Lets talk SABRmetrics
I think SABR ideas have done tremendous things for the game of baseball. When used with the proper amount of emphasis and in the right context, these principles undeniably make for a more polished game. I think where they lose their effect is when people get so enchanted by these ideas and principles that they ignore the most essential part of the game that gives perspective you cant get any other way, ACTUALLY WATCHING IT
Im becoming more and more convinced that being an all out SABRhead (heavily relying on SABR stats to make points) just allows those who cant make strong evaluations from physical observations alone, to hide behind a protective shell of numbers that frees them from the burden of using their own judgment and intuition and protects them from the criticism that comes from having "projections" that never materialize. Certain core elements of the game can not be measured by calculator. Certain stats may lead you to believe certain things are happening or about to happen, but the game isnt played by robots or on spreadsheets, and I am certain that this is a game that varies for every individual player and evaluations must be centered around physical observation more than anything else.
I think the general principles behind baseball that make the game what it is have been lost on these people. Such things as heart, intuition, and the human factor are ignored as they sift through obscure numbers that they think will alone predict the future.
I hope everyone is able to differentiate between the good that SABRmetrics can do for the game, and the bad they can do, and can tell who exactly I am referring to. Ive been wanting to have this discussion for awhile, and I know a lot of people are going to strongly disagree with my thoughts. My main purpose of this is not to ruffle peoples feathers, because I know a lot of great baseball minds are into SABRmetrics to varying degrees. That does not bother me. It is the SABR groupies who IMO have aided to the dumbing down to a small extent, and oversimplification of what is indeed a stat driven game but also still remains at its core a game of intuition
0 recs |
25 comments
Comments
I always feel like this is a god v science thing. I consider myself more on the other side, but I think SABRmetrics has done a lot to refine the game and I am looking to learn more about it myself. So if someone really feels the need to school me, Im all ears. These are my views, and I would be happy if someone was able to shed some differnet light on these things if you think I am wrong
by blazinrayz on May 19, 2008 6:27 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Another great post....
I couldn’t agree more.
by save_the_trop on May 19, 2008 6:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well said
Most sabr guys know the limitations of their own stats. For example, I think everyone agrees that a leadoff BB to a poor #9 hitter to leadoff an inning is far more damaging to a teams win chance than a 2 out bases empty BB to Pujols. Also, a 4 hop bouncer through the infield for a single is treated unfavorably for a pitcher than a line drive out caught at 400 feet. Yet the sabr metrics used here do not take any of that into account when evaluating a pitcher.
Sabremetrics are good quick and dirty guides and are certainly more informative than traditional stats like BA. But if seen in a vacuum of actual ball in play measurements, they can lie.
RJ is not an elitist douchebag who hates scouting
by ttnorm on May 19, 2008 7:06 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Hmm
I’m no stats expert or anything, but I believe FIP acctually takes batted ball types into account, so that line drive is a worse outcome for the pitcher then the ground ball.
by joof on May 20, 2008 9:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We need Graham to post tRA cards here.
"I've seen many, many blue skies turn gray, but the sun will eventually return, and so will I. So will I." - Carlos Pena
by R.J. Anderson on May 21, 2008 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
SABR snobs can mock it if they want...
but there is much to be learned from watching the game. Doing so puts the stats into context.
by save_the_trop on May 19, 2008 7:59 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
And who on this board doesn't watch a ton of baseball?
Based on what I’ve seen on this board, pretty much everybody here watches every game. Nobody here is making fun of watching the game.
by GomesSweetGomes on May 19, 2008 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep, this is getting exaggerated beyond the point of being comical
Longlorious.
by RATW on May 19, 2008 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You gotta be crazy if you think SABRheads don't watch the games.
still needs more Bonds
by JI on May 19, 2008 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
David Eckstein > Bonds
Glad we had this discussion.
by P Brady on May 19, 2008 10:48 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
SABR tools
allow those that are interested to quantify things you see in a game. I don’t trust my eyes enough to ignore stats nor do I trust stats enough to ignore the game.
by Jason Collette on May 19, 2008 3:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Stat based analysis
To argue that statistical analysis has dumb downed the sport is borderline absurd.
I have an issue with people who simply regurgitate stats without understanding their true meaning, but I do challenge you to read any of the Bill James abstracts and not come away with a better understanding of the game. Statistical analysis is the heart of baseball and it always has been. You cannot look at two hitters in a vacuum and tell me which one is better. You just can’t. You can, however, look at a collection of statistics and say which one you believe will be better in the future. That’s the purpose of statistics. Of course results will vary, that’s the very nature of probability, but statistics will give you a better understand of what probably will happen in the future, better than your eye can.
by tallyray on May 19, 2008 4:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
You gotta be crazy if you think SABRheads don't watch the games.
“Im becoming more and more convinced that being an all out SABRhead (heavily relying on SABR stats to make points) just allows those who cant make strong evaluations from physical observations alone, to hide behind a protective shell of numbers that frees them from the burden of using their own judgment and intuition and protects them from the criticism that comes from having “projections” that never materialize.”
I don’t deny the passion for the game that these people obviously have. I just see myself get into debates with people at times that I am unable to argue because of these “magic numbers” that are all empowering. I would love to sit down with these people over a Rays game and discuss baseball as we see it being played.
I dont think anything is being blown out of proportion. I think there are many people who are into SABRmetrics that also watch the game and have keen eyes for the game and sharp baseball minds. Why wouldnt the smartest baseball people in the world like SABRmetrics? It has undeniably taken the game to new levels
Obviously the types of people I am talking about ACTUALLY WATCH THE GAME also, but I think their seemingly “wide aray” of baseball knowledge is limited to what they read on paper
by blazinrayz on May 19, 2008 6:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Multiple approaches to the game are good
They make for enlightening and well-balanced discussion. I for one appreciate the in-depth scouting that places like BA do, and I enjoy the qualitative insights that people give here. However certain judgments are very easy to back up or refute based on facts, and refusing to acknowledge that reality in some cases I believe has dimmed the quality of judgements here. I think it’s important to recognize that no one has a monopoly on the truth when it comes to analysis, and this feeling that we need to somehow turn everything into a dogmatic stats vs. scouting debate is neither helpful nor particularly truthful in any sense.
by Patrick L. Kennedy on May 19, 2008 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I watch almost every Mariners game, I've been to 10 already this season
And I love sabermetrics.
I doubt that many people here have enough of a scouts-eye that they can project performances better than simple sabermetric stats.
by lailaihei on May 20, 2008 12:51 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think you're arguing a divide which just doesn't exist
Your problem doesn’t really lie with the SABR stuff itself so much as with the people who are misusing it. Lots of people (on both sides of the scouts-stats war) are stupid, and if you focus on what the dumb people have to say you’re not going to get anywhere.
Scouting is a way of gaining information. So too is advanced statistical analysis. Sometimes they tell you different things, and sometimes they’ll agree, but it’s not a matter of choosing sides here. Use both!
And no matter what you might hear, no ‘stathead’ thinks they can predict the future.
by Graham on May 20, 2008 4:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I actually predicted you'd show up.
"I've seen many, many blue skies turn gray, but the sun will eventually return, and so will I. So will I." - Carlos Pena
by R.J. Anderson on May 20, 2008 7:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What?
"I've seen many, many blue skies turn gray, but the sun will eventually return, and so will I. So will I." - Carlos Pena
by R.J. Anderson on May 20, 2008 9:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There an opposite to this
and that is that eyewitnes testimony is also unreliable, particularly after the passage of time. It is relatively easy to form a conclusion from a short term set of observations and fail to change as we “see what we want to see”. Statistics serve as an observational truth test.
But statistics cannot effectively predict single event outcomes – that’s not the point, they’re aggregative. And to me baseball is more about fast twitch response, not intuition. Hence why tension plays a big performance role.
All “advanced” baseball stats have to be viewed carefully. Take BABIP for example. By not measuring HR’s, K’s, or BB’s it contains some serious performance measure skews. Used to measure the “luckiness” of a hitter or pitcher, these inherent skews are a concern, but over large samples they maintain a measure of meaning. Misuse is the key problem.
by nyyfaninlaaland on May 23, 2008 1:38 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

by 


















