Processes > Results
by R.J. Anderson on Dec 15, 2008 8:25 PM EST
41 comments
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.
2 recs |
41 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
It is very true that things do not work in black in white
unfortunately, things tend to turn into a very opaque shade of gray when you look at the middle. The best measure is to not use quantitative stats and to observe how a player approaches and plays the game, at least offensively.
For example… Nick Swisher was infuriating, and not because he hit the ball into gloves. That doesn’t mean I liked it when he was gone, if only because he shouldn’t have been here in the first place(though one could argue Carlos Quentin’s eruption and Alexei Ramirez’s inability to play CF were unexpected, though foreseeable). The bottom line is that the Nick Swisher before 2008 fit with the White Sox and the after 2008 version did not. I do think it was a good buy low from the Yankees, but only if they let him prove himself rather than covering him with a lucrative FA contract.
Um
The best measure is to not use quantitative stats and to observe how a player approaches and plays the game
I’m sorry, but you literally could not get any wronger. The relatively minimal amount you can glean from watching players hit is swallowed whole by prejudices, nonexistent patterns the human brain reads into the visual data, and so on.
Or to put it even more pithily: the slump doesn’t exist, so people had to invent it.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Better to do both while being aware of the failings of each.
Talent evaluation shouldn’t be stats vs. scouts.
If you're talking amateurs, or even minor leaguers, sure
Major leaguers now have a bewildering amount of exact data available free on the internet as to their tendencies, abilities, and process-level performance, and the smarter teams have much more information than we do.
Hell, the Mariners just replaced their advance scouts… hard to argue that doesn’t mean something. There probably are still some aspects of hitting which can only be determined through scouting but the number is dwindling rapidly toward the point of “why bother.”
One other point: Scouting a player based on pitch-by-pitch charting of exactly what he’s doing is an entirely different kettle of fish from the half-assed “eye test” guesswork that many fans use to make judgments on players.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I think something was lost in translation
I meant to include the things you listed at the bottom
by Daniel Berlyn on Dec 16, 2008 5:54 PM EST up reply actions
obviously we aren't able to observe the way MLB experts are
but then, we probably don’t have the quantitative resources they have either. Our abilities to analyze are crippled in comparison and I don’t see reason to believe that one person’s ability to observe is the same as another’s, just as one may not be able to use statistics the way another person might be able to… the point here is that if you can(not to be used lightly) detect real patterns and deficiencies in a player’s approach, you will be able to exploit this better than using stats. Of course, there are rapid upgrades in the way we measure these deficiencies so I will readily admit that what I am saying may be obsolete as it is, and the best way is to use both in conjunction as Graham says, but if I had to use one or the other, I would choose observing every at-bat or every pitch over generalization. I can acknowledge that a computer will pick up a player’s inability to hit a slider inside better than the human memory, but I also consider this contemporary observation, so what we may have here is a difference in categorization.
See, I’m not going to say Nick Swisher sucked, but he was mentally and emotionally out of sync, and this was a contributing factor in his shortcoming, but I think it’s as good of a possibility as not that he returns to Oakland form in NY. You can’t totally eliminate the human factor. I guess what I’m saying is that you can use these stats if you know why they come out the way they do, but there are more specifics in there that you may care about.
by Daniel Berlyn on Dec 15, 2008 10:29 PM EST up reply actions
I disagree with this sentiment.
HD video feeds, slow-motion replay, and multiple angles give the home viewer as much information as any expert. A willingness to record game footage and replay it frame-by-frame gives the home viewer yet more information.
I used to believe wholeheartedly in the idea of emotional leadership and human factors, but over the course of the past few years, have been convinced by my peers over at LSB that such a thing is (at best) a negligible positive or negative contribution due to both the individualistic nature of baseball and the high degree of refined professionalism required by major league clubs.
Bottom line: if you can’t hit because the guy coming to bat behind you is a jerk (or your manager told you off earlier today, or your team lost a tough game the previous night), then you aren’t mentally tough enough to play baseball professionally.
I disagree
you don’t have to be mentally tough enough for anything to be good at it, as long as you have the ability and/or dedication. I think mental toughness is even harder to gage than clutch, we don’t know what’s going through the player’s head.
by Daniel Berlyn on Dec 16, 2008 5:31 PM EST up reply actions
and this is just a pet peeve
but I dislike when people throw around the word “literally” so easily. As if what I said was the epitome of wrong. It just sounds unnecessary anyway, IMO.
by Daniel Berlyn on Dec 15, 2008 10:43 PM EST up reply actions
The misuse of "literally" is when people use it
in sentences that could not possibly be literally true. “I literally jumped out of my shoes when I heard it!” Etc etc.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I literally shot myself when I read your post.
oh wait
Webmaster of Driveline Mechanics
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com - An Unconventional Look at Scouting
Great article.
I think a lot of front offices could use something like this.
---
Juuuust a bit outside!!
http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com
Defense!
Those are all offensive/pitching metrics! I can’t wait for the metrics to get better so that we can better evaluate a player’s worth, because defense is often a much overlooked part of baseball.
OT: Out of shear curiosity, what is 3rd Order Wins?
"I'm on hold for now"- Bobby Crosby
by DyeLongJustice on Dec 15, 2008 10:25 PM EST reply actions
Worse Yet...
“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.”
Some people believe that a pitcher invariably helps his team win by being a ‘winner’. A reader once told me that Noah Lowry is a superior pitcher to Matt Cain because he is a ‘proven winner’. The reader went on to comment that Lowry (somehow) knows when his hitters are going to show up and will give up a lot of runs on those evenings…
Typing that, and trying to figure out what the read meant is still mind boggling.
Easy
He picks out the days where they’re facing a tough pitcher, decides to give up lots of runs on this day and motivates his team to a victory. I commend Lowry for this as well as not pitching last year in order to help Lincecum win the Cy. He is a true teammate.
by Daniel Berlyn on Dec 15, 2008 11:54 PM EST up reply actions
it's always nice to see introductions to stuff like this sprinkled liberally with insults.
nothing like calling the people you’re trying to convince simpletons and so on. that usually works really well in convincing them.
by larry on Dec 16, 2008 3:40 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Seriously, lay off the personal stuff.
And stuff that can easily be misconstrued as personal. Thanks.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
a mind like yours will always be lonely
or bitter, or maybe both
by Daniel Berlyn on Dec 16, 2008 5:33 PM EST up reply actions
This post reminds me of something I wrote about gambling.
Webmaster of Driveline Mechanics
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com - An Unconventional Look at Scouting
Whoever wins the hand obviously played it the best, ldo.
Can't get enough of the Oakland A's? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's
Implied odds? You can imply deez nuts.
Webmaster of Driveline Mechanics
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com - An Unconventional Look at Scouting
I'm already on record against this.
I don’t feel like explaining myself again.
Clutch: A measurement of how much better or worse a player does in high leverage situations than he would have done in a context neutral environment. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/glossary/
You could link to where you're on record...
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Dec 20, 2008 10:43 AM EST up reply actions
Arguements with RJ on multiple pages.
One time might have been the cause of one of my DRB bannings, the one before this one. Don’t ask how many times total.
Clutch: A measurement of how much better or worse a player does in high leverage situations than he would have done in a context neutral environment. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/glossary/
Thanks, that was so helpful and added a lot to the discussion.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Dec 21, 2008 11:33 AM EST up reply actions
Sorry.
I think that results are more important because they include the process. A good process will most likely end in a good result [almost just typed “result in a good result”. And no one really gives a damn if you deserve your success. You don’t get a pay raise at work for staying after closing and crashing the server after hours of hard work.
Clutch: A measurement of how much better or worse a player does in high leverage situations than he would have done in a context neutral environment. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/glossary/
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
BtB on Facebook
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
