Time to Simplify? Joe Posnanski Finds the Way to the Anti-Stat Heart.

by Justin Bopp on Nov 1, 2010 2:00 PM EDT

Joe Posnanski's column today makes a huge assertion which may not be readily obvious to this (or any other) audience:

And I’ve come to believe this is the reality: NOBODY who cares about baseball hates all baseball stats.

It's a convincing case. What we've long assumed was a hatred of all stats (or to be more insulting, a "hatred of thinking!") was actually a dislike of the wrong stats.

His solution, though, puts the issue on its head. He suggests that perhaps simplifying what we call "simple stats" is the best idea. Call 'em "team wins" instead of pitcher wins, count all sacrifices that accomplish the same thing (yikes!), simplify RBIs, clarify ERA, and a middle reliever stat he dubs "Inherited Runners Stranded."

His idea is solid, I think. Create better understanding for non-sabermetricians through further-simplified stats. Is this the best way to do it, though? I have doubts as to whether these actually simplify things or further muddy the waters for guys that aren't really interested, honestly. Or is this more of an exercise to make us sabermetricians feel better about ourselves?

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I don’t think the solution is to simplify the stats but to get people to think critically and ask questions. It seems basic to Saberists because that’s just part of the personality, but some people have not been trained in critical thinking.

Anybody can understand WAR and wOBA and stuff like that. Even SIERA. You don’t need to be an econ major from UPenn to grasp it. But you’ll never get it if you never ask the right questions.

So I think the solution is to get people to ask questions like, “What is this statistic trying to accomplish? Does it accomplish that? Do any other metrics accomplish that in a better, more efficient fashion?” et cetera.

Crashburn Alley

by Crashburn Alley on Nov 1, 2010 2:04 PM EDT reply actions

I agree with this

I understand the notion of a bad messenger (there’s a discussion on the Book blog right now), but Poz’s article felt almost like capitulation to the morons of the world. While I see the abrasiveness of the most rabid stats guys (not nearly as common or rabid as the media journalists would have you believe), I’d still rather bring discourse up to a more sophisticated level than the other way around. I do understand what Poz (and epiphanic below) are saying, tho.

Rays/Cubs fan - AnotherCubsBlog.net

by Mish on Nov 1, 2010 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions

capitulations to the morons?

Why change anything? If I’m watching a game, and the hitter has a 350/450/550 line over 500 ABs, I know that he’s probably a good hitter. We don’t all keep scouting manuals of all players when we go see a ballgame, so BA/OBP/SLG is pretty handy for me. You guys who feel like you need to know exactly what the probability of an event is can have your VORP and wERA.

As morons like I understand that a couple of bloop hits, or an umpire with a tight zone can change a hitters’ numbers, I don’t really engage in arguments about whom is the “best” hitter in the game based on stats. But simple stats do tell me that A-Rod was a more productive hitter than Mario Mendoza.

by TasteeFreeze on Nov 1, 2010 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions

To be fair,

I’m not sure you need simple (or any) stats to come to that conclusion. ;)

The baseball season doesn't have to end! Create your own players, coach your own teams, and join your friends in THE premier baseball MMO. Two Out Rally opens October 25th!
Two Out Rally, BASEBALL MMORPG | Facebook | @2OutRally

by Justin Bopp on Nov 1, 2010 7:49 PM EDT up reply actions

@ Crashburn Alley – I don’t think it’s that simple. I think part of what Mr. Posnanski is saying is that “anti-stat” people don’t like the abstraction of advanced metrics like WAR and wOBA from what happens on the field.

People can look at a basic boxscore and can see, count, and calculate these Basic Stats (something that is more difficult to do with advanced statistics). That (along with their extended history of being part of the game and the boxscore) is part of their allure.

I think Mr. Posnanski’s simplified Basic Stats get more to the heart of what baseball fans want those metrics to measure. And on that basis these suggestions are helpful.

by epiphanic on Nov 1, 2010 2:14 PM EDT reply actions

He's saying the anti-stat crowd likes stats

but they don’t care if the stats they like are a poor way of gauging who is or is not a good baseball player.

A lot of folks are set in their ways when it comes to how they think about things. Forget about trying to change the minds of the adults and focus on brainwashing their kids!

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 1, 2010 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions

Brainwashing innocent children?

FOR.

by Justin Bopp on Nov 1, 2010 7:50 PM EDT up reply actions

I agree with Grover here.

And if they aren’t going to give good stats a chance, I don’t see people liking any new stats.

Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.

People ask me what I do in winter when there’s no baseball...Rock Chalk Talk

by Warden11 on Nov 1, 2010 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions

I really like most of his suggestions

Though I don’t think you should subtract HRs from RBI totals (assuming you’re sticking with RBIs). Too right you get a tick in each R/RBI/HR – you just managed the zenith of a hitter’s ambition.

I fervently agree with his pitching wins argument as well, but I doubt anyone will honestly be able to summon up the enthusiasm to create viable, public-friendly reliever stats. Though they may well be able to improve evaluative stats for this tricky bunch.

It's my blog!

by biondino on Nov 1, 2010 2:23 PM EDT reply actions

That's more or less what I'm thinking, too.

I love the argument and it makes sense. “Baseball fans love baseball stats.” It sounds right.

But the transition into creating these don’t seem to necessarily gel with the concept.

by Justin Bopp on Nov 1, 2010 8:25 PM EDT up reply actions

Inherited Runners Stranded sounds like RBIs for relievers

A better indicator of number of chances than of success in those chances.

They're not just hitting home runs. They're doing the little things, like hitting doubles.

by Torgen on Nov 1, 2010 4:56 PM EDT reply actions

While I would love it if baseball lead more people to improving their critical thinking skills I just don’t thinks it’s realistic. Most non-SABR baseball fans aren’t looking to do some extra thinking when they watch sports.

What I love about Posnanski’s stats is that they attempt to remove from the stats any built in thinking (i.e. a pitcher has to complete five innings to be eligible for the win). The built in thinking is – I think – trying to make the stats better at evaluating players, and as we all know they fall short in many regards.

If a non-SABR fan argues with me about teams wins (as opposed to pitcher wins) I won’t get nearly as upset because I won’t be under the impression that the fan has some sort of misunderstanding of what the stat is telling him/her. If the debate is about anything besides who’s mother is uglier, then it will almost necessarily devolve into the importance of knowing how to win. I know I can’t argue with the winning spirit but at least I don’t feel compelled to make sure that the person I’m arguing with understands all of the conditionals that go into a traditional pitcher win.

Similarly, I love the sacrifice changes that Posnanski suggests. A non-SABR fan can still say that so-and-so is scappy, but a couple things will be different. Firstly, the fan will be able to easily see a stat leaderboard that is less riddled with flaws created by convoluted conditionals. Secondly, when arguing for how valuable a scrappy player is to his team’s success a fan will have to make an argument for how his scrappiness overcomes his low(er) batting average.

by ArunisArun on Nov 1, 2010 8:19 PM EDT reply actions