But I do think that there’s going to be a huge leap in analysis once Hit F/X and, more importantly, Field F/X become figured out. Even if the data themselves aren’t easily understood, they can be incorporated into metrics that tell us more than we’ve ever known about how players perform. First of all, Hit F/X+Field F/X will give us the fielding metric to end all fielding metrics; rather than relying on a stringer to classify balls in play as fliner, liner, grounder, etc., and mark where it lands, we’ll have exceedingly specific data on what exactly each sort of ball in play is. Perhaps more importantly, we’ll finally be able to incorporate data on fielder positioning, and see how much that contributes. Second of all, imagine Hit F/X creating, for example, a wOBA that gives a player extra credit for hitting a hard lineout. We’d be more able than ever to separate out performance and true talent. From what I understand, this technology is coming, and when it does, it’s going to shake everything up.

There’s a way in which we’ve pretty much done the easy stuff. And so it is going to take folks that either have the patience to do really labor intensive heavy lifting, or people who have technical skills to make advances that aren’t easy for mere mortals to do. And often both will be true. This is why, I think, we’re seeing a lot of people with fairly advanced training making some of the bigger splashes these days (though, it should be said, that someone like Victor Wang made a big splash as a freshman/sophomore in college, so clearly it’s still possible to do important work without graduate-level training).

However, at the same time, I think the place where someone like myself can make a contribution is as an intermediary. I’m not a Rob Neyer or Dave Cameron communicator, necessarily. But pretty much everything I do is an application of what the first-tier researcher people are discovering and inventing. For example, I took the established player valuation work that folks like Tango and Patriot had worked out and put it together in 2008 to produce total value rankings—essentially WAR. This was a decent little contribution—gave people an accessible tool to evaluate players that was better on many levels than what BPro had to offer. Essentially zero of it was novel, but it was something I could do with pivot tables and vlookups in Excel.

FanGraphs was kind enough to do this themselves this past season (not saying they were copying—it was a void that needed to be filled, and they did a great job filling it), so I didn’t have to. But this freed me up to do the power rankings. I expect that at some point someone will come along and do that too, at which point I’ll cheer and probably stumble upon something else that I can do.

Anyway, the point is that the community is large enough that we don’t all have to be cutting-edge researchers these days (and you’re far more of a genuine researcher). There’s room for people like that; guys who have the training, time, and creativity to make real advances. But there’s a lot of readership for someone like me who does applied stuff too. And there’s still-more readership for people who take the applied stuff and communicate it to those who aren’t well-versed in what’s going on in this little field of ours.
-j

It is highly specialized and while I like to think I understand a good deal about math and statistics, a lot that’s said over on The Book Blog goes right over my head. And I love looking at really cool charts and heat maps, but I’m not nearly good enough with computers to make it happen.

Recently, I’ve started to view my role as one of those intermediaries. I’m not a Carson Cistulli or Dave Cameron, but I like to try my hand at being creative while using sabermetrics and logic. Sabermetrics are going more and more mainstream and as a result, this gives us more chances to show off our writing skills and to make people interested.

But yeah, it is a weird line to walk and I can understand your sentiments for sure.

I feel John’s frustration with Sabermetrics, but also with other aspects of baseball. Truthfully, the ease of getting data out to the public is the problem. I could really care less about the 50 different trade rumors a day or top 200 prospect lists and why number 102 should be at 98. I think everyone has what makes them tick.

I try to write about what I would like to read and if everyone doesn’t like it, too bad. I am usually trying to answer some question I have in the back of my mind that others aren’t answering. Now-a-days, most easy questions are answered. It will take quite a bit of time to get the new data (Victor Wong’s Work) or computer knowledge to bring data together.

If someone wants to make an impact, go to B-Pro’s list and try to answer the questions. I would love for a group of people some to do:

11) Creating a way to better analyze mechanics.

Get videos, collect comments, rate motion and see if the pitcher breaks down. Again, a lot of work, but would be pretty sweet.

I value his contributions as a talent evaluator. And, frankly, he doesn’t need to know a whole lot about sabermetrics to do that. He needs to know about scouting, projection, and basically what makes a valuable player (i.e. he needs to know that making outs is bad and that a player’s BABIP fluctuates a lot), he doesn’t need to be keeping up with the latest advances in pitch F/X findings or the new SIERA formula to do his job, though. I really don’t care how involved he is with sabermetrics. That’s not to say I don’t value his thoughts on the matter—and I will eventually read the article—but as long as he doesn’t do a complete 180 and start saying things like “RBI ROOLZ!”, I’ll still value his contributions as a talent evaluator, no matter if he decides to quit following sabermetrics or not.

I think these two paragraphs:

I’d like to see a re-emphasis on creativity; creativity while asking the question, creativity while studying the data, and creativity while writing. Don’t just ask how much movement this pitcher’s fastball has. Instead, wonder whether he can control the amount of movement based on his pitch sequence. Don’t just run a regression. Instead, try to understand the theoretical basis for component interrelationships. And don’t just say Player A had 2 more WAR than Player B so he’s the better player. Examine what A did differently to earn those extra wins.

I’d like to see us focus more on the field of play rather than just the numbers. That’s a strange thing for me to say, because I probably watch a lot less baseball than most of you due to my family commitments. But we, at times, get so caught up in our calculations that we forget there’s a lot outside those calculations too. Some of those things might be meaningless to our evaluation of the game, but some of them might not be (catcher game-calling for instance) and we just haven’t measured them yet.

Are exactly right.

So this is interesting to see.

I don’t know what a linear weight is. I don’t really understand regression. At least I don’t think I do. Things like Pitch F/X trajectories scare the crap out of me.

I think one of the reasons I focus on analyzing past performance is that it is what it is. It’s kind of comforting. It’s not too often that a brand new stat comes along and changes everything (like WAR), so when it happens it is exciting. In the field of projecting performance, it seems there’s a new metric every few hours.

I’m a daddy of three kids five and under. Writing about baseball is my therapy. I can’t keep up with all the new metrics. Don’t get me wrong, I love reading about them, but I don’t have the time or ability to apply them.

This one stood out:

Finally, I’d like to see a sabermetric community that doesn’t become so technically advanced that the average person can’t participate to a fairly deep level. This might be a pipe dream, but I’ll say it anyway. If all of our measures are so far divorced from what the average person can understand, we’ve lost the battle.

WAR and it’s components seem to help this, actually. I love showing a Cardinals fan who doesn’t know advanced stats beyond OPS+ that YES, Jim Edmonds was as good in the field as you thought he was… YES, Yadier Molina is a monster behind the plate… YES, Ozzie Smith made up for his offensive shortcomings—and then some—with legendary defense.

It can be made even more accessible—especially the whole part about positional adjustments and replacement value. I’m hoping to simplify that in the near future.

Great post, Dan.

Though I agree the field is getting much more nuanced and specialized and thus loses some of it’s charm and accessibility.

I will say one thing however – if anything is going to jump start the field and force it to evolve, it’s going to be a concert of 1500-word rants venting frustration over the current trajectory of sabermetric advancement.