Processes > Results

by R.J. Anderson on Dec 15, 2008 8:24 PM EST

If you've ever watched a broadcast of a baseball game you've almost certainly heard something to the effect of: "All that matters is the win." That's not completely true. Yes, wins are the ultimate goal in baseball (and all sports), but how you get those wins are also important. The problem is a lot of people take that quote to heart. These people watch Pitcher A give up five runs, have his offense bail him out with six runs, get a winning decision and proclaim Pitcher A did his job. These people are wrong.

Let me state that I am not cheapening the value of a win. Instead, I'm placing more value on processes than results. Refer to this chart, courtesy of the great Paul DePodesta:

What are some of the processes in baseball, well...
- Means of evaluating talent. Focusing on the things that matter and ignoring those that don't (cough wins, ERA, saves, cough)
- Approach to each at-bat, either pitching or hitting (not swinging out of zone, winning the first three pitches, ect)
- Outcome of each at-bat, either pitching or hitting (line drive, swinging strikes, ect.)

As the chart shows, these processes don't always result in success. No batter is ever going to reach base 100% of the time, or hit a homerun in each plate appearance, and no pitcher is going to throw perfect games in 35 starts. At the same time, good processes are more likely to lead to sustainable results than bad processes. This applies to roster management as well, a few moves for smart teams haven't worked out (Julio Lugo to BOS), meanwhile some moves for dumb teams have (Randy Wolf to HOU).

Over the course of a 162 game season you're less likely to see a fluke than during the course of a five-to-seven game series. This is why the playoffs are a crapshoot, and why the playoffs aren't completely void of luck. The ultimate goal is reaching the playoffs, the ultimate results is winning the tournament.

This is also why not all six inning, one run outings are not truly created equal. A James Shields two hits, one walk, four strikeout performance is not equal to an Edwin Jackson three hits, five walks, one strikeout performance. In the long run, one of those lines will maintain success, the other will not.

Further, look at Nick Swisher's 2008. If you say "Aw, man he sucks." Odds are you think in results based terms. If you say, "Aw, man he was unlucky. Good buy low candidate for the Yankees." Odds are you think in processes. What are some metrics you should look at that tell you more about the processes than results?

BABIP
xBABIP
LD%
GB%
HR/FB%
SwStr%
Third Order Wins

What does all of this do for our views of baseball? It makes us more aware of deserved success, luck, bad luck, and deserved failure. Things are not always as black and white as "pass/fail". For example, Line drives are a good thing, and since batters haven't learned the art of aiming their liners, line drives sometimes turn into outs. Understanding that a line drive out is better than a blooper hit -- since liners are the batted ball type most likely to turn into a hit -- is an important step to thinking in processes.

Results based analysis is simpleton thinking.

Tweet Comment 11 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Well put..

I hate hearing “All that matters is the W.”
That’s actually one of the reasons I like the BCS… style points…

9=2 apparently

by mrichardkent on Dec 15, 2008 10:14 PM EST reply actions

Hmm

I don’t think Pat Gillick read the memo.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Dec 16, 2008 12:34 AM EST reply actions

Ruben Amaro's running the show there now.

www.raysprospects.com
Trade for Billy Butler!

by Imperialism32 on Dec 16, 2008 1:24 AM EST up reply actions

i always loved that chart.

by walkoffwalk on Dec 16, 2008 12:42 AM EST reply actions

I agree with your basic assertions

But I think you are expanding the definition of ‘processes’ to include ‘results that have been shown to have predictive power’.

When Jackson walks 3 and allows 5 hits, this is a result that is distinct from, and inferior to, the hypothetical Shields start. The difference in process lies in their willingness to attack the strike zone, and work their pitches off of one another.

Obviously not all results are created equal, as some results are much more indicative of sustainability than others. But BABIP, LD%, etc. are most certainly results, not processes. GM’s who seek out players who shine with these stats (especially if they are undervalued by traditional metrics) are engaging in good processes by virtue of superior evaluation of results.

To recap:
Going about things a certain way in hopes of achieving a result (taking a pitch, swinging at strikes, bunting, attempting a steal, etc.) = Process
Nearly anything that shows up on a stat sheet (BABIP, FB%, RBI, SB) = Result
Choosing which results to place value upon = Process
Winning or losing games because (or in spite) of those value judgments = Result

by GomesSweetGomes on Dec 16, 2008 2:44 AM EST reply actions

I think we agree here.

My point on Edwin/Shields was simply that walking hitters isn’t a good process. Or rather, not falling behind and eventually walking hitters.

by R.J. Anderson on Dec 16, 2008 11:04 AM EST up reply actions

What does all of this do for our views of baseball? It makes us more aware of deserved success, luck, bad luck, and deserved failure. Things are not always as black and white as “pass/fail”.

To the average fan that still isn’t the case. We can sit here and explain the virtues of BABIP and FB and GB% until we’re blue in the face, but it’s going to take many many years before Mr. Joe Everyfan, or most mainstream/national writers for that matter, learn to see past the traditional metrics and expand their baseball IQ.

by Erik Hahmann on Dec 16, 2008 9:43 AM EST reply actions

This is why the average fan thinks Edwin was turning a corner.

by R.J. Anderson on Dec 16, 2008 11:06 AM EST up reply actions

Exactly. It's going to take awhile before they can get out of that mode of thinking.

Look at how long it took OPS to be integrated into common baseball vernacular. It’s going to take awhile before average people start to take a look at BABIP, or VORP for that matter. They’re going to need to be used in newspapers and national columns for awhile before people get a grasp of what they are and why they’re valuable.

by Erik Hahmann on Dec 16, 2008 11:33 AM EST up reply actions

You're being overgenerous to Podesta

He adopted that matrix from a wide variety of business quality systems. Not that that’s a bad thing, but he doesn’t deserve the credit for it.

And the point stands.

Interesting that the luck quotient in baseball analysis is rising. Goes against the grain of human nature in some ways – we’re more comfortable with certainty – but is a more accurate statement of reality. Just consult Heisenberg – he doesn’t write for BP or THT.

To me there’s a mix of these factors. Metrics such as BABIP do a good job at pointing to the variance inherent in a player’s results, but I’m unwilling to concede there isn’t an element of input from the player’s skill set as well. And I’m sure most would agree.

A greater acceptance of the natural variabilty of performance would go a long way towards explaining the difficulty of continued success on a team level – too many things can go wrong. What orgs can do is prepare for that with greater depth – that’s where money provides the advantage in the sport. Of course the other huge luck variable is health. Player performance will normally fall in the bell curve that any solid predictive model can outline, but health is the great random variable. Not completely unpredictable, but largely so.

And I’m not comfortable with the “average fan” analysis level issue. Statistical analysis is great for those who want to use it, but it’s not a requirement for enjoyment of the game. It makes for more accurate analysis – but it seems to me that it sometimes comes with an “I’m smarter than you so shut up” quotient that’s unnecessary. It’s a game after all – let fans enjoy it on their terms. On the other hand, what is irritating is certainty with regards to one’s opinion, particularly less informed ones. Be nice if we taught people that they had a right to an opinion, but a responsibility to be open to the possibility it could be inaccurate and to be open to change.

by nyyfaninlaaland on Dec 16, 2008 3:24 PM EST reply actions

I’m not saying that statistical analysis is a requirement for enjoying the game. I enjoy watching baseball, and I would enjoy it just the same if no one ever kept any stats besides the final score.

The “average fan” sees Edwin Jackson’s 14 wins, improved ERA, 94MPH fastball, etc and think he’s a good player. They’re the same people that saw Ryan Howard’s HR and RBI totals and argued that he should have been MVP over Pujols. If those are your opinions, then I’m sorry, you’re opinions are wrong. It’s not an “I’m smarter than you so shut up” mentality. It’s an “I’m going to go look at numbers which are easily accessible to everyone and form and educated view point” mentality. If you only use the traditional statistics then you’re vastly limiting your knowledge of the game. Nothing wrong with knowing more.

And I think if you already love something as much as we all love baseball, wouldn’t a greater understanding of that something make you enjoy it even more?

by Erik Hahmann on Dec 16, 2008 3:51 PM EST reply actions