SABR Geeks, Stats and Playing to the Metric

At times, SABR guys do act like they invented the skill catcher framing ( and other aspects of baseball ) because they can now somehow quantify it or illustrate it via charts, graphs or some other whiz-bang technology.  

Is there a baseball coach in America that doesn't think framing is important? 10 year olds are framing FCOL!! Bad coaches are the only ones it seems who do not understand its importance and unfortunately just like the poor, bad coaches will always be among us.  

Pitchers do, catchers do, umpires do, pitching coaches do, even hitters do, and have for a long time. Long before sabermetrics and data analysis was a gleam in the eye of some wanna-be GM. It's SABR arrogance and self indulgence at its worst as the column below titled Sabermetrics Suck: I am not a Troll  humorously illustrates. 

from SABR:

http://sabr.org/latest/lindbergh-brandon-mccarthy-value-catcher-framing

From SABR member Ben Lindbergh at Baseball Prospectus on May 20, 2013:

Diamondbacks starter Brandon McCarthy is known as one of baseball’s most thoughtful, analytical pitchers; two years ago, he famously embraced advanced statistics and remade himself as a pitcher by perfecting a two-seamer that helped him get groundballs more often. As a result, he’s pretty popular on the internet. I asked him to provide the pitcher’s perspective on the importance of pitch framing and receiving skills.

On how he likes to see a catcher receive his pitches: “You keep the ball where you’re throwing, but it just feels soft. Like you’re just throwing to something that just—as a pitcher, you can see movement, see stabbing, the head is moving a lot, there’s a lot of movement. You know that the umpire can see that. And if the umpire is reacting to that, then you’re probably losing pitches. There isn’t much of that with [Miguel Montero], it’s soft and it’s kind of comfortable receiving as opposed to some catchers it looks like they’re—not scared of the ball, but they’re just very anxious to go get it. And it seems like with them you see more pitches being taken away from them.”

On what a good receiver is worth: "I don’t want to put a concrete number on it, because that’s what people take away from it, and you can kind of become married to that. But I would say it’s pretty worthwhile. I mean, the difference between being in a 1-1 count and a 1-2 count is big. Sometimes you might have two of those situations in a game or three, and sometimes you might have 10 or 11, and if he’s doing something for you that’s earning calls that you might not usually get… You know, it’s hard to say because it’s not really an easy situation, you don’t know if somebody else would have gotten that call, or if it’s the umpire, or if it’s him, but I would say over the course of a season it’s probably worth a lot more than most people would consider.”

from Baseball Prospectus:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=18896

Later that day, Rays manager Joe Maddon went on 620 WDAE-AM in Tampa with co-hosts Ron Diaz and Ian Beckles, and he and Beckles had this exchange:

Beckles: Hey Joe, a lot of the moves you make throughout the season are going to be questioned, and it doesn’t matter to you—most of them work out. The one, I guess, move that gets questioned more than any others is Jose Molina, as much as he played this year. Explain to us what Jose Molina has, or what he offers, that either [Chris] Gimenez or [Jose] Lobaton doesn’t offer.

Maddon: Well, I could reveal to you a stat that I just got today that I think would really blow some people’s minds up. I don’t know exactly how it’s calculated or formulated, but it was concluded that he saved us 50 runs this year. And that’s highly significant. You could break down—you know, people just notice once well, maybe he does not block a baseball. I agree with that, although when he has to, he has blocked the ball well. Early in the season, he was not throwing well, but by the end of the year, he was one of the best throwers in the American League. Also by the end of the year, he started hitting the ball and impacting it a lot better. But we did not—whatever we get from his bat was always going to be a bonus. It was primarily based on defense. So if you get a catcher that’s saving you 50 runs on an annual basis, that is highly significant. So, again, without—I don’t have all the information in front of me, but that’s a highly significant number. So, at the end of the day, people are going to look at the superficial part of all this, but we can’t do that. We do have to look under the hood, and actually, Jose was very, very prominent in our success this year.

We don’t know for sure whether Maddon was referring to Max’s calculations. The timing certainly suggests that he was, but maybe there’s another explanation–after all, October 5th was two days after the season ended, which is about when Maddon might have received the Rays’ internal end-of-season reports. Maybe Max’ numbers matched up with the Rays’ own evaluations exactly, or closely enough that they felt there was no harm in letting the stat slip when someone else had already put it out there.

Wherever Maddon's stat came from, it's impossible to pinpoint his motivations for repeating it on air. We never really knowwhy teams say what they say. Maddon might not actually believe the 50-run rating. Maybe he just wanted to make Molina feel good, pump up his trade value, or make his pitchers more confident in their batterymate. Maybe he wanted to justify his decision to use Molina as much as he had. Maybe framing is all an illusion and the Rays just wanted to pull the wool farther over everyone else's eyes (I don't think it's that one).

But imagine what it would mean for Molina’s value if his framing really was worth 50 runs. Without factoring in blocking, throwing, or framing, Molina was worth 0.2 WARP. The defensive systems agree that Molina’s good throwing added roughly as many runs as his poor blocking subtracted, so let’s call those a wash. Add 50 runs, or five wins, to his tally, and his total rises to 5.2, which would make him the most valuable Ray and tie him with Adam Jones and Giancarlo Stanton at 12th overall. Only 15 players had at least 5.0 WARP this season, so we’re talking about Jose Molina—chunky, 37-year-old Jose Molina, who started 80 games, made less than half as much money as sub-replacement player Juan Rivera, failed to hit his weight, and made two Tampa Bay radio hosts wonder what he had that Chris Gimenez and Jose Lobaton didn’t—being one of the best 15 players in baseball.

It does only so much good to spew stats about Molina’s special season. This is one of those times when “show” works better than “tell,” so here’s a list of the 10 pitches farthest away from the center of the strike zone (in any direction) that were called strikes with Molina catching.*

We all kind of have to be on our guard how we communicate with each other it seems.  If you can't communicate to someone in a language and context they can understand, the message will not be received and however brilliant your message is, you will have lost. 

The recent Scioscia - DiPoto dust-up illustrates where this generally ends. 

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/13178074/los-angeles-angels-manager-mike-scioscia-general-manager-jerry-dipoto-again-odds

Over the weekend, Dipoto, unhappy with the coaching staff's decision to rely more on "feel" than data, according to the report, expressed his frustration during a series of meetings. Dipoto's message was met with a heated rebuttal from at least one coach as well as slugger Albert Pujols, the report stated.

Scioscia it seems wants to use the data while avoiding the tendency to Abuse the data. Players end up trying to play to the metric, the ultimate sin of Moneyball IMO. Too much data, too many idea, too many thoughts from too many sources and you wind up with the embodiment of the Yogi Berra quote "You can't think and hit at the same time". You can definitely think too much and end up in a position of paralysis by (over) analysis. Period! End of story. At some point, you have to set in down and JUST LET 'EM PLAY!! PLAY THE GAME, DON'T PLAY TO THE METRIC>

--

Sabermetrics Suck: I Am Not a Troll 

				Sabermetrics Suck: I Am Not a Troll Since I've had a lot of new readers come by the site in recent days, I thought it was appropriate to re-state and clarify the intention behind this site.
				View on sabermetricssuck.bl...	Preview by Yahoo

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

I Am Not a Troll

Since I've had a lot of new readers come by the site in recent days, I thought it was appropriate to re-state and clarify the intention behind this site.

I realize that by naming the site Sabermetrics Suck, it makes it appear that this blog is either an attempt to instigate, or a parody of an anti-sabermetrics traditionalist.

I assure you that it is neither.

Unfortunately, the title "Sabermetrics Are Good When Used in Moderation But Some People Take It Too Far" seemed a bit clunky.  Also, "Sabermetrics Suck" is definitely catchier.

The goal of the site is not to whine about "geeks with calculators sitting in their mother's basement."  I am not complaining that "these newfangled stats have ruined baseball." 

I accept that the battle between traditionalists and saberfans is pretty much over, and the saberfans have won.

It's pretty tough to deny that fact when I look at ESPN.com and see several baseball writers who focus on advanced statistics.  They even include WAR on their statistics page!

So then what is the point of the site?

In my eyes, the empowered sabermetric crowd has become the new arrogant elite.  It feels like many saberfans were held down and mocked by the traditionalists for so long, that now that they've gained acceptance, they carry themselves with a know-it-all attitude.

Prominent saber-minded writers like Rob Neyer and Keith Law certainly aren't helping that reputation.  

Instead of educating and enlightening people to the ways of sabermetrics, they seem to drive people away with their snarky arrogance.

Saberfans portray traditionalists as stubborn, unyielding old fools who refuse to give up antiquated ways of thinking.  Yet from my experience, saberfans can be even more stubborn and refusing to yield.

The best I can tell, this stubbornness comes from the saberfans having "numbers on their side."

"Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that."

The typical sabermetric thought process seems to be along these lines:

1. Come up with a hypothesis.
2. Find a statistic that backs up that hypothesis.
3. Convince yourself that the statistic offers irrefutable proof.
4. Refuse to yield.

It's kind of fun to do, actually!  Here's an example:

1. Hypothesize that RBIs are an important measure of a player's offensive production.
2. Check the rosters of every team in baseball, and add up the number of RBIs for each player.
3. Find that the teams with the highest player RBI totals were the highest scoring offenses.
4. Conclude that RBIs are a good measure of offensive production.
5. Refuse to yield.

I'm not advocating abandoning statistical research in baseball.  I think it has indeed provided people with more insight about the game.  I regularly read sabermetrics-focused sites to try and gain more knowledge, and have learned some things that I find fascinating.

What I'm trying to do is to remind people that while baseball is about numbers, it is also more than just numbers.  It's about team chemistry, luck, clutch plays, and moments both amazing and bizarre that make it fun to be a baseball fan.

It's about a team having a "1 in 100" chance of winning, and still finding a way to pull out a victory.

I think that some people have just gotten a little too deep into the numbers to see what's really going on.  I'm trying to help people see the big picture.

The "pendulum has swung" to the side of the saberfans.  The blog represents the start of the back swing.

What bothers me the most is the attitude among many sabers that, if I choose not to embrace their hobby, I'm choosing to be ignorant. To paraphrase Socrates, I admit up front that I know everything about baseball because I know absolutely nothing. Heck, people like Don Zimmer or Jim Leyland, who've been close to the game for decades, admit they still haven't figured out this game -- but some schmuck with a calculator is gonna proclaim he has wisdom on his side? Ridiculous. 

That's not to say there isn't some wisdom to be gleaned from the new stats. But why do so many sabers have to be so doggone smug about it? They make statements like "RBI is a garbage statistic, and the only reason old-timers like Jim Leyland still use it is because they're stodgy and stubborn." Rather than affording longtime managers and others in the game the benefit of the doubt, many sabers use that longevity against them, as "proof" that people in the game resist change. 

I would be happy to enjoy baseball my way, and let others enjoy it their way. But when you go onto various blogs and get lambasted every time you mention RBI or pitchers' wins, it gets a little annoying. What cracks me up the most is, these "scientists" refuse to acknowledge the holes in their logic. One example: "RBI is a garbage stat because it's dependent on factors outside the batter's control." Okay, fine -- but why worship at the altar of bases on balls then? Isn't that also outside the batter's control? In order to draw a walk, the pitcher has to throw four balls outside the strike zone. 

Shouldn't that also give these "scientists" pause? 

It won't, because, while there are some sabers who are open-minded and approach their hobby with a scientific eye, by and large sabermetrics is a cult, not a science. It's all about "we're right and they're wrong -- and I'm going to be snide to anyone who disagrees with me." 

1. 
   
   

   1.