The end is Neyer

[Joe Williams]

Neyer's columns on sbnation are worth .7 of his ESPN columns

i liked that.

Hilarious.

You know, it's really not that controversial or silly.

Between 60 and 70 percent of the time, a walk serves the same purpose as a single would have served.

The other 30 to 40 percent of the time, a single is better than a walk (ex. Man on second or third base).

Or when the runner on first goes to third. Rarely happens on a base on balls.

I'm less bothered by the slide-rule set in baseball than I am by its burgeoning brethren in other sports. Football and basketball are much more sequential or interdependent, so using stats to separate out each player's contrbutions is much trickier. As usual, when the numbers crunchers then heap scorn on those who rely on their eyeballs, they have gone too far.

The stats worship loses so much of its potential audience when it drips the "you just don't get it -- the new way is the only way" attitude.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Neyer's columns on sbnation are worth .7 of his ESPN columns

i liked that.

Hilarious.

You know, it's really not that controversial or silly.

Between 60 and 70 percent of the time, a walk serves the same purpose as a single would have served.

The other 30 to 40 percent of the time, a single is better than a walk (ex. Man on second or third base).

Or when the runner on first goes to third. Rarely happens on a base on balls.

I'm less bothered by the slide-rule set in baseball than I am by its burgeoning brethren in other sports. Football and basketball are much more sequential or interdependent, so using stats to separate out each player's contrbutions is much trickier. As usual, when the numbers crunchers then heap scorn on those who rely on their eyeballs, they have gone too far.

The stats worship loses so much of its potential audience when it drips the "you just don't get it -- the new way is the only way" attitude.

Now that every team and every serious fantasy player is up to speed on the heretofore hidden values and patterns, to me the real battle ground now is the traditional scouting departments (and, for fantasy players, contextual knowledge - which is very, very tough to come by because of all the misinformation that comes out of media reports).

But, back to Drip's post: It is not a "simple freaking game." Nor is basketball. Nor is football. Nor is hockey. None of them. Last night, I chided my wife for watching soap operas, because I told her it was "mindless."

She shot back, "A lot of people would say the same about sports."

I said, "Not the way I watch them."

 

[RickStain]

Football and basketball are much more sequential or interdependent, so using stats to separate out each player's contrbutions is much trickier.

Absolutely agree with this.

As usual, when the numbers crunchers then heap scorn on those who rely on their eyeballs, they have gone too far.

The stats worship loses so much of its potential audience when it drips the "you just don't get it -- the new way is the only way" attitude.

Statistical analysis is often objectively correct. If you want to tell me your eyes see something in a prospect that the stats don't see, that's fine. If you want to contradict a principle that has a scientifically analyzed statistical study behind it, and all you've got is your eyes, then here comes a heaping of scorn.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Football and basketball are much more sequential or interdependent, so using stats to separate out each player's contrbutions is much trickier.

Absolutely agree with this.

A lot of the basketball analysis I see in that vein is about teams rather than individuals, i.e. things like offensive efficiency per possession (as a better measure than scoring per game or field goal percentage, for example).

 

[LongTimeListener]

Statistical analysis is often objectively correct. If you want to tell me your eyes see something in a prospect that the stats don't see, that's fine. If you want to contradict a principle that has a scientifically analyzed statistical study behind it, and all you've got is your eyes, then here comes a heaping of scorn.

Rick, you always say "scientifically analyzed," but it isn't. True science depends on a control group. You can analyze a million innings of data about baseball, but there will never be a control group in that data. To the question of walks as one example, you will never know what the opportunity cost was of taking a walk. Did the batter pass up a pitch he could have hit out of the park? Would the runner have taken an extra base on a hit to right?

Also, the analysis is not peer review as the scientific community defines it. It's other hobbyists and website operators taking a look, but even though DIPS looks very reliable, in no way has it become "scientifically" accepted.

A lot of conclusions can be drawn in the numbers, but it isn't science. It's more like stock-market analysis, and we all know how horribly wrong those equations can look in retrospect.

 

[Joe Williams]

Football and basketball are much more sequential or interdependent, so using stats to separate out each player's contrbutions is much trickier.

Absolutely agree with this.

A lot of the basketball analysis I see in that vein is about teams rather than individuals, i.e. things like offensive efficiency per possession (as a better measure than scoring per game or field goal percentage, for example).

Yeah, Rick, my thinking was in acknowledging some intangibles, and character and work ethic and "upside," that don't get captured by snapshot numbers. Not disputing the numbers for own sake.

Still trying to find the stats, for instance, that adequately assess the so-called "glue guys." Not just energy grunts who flail about but the players who indeed are more helpful to good teams than they are to bad ones. The ones who know, like a good butler (going by the movies here, not personal experience), know what's needed even before the head of the house knows he needs it. You spill the wine, turn around and Jeeves already is there with a towel and a fresh bottle. On a bad team, which needs so much, those guys are wasted and often not even good enough to get on the floor.

 

[RickStain]

Rick, you always say "scientifically analyzed," but it isn't. True science depends on a control group. You can analyze a million innings of data about baseball, but there will never be a control group in that data. To the question of walks as one example, you will never know what the opportunity cost was of taking a walk. Did the batter pass up a pitch he could have hit out of the park? Would the runner have taken an extra base on a hit to right?

Also, the analysis is not peer review as the scientific community defines it. It's other hobbyists and website operators taking a look, but even though DIPS looks very reliable, in no way has it become "scientifically" accepted.

A lot of conclusions can be drawn in the numbers, but it isn't science. It's more like stock-market analysis, and we all know how horribly wrong those equations can look in retrospect.

Of course there are control groups.

Let's say I want to study if the a high batting average with RISP is a skill separate from batting average. I rank all the players for my sample (one season, 10 seasons, whatever) by the difference between their RISP BA and their overall BA. I take the top 20% from that sample, that's my subject group. I take the bottom 20%, that's my control group. If there's a clear difference between the two groups the next year (or 10, or whatever sample I want to study), then it's a skill. If they both regress to the mean, it's not a skill.

As far as your scenario about the "opportunity cost" of taking a walk, that's only relevant if we are interested in comparing the batter's value to the value of an imaginary version of him who didn't take the walk. But we aren't doing that. We are comparing his value to other real players.

Your "Hobbyists and web site operators" are pretty darn expert on the subject. Their peer review is a lot more rigorous than you think.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Rick, you always say "scientifically analyzed," but it isn't. True science depends on a control group. You can analyze a million innings of data about baseball, but there will never be a control group in that data. To the question of walks as one example, you will never know what the opportunity cost was of taking a walk. Did the batter pass up a pitch he could have hit out of the park? Would the runner have taken an extra base on a hit to right?

Also, the analysis is not peer review as the scientific community defines it. It's other hobbyists and website operators taking a look, but even though DIPS looks very reliable, in no way has it become "scientifically" accepted.

A lot of conclusions can be drawn in the numbers, but it isn't science. It's more like stock-market analysis, and we all know how horribly wrong those equations can look in retrospect.

Of course there are control groups.

Let's say I want to study if the a high batting average with RISP is a skill separate from batting average. I rank all the players for my sample (one season, 10 seasons, whatever) by the difference between their RISP BA and their overall BA. I take the top 20% from that sample, that's my subject group. I take the bottom 20%, that's my control group. If there's a clear difference between the two groups the next year (or 10, or whatever sample I want to study), then it's a skill. If they both regress to the mean, it's not a skill.

As far as your scenario about the "opportunity cost" of taking a walk, that's only relevant if we are interested in comparing the batter's value to the value of an imaginary version of him who didn't take the walk. But we aren't doing that. We are comparing his value to other real players.

Your "Hobbyists and web site operators" are pretty darn expert on the subject. Their peer review is a lot more rigorous than you think.

My friend is a huge Reds fan and he constantly grips about Adam Dunn. How glad he is that he's gone. How he strikes out too much. And on and on and on.

I try to explain to him that you've got to compare Adam Dunn's production to other players to determine his value. Not Adam Dunn's production to my friend's ideal version of Adam Dunn.

It never sinks in.

And he's a freaking CPA.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Rick, you always say "scientifically analyzed," but it isn't. True science depends on a control group. You can analyze a million innings of data about baseball, but there will never be a control group in that data. To the question of walks as one example, you will never know what the opportunity cost was of taking a walk. Did the batter pass up a pitch he could have hit out of the park? Would the runner have taken an extra base on a hit to right?

Also, the analysis is not peer review as the scientific community defines it. It's other hobbyists and website operators taking a look, but even though DIPS looks very reliable, in no way has it become "scientifically" accepted.

A lot of conclusions can be drawn in the numbers, but it isn't science. It's more like stock-market analysis, and we all know how horribly wrong those equations can look in retrospect.

Of course there are control groups.

Let's say I want to study if the a high batting average with RISP is a skill separate from batting average. I rank all the players for my sample (one season, 10 seasons, whatever) by the difference between their RISP BA and their overall BA. I take the top 20% from that sample, that's my subject group. I take the bottom 20%, that's my control group. If there's a clear difference between the two groups the next year (or 10, or whatever sample I want to study), then it's a skill. If they both regress to the mean, it's not a skill.

As far as your scenario about the "opportunity cost" of taking a walk, that's only relevant if we are interested in comparing the batter's value to the value of an imaginary version of him who didn't take the walk. But we aren't doing that. We are comparing his value to other real players.

Your "Hobbyists and web site operators" are pretty darn expert on the subject. Their peer review is a lot more rigorous than you think.

That is still retroactive data analysis, very valuable but not science. It would be science if the batters were hitting the same pitches from the same pitchers on the same day in the same ballpark.

 

[RickStain]

So you are arguing that nothing that analyzes data retroactively is science?

Goodbye economics, political science, and pretty much all social sciences.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Football and basketball are much more sequential or interdependent, so using stats to separate out each player's contrbutions is much trickier.

Absolutely agree with this.

A lot of the basketball analysis I see in that vein is about teams rather than individuals, i.e. things like offensive efficiency per possession (as a better measure than scoring per game or field goal percentage, for example).

Yeah, Rick, my thinking was in acknowledging some intangibles, and character and work ethic and "upside," that don't get captured by snapshot numbers. Not disputing the numbers for own sake.

Still trying to find the stats, for instance, that adequately assess the so-called "glue guys." Not just energy grunts who flail about but the players who indeed are more helpful to good teams than they are to bad ones. The ones who know, like a good butler (going by the movies here, not personal experience), know what's needed even before the head of the house knows he needs it. You spill the wine, turn around and Jeeves already is there with a towel and a fresh bottle. On a bad team, which needs so much, those guys are wasted and often not even good enough to get on the floor.

Plus/minus has shown promise on this front, and it's so simple: points for and against when a player is on the court. Obviously this can be skewed by a player's spot in the rotation, but there's some value to be had there. Last year the Warriors had Monta and Ellis and Stephen Curry, and as good as both of them looked individually, they were awful playing together. CJ Watson paired with either of them was a much better player in the plus/minus. Watson is gone this year and now the Warriors are realizing they can't continue with Curry and Ellis in the same backcourt.

 

[LongTimeListener]

So you are arguing that nothing that analyzes data retroactively is science?

Goodbye economics, political science, and pretty much all social sciences.

I'd love to hear from a math/science professor (doctorquant?), but it has always been explained to me that the only way to draw an absolute conclusion is with a control group and observation of the data and experimentation methods.

Economics? Political science? Social sciences? I'm trying to think of a study that is accepted as truth regardless of political affiliation, religious belief, etc. Paul Krugman tells us three times a week that he has proof that the Republicans are full of ****.

 

[RickStain]

So you are arguing that nothing that analyzes data retroactively is science?

Goodbye economics, political science, and pretty much all social sciences.

I'd love to hear from a math/science professor (doctorquant?), but it has always been explained to me that the only way to draw an absolute conclusion is with a control group and observation of the data and experimentation methods.

Economics? Political science? Social sciences? I'm trying to think of a study that is accepted as truth regardless of political affiliation, religious belief, etc. Paul Krugman tells us three times a week that he has proof that the Republicans are full of ****.

Take, for example, the political work of Nate Silver. What he does is science.

Or climatology. They can't reboot the earth and try the same weather patterns over again with a control earth.

Science is about observation. Experimental observation, which is what you are thinking of, is not the only way to get data.

 

[dooley_womack1]

Neyer's columns on sbnation are worth .7 of his ESPN columns

i liked that.

Hilarious.

You know, it's really not that controversial or silly.

Between 60 and 70 percent of the time, a walk serves the same purpose as a single would have served.

The other 30 to 40 percent of the time, a single is better than a walk (ex. Man on second or third base).

Apparently, your sense of humor is .7 of the normal SportsJournalists.commer sense of humor.

 

[Drip]

He says it will be easy to find him again. Good thing. Neyer's been extremely important in sportswriting.

Extremely important to who?

Baseball fans under the age of 60.

I'm 52. He's of absolutely no importance to me, although I recognize that he is a Bill James disciple and among the leaders in advanced statistical analysis.

That's what's wrong with sports. Too many egg heads trying to micro everything about a simple freaking game.

And here I thought it was rapists like Ben Roethlisberger and dog killers like Michael Vick. Damn egg heads!

The character of those guys may be in question but not their athletic abilities. The egg Heads probably never played sports and this is their idea of competing.

 

[Azrael]

The egg Heads probably never played sports and this is their idea of competing.

"They never played the game"? From a sportswriter? Priceless.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

He says it will be easy to find him again. Good thing. Neyer's been extremely important in sportswriting.

Extremely important to who?

Baseball fans under the age of 60.

I'm 52. He's of absolutely no importance to me, although I recognize that he is a Bill James disciple and among the leaders in advanced statistical analysis.

That's what's wrong with sports. Too many egg heads trying to micro everything about a simple freaking game.

And here I thought it was rapists like Ben Roethlisberger and dog killers like Michael Vick. Damn egg heads!

The character of those guys may be in question but not their athletic abilities. The egg Heads probably never played sports and this is their idea of competing.

Michael Vick's an admitted lazy ass who wouldn't work to get better. So his athletic abilities have been in question.

 

[JC]

He says it will be easy to find him again. Good thing. Neyer's been extremely important in sportswriting.

Extremely important to who?

Baseball fans under the age of 60.

I'm 52. He's of absolutely no importance to me, although I recognize that he is a Bill James disciple and among the leaders in advanced statistical analysis.

That's what's wrong with sports. Too many egg heads trying to micro everything about a simple freaking game.

And here I thought it was rapists like Ben Roethlisberger and dog killers like Michael Vick. Damn egg heads!

The character of those guys may be in question but not their athletic abilities. The egg Heads probably never played sports and this is their idea of competing.

Do you ever get tired of making a fool of yourself?

 

[Drip]

The egg Heads probably never played sports and this is their idea of competing.

"They never played the game"? From a sportswriter? Priceless.

He says it will be easy to find him again. Good thing. Neyer's been extremely important in sportswriting.

Extremely important to who?

Baseball fans under the age of 60.

I'm 52. He's of absolutely no importance to me, although I recognize that he is a Bill James disciple and among the leaders in advanced statistical analysis.

That's what's wrong with sports. Too many egg heads trying to micro everything about a simple freaking game.

And here I thought it was rapists like Ben Roethlisberger and dog killers like Michael Vick. Damn egg heads!

The character of those guys may be in question but not their athletic abilities. The egg Heads probably never played sports and this is their idea of competing.

Do you ever get tired of making a fool of yourself?

FYI. I played the game. Couldn't hit uncle charlie consistently to make it the next level but knew a few who did in baseball and in other sports.

 

[Dick Whitman]

The egg Heads probably never played sports and this is their idea of competing.

"They never played the game"? From a sportswriter? Priceless.

He says it will be easy to find him again. Good thing. Neyer's been extremely important in sportswriting.

Extremely important to who?

Baseball fans under the age of 60.

I'm 52. He's of absolutely no importance to me, although I recognize that he is a Bill James disciple and among the leaders in advanced statistical analysis.

That's what's wrong with sports. Too many egg heads trying to micro everything about a simple freaking game.

And here I thought it was rapists like Ben Roethlisberger and dog killers like Michael Vick. Damn egg heads!

The character of those guys may be in question but not their athletic abilities. The egg Heads probably never played sports and this is their idea of competing.

Do you ever get tired of making a fool of yourself?

FYI. I played the game. Couldn't hit uncle charlie consistently to make it the next level but knew a few who did in baseball and in other sports.

There are plenty of guys who "played the game," even at the highest level, who are far less knowledgeable than fans and sports writers and executives about the nuances of the game, particularly big picture-wise. Tim Lincecum, to pull a name directly out of my ass, knows how to fine-tune his own mechanics and follow a plan. But he probably couldn't put together a roster or manage a payroll. Or turn a double play or bat .300, since his focus is so narrow.

Zack Greinke and Brian Bannister are two pitchers I can recall actually talking about using sabermetrics to assist them. Bannister, for example, realized that the numbers indicated that his really good season was largely luck, and knew he needed to get better and not rely on a repeat by doing the same things.