to me,they tell me a story. They can be used as a history book. They can be read to tell me the story of games I can't catch. Heck,they can be read like a far-out sci-fi book by looking into the future and predicting things.

For me,not using and evaluating stats would be like going through life illiterate. Sure,you can live a full life,but you'd be missing out on a bunch of good stuff along the way.

Well good. And you're right....stats are a very essential part of the game. And without that game, there would be no stats. I'm not taking awya any aspect of either of those claims.

But, in my honest opinion, there are quite a few different classifications....

There are people who keeps stats....and then there are stat freaks (people who believe more in stats than traditional game aspects.) There are those on this forum....I've ran into quite a few thus far. Not putting them down or trampleing on them....everyone has their own beliefs....but yes, they do exist. ;)

[gonelong]

Edit: Nevermind.

[Ron Madden]

Well good. And you're right....stats are a very essential part of the game. And without that game, there would be no stats. I'm not taking awya any aspect of either of those claims.

But, in my honest opinion, there are quite a few different classifications....

There are people who keeps stats....and then there are stat freaks (people who believe more in stats than traditional game aspects.) There are those on this forum....I've ran into quite a few thus far. Not putting them down or trampleing on them....everyone has their own beliefs....but yes, they do exist. ;)

We must keep an open mind.

Stats are in fact historical records of every traditional game ever played.

Do we need stats to enjoy the game? NO, but they do tell a story to those who pay attention.

Will the numbers always ring true? No, but in the game of baseball we are always in search of an advantage. When we ignore the numbers we put ourselves in a huge disadvantage.

Let's all enjoy the rest of the season. :)

[GAC]

One shouldn't say, when referring to the game of baseball especially, that they "don't like stats". The game is about stats. In fact - life is about stats if one really wants to think about it in a deeper level. ;)

It's an analysis, from "behind the scenes" at the inner mechanics that bring about a result or probability.

I have lived and breathed baseball for most of my 50 years on this planet. And that includes the stats too.

Here's the key....

People (or fans) derive their enjoyment of the game in different ways/avenues.

You have the "casual" fan who just enjoys sitting down, watching/going to a game, and doesn't care to go any farther then that.

You have the "middle guy" (like me) - who enjoys the above element, but is also intriqued by the "evolution in thought" that guys like Branch Rickey, Bill James, Sandy Alderson, and others, have brought to the game.

I am not a closed-minded individual, and definitely not a know-it-all.

And then you have those who many label "stat heads". And I say that not in a derogaroty way, but just to identify those individuals. These fans enjoy the game for the very same reasons as the above.

But IMO (and I could very well be wrong) - that, in and of itself, does not satisfy that "void" in their ever growing desire to know/understand the game and what makes it not only tick - but succeed. And that is where the "science" of statistical analysis comes into play.... i.e. the mechanics.

It's not simply knowing how the "wheel" works; but can it be improved on?

I have nothing but the deepest respect - even with my questions and differences with "statisticians". And believe me, I've gotten in my fair share of arguments/disagreements with some of the years on here. ;)

It's not about whether the stats are wrong. Stats are stats! How can one argue with them?

It's all about the approach and mentality inwhich it is presented by those who enjoy this aspect of the game.... that they must somehow "educate" and lift the rest out of their "neanderthal" existence and understanding of the game.

I've used the old WB cartoon of Foghorn Leghorn and Egghead as an analogy of that. I don't do it to be mean-spirited; but that it simply reminds me of the situation (tension) that exists on this forum, and between the two camps of thought.

http://dbvt.com/x/blog/2006/leghorn0420.jpg

I have a premium subscription to Baseball Prospectus, the Sabermetrics Encyclopedia, and numerous other sources.

It does intrique me.

But to be honest, when I look over the statistical glossary at BP,and see the pages after pages of equations, graphs, studies.... VORP, PECOTA, etc. etc. .... and many, many others, that really go heavily in-depth to a level....I follow it up to a certain level before my interest level fades fast. Because there seems to be no end in sight - stat after stat after stat after stat.

I understand the "science" aspect of the game of baseball.... and respect it.

I just don't derive my level of enjoyment from going that IN-DEPTH. For me, it has crossed the line from baseball to then science class, and it sucks all the enjoyment out of it FOR ME.

And I think the bottomline is, as some on this thread are indicating.... you don't appreciate being "talked down" to, because you aren't into that aspect of the game to the degree some are - who, in a roundabout way, see you as not really knowing the game (as they see it), and need to be re-educated.

There is a book out by Baseball Prospectus, which I am going to buy and read. But the title on the book cover does disturb me to a point and promotes the level of condescension we see at times...

http://media.bestprices.com/content/isbn/69/0465005969.jpg

[Ltlabner]

And I think the bottomline is, as some on this thread are indicating.... you don't appreciate being "talked down" to, because you aren't into that aspect of the game to the degree some are - who, in a roundabout way, see you as not really knowing the game (as they see it), and need to be re-educated.

Great post and point GAC. At the heart of my thoughts is that there is a big difference between how you choose to understand the game and how you choose to enjoy the game.

[RollyInRaleigh]

GAC,

What about the people that have experience in the game, who watch the inner workings and mechanics of the game, its players, managers and coaches and see the game from a totally different perspective than any of the categories mentioned above.:) That particular type of fan gets ridiculed frequently here, too! :laugh:

[GAC]

GAC,

What about the people that have experience in the game, who watch the inner workings and mechanics of the game, its players, managers and coaches and see the game from a totally different perspective than any of the categories mentioned above.:) That particular type of fan gets ridiculed frequently here, too! :laugh:

There's truth there too Randy.

Some would never name their kid after Joe Morgan, that is for sure! :lol:

But many would also say that playing the game does not necessarily qualify one to be an analyst.

You tell Adam Dunn he's OPSing over .900, and he'll look at you with crossed eyes. ;)

[RollyInRaleigh]

You tell Adam Dunn he's OPSing over .900, and he'll look at you with crossed eyes.

Bingo! Now I know why he strikes out so much. Tell those stat guys to quit talking to Dunn!;) :laugh:

[KySteveH]

I enjoy the game, in part, because I understand the statistics of baseball. They allow me to put the game in context. When I see Juan Castro range deep into the hole to make a play, I enjoy it more, because he doesn't have as much range as Furcal or Wilson. When I see Hatteberg get a hit off a lefty, I appreciate more because the stats tell me that doesn't happen very often. A Milton start with no HR's allowed is a particularly rare and beautiful sight.

Now you might say that I would know all these things without memorizing stats. That's partly true, but without the stats, I don't really know how much of what I'm seeing, or hearing is filtered throught my own biases. For example, it seems like every game I attend in person, Dunn plays excellent defense. But his stats tell me he's got some issues out there, and I've just happened to not see the bad plays. Every time I see Harang pitch, it looks like he doesn't have his best stuff, and he's not fooling anybody. But the numbers say he's among the league leaders in K's, so maybe there's something I'm not seeing from the stands.

I really get frustrated with the dichotomy of stats versus non-stats people.