Let's talk about sabermetrics.

[Megatron]

Recently in the Sports Bar there's been talk about advanced statistics in baseball, also known as sabermetrics. While they are prevalent in other sports, it's most talked about in baseball, where there have been new stats created in recent time to try and help determine true value of players. Many of these stats which are used by front offices of MLB teams. Here's an example of some sabermetric stats:

FIP (Fielding-Independent Pitching)
WAR (Wins Above Replacement)
wOBA (weighted On Base Average)
UZR (Ultimate Zone Rating)
BABIP (Batting Average on Balls In Play)

Now, I ask you:

1. What do you think about sabermetric stats? Are they just a bunch of numbers created by mathematicians or do they work?
2. Is baseball fine with the 'traditional stats' (Avg., ERA, pitcher Wins, RBI) or are those outdated and not relevant tools anymore to find a players worth?

 

[klunderbunker]

I have never cared about sabermetrics and I don't see myself starting to for a long time. Baseball has gotten along fine on traditional stats for about 140 years and there's no need to start looking at the other ones now. I'd love to see a list of teams that use sabremetrics and see how many World Series rings they have. If my memory is right, didn't Billy Beane use them a lot in Oakland? They won a bunch of division titles but never got to the World Series. Now I'm sure there are teams that have had post season success with them, but at the end of the day, I'm sticking with the stats that have worked for decades. They've worked this long, and I find it ridiculous to turn baseball into a computer program.

 

[Megatron]

I have never cared about sabermetrics and I don't see myself starting to for a long time. Baseball has gotten along fine on traditional stats for about 140 years and there's no need to start looking at the other ones now. I'd love to see a list of teams that use sabremetrics and see how many World Series rings they have. If my memory is right, didn't Billy Beane use them a lot in Oakland? They won a bunch of division titles but never got to the World Series. Now I'm sure there are teams that have had post season success with them, but at the end of the day, I'm sticking with the stats that have worked for decades. They've worked this long, and I find it ridiculous to turn baseball into a computer program.

Y'see, for a while I would've agreed with your stance, but once I kinda delved into some sabermetric stats, I found out that there's a lot of logic used in them and it factors everything in.

Take your typical batting average, for example. A .300 average looks nice and pretty, doesn't it? Compared to a guy that hits .250, you can tell he's the much better player. However, there's a huge flaw with average - it doesn't account for walks (which are just as valuable as singles) and treats all hits equal, even though you and I both know the clear difference between a single and a home run. What if the guy that hits .300 has only 30 singles in 100 ABs while the guy that hits .250 has 25 home runs and another 15 walks? Now wouldn't you agree that the 2nd player is the better player?

On-Base Percentage takes care of the first problem (by including walks) and Slugging % takes care of the 2nd problem (for the most part). They are both better tools then average, because there's many factors that come into play. I could give more examples of flawed stats, but you should get my point.

And some teams that have used this philosophy (with titles in parentheses):
Red Sox (2)
Cardinals (2; although I'm not certain when they began with the 'Moneyball concept)
Yankees (1)
Rays (1 AL Pennant)

Keep in mind, sabermetrics really didn't become more widespread since the past 10-15 years, and that most teams will have at least one sabermatrician employed and use some of the tools of 'Moneyball'. It's very commonplace in todays MLB.

 

[klunderbunker]

I would definitely disagree with a single being the same thing as a walk. On a walk no one else is going anywhere but on a single runners can move up and even score. As for home run vs. single, that's true, but as a manager/fan I'm perfectly happy with a single. Anything that keeps an inning/game alive is a good thing, but I get what you're saying.

They're not a horrible idea or anything, but the ones that you need a mathematics degree are going too far in my eyes. It's the old school mentality in me, but sabremetrics don't have a perfect record at all. Look at someone like Albert Pujols for the Cardinals' championships. I don't need a computer to know that he's the best player on the field whenever he's in a game. That's where I don't see the point of them: you can observe a lot by just watching. You don't need a computer half of the time. Some of the best teams ever have gotten by just fine without them.

 

[Megatron]

I would definitely disagree with a single being the same thing as a walk. On a walk no one else is going anywhere but on a single runners can move up and even score.

If there's runner on first and a guy walks he moves up, and can score on a bases loaded walk. They both = 1 base and more often then not give the same result.

As for home run vs. single, that's true, but as a manager/fan I'm perfectly happy with a single. Anything that keeps an inning/game alive is a good thing, but I get what you're saying.

I'm not disagreeing that singles aren't nice, but a guy that has 30 singles isn't as good as a guy that gets 25 HR and 15 BBs, despite what average says.

They're not a horrible idea or anything, but the ones that you need a mathematics degree are going too far in my eyes. It's the old school mentality in me, but sabremetrics don't have a perfect record at all. Look at someone like Albert Pujols for the Cardinals' championships. I don't need a computer to know that he's the best player on the field whenever he's in a game. That's where I don't see the point of them: you can observe a lot by just watching. You don't need a computer half of the time. Some of the best teams ever have gotten by just fine without them.

Many of them teams got by because they were around before the time of sabermetrics. Now that we realize the flaws of the traditional stats, I don't see why sabermetrics aren't more widely accepted. Do people not want as much accuracy as possible? Do they want to be misled in a way? Because thats what many of these traditional stats do. Just because one guy gets 100 RBIs doesn't mean he's a better run producer than a guy that gets 80 RBIs. He may come under the benefit of a much better offense.

A pitcher that has 15 wins isn't better than a pitcher with 7 simply because he has 8 more wins. If the former receives 8 runs a game compared to the 3 by the latter man, and he typically allows 2 more runs, is he really a better pitcher?

See what I mean? You can find flaws that are seen in most traditional stats that really don't tell the full story like sabermetric stats do.

 

[Slyfox696]

I recognize that sabermetrics can be valuable for people who care about every last detail to evaluate the worth of a player. Personally, I'm not that person. I don't need sabermetric stats to tell me Albert Pujols was one the of the greatest hitters of all time, or that Jeff Francoeur is usually a good average guy with pop in his bat, but swings at everything.

Take your typical batting average, for example. A .300 average looks nice and pretty, doesn't it? Compared to a guy that hits .250, you can tell he's the much better player. However, there's a huge flaw with average - it doesn't account for walks (which are just as valuable as singles) and treats all hits equal, even though you and I both know the clear difference between a single and a home run. What if the guy that hits .300 has only 30 singles in 100 ABs while the guy that hits .250 has 25 home runs and another 15 walks? Now wouldn't you agree that the 2nd player is the better player?

On-Base Percentage takes care of the first problem (by including walks) and Slugging % takes care of the 2nd problem (for the most part). They are both better tools then average, because there's many factors that come into play. I could give more examples of flawed stats, but you should get my point.

I do get your point, but neither On-Base Percentage nor Slugging Percentage fall under the sabermetric stats category. OPS, or on-base plus slugging, does, but the two you mentioned do not. Those are very easy to calculate stats and have been done for many many years, before sabermetric stats became popular.

Keep in mind, sabermetrics really didn't become more widespread since the past 10-15 years, and that most teams will have at least one sabermatrician employed and use some of the tools of 'Moneyball'. It's very commonplace in todays MLB.

Like I said, I'm sure it's good for those people who NEED to know every minor detail, but since I don't, I don't really care about it.

 

[klunderbunker]

If there's runner on first and a guy walks he moves up, and can score on a bases loaded walk. They both = 1 base and more often then not give the same result.

But if the guy is on second he's not going anywhere on a walk. On a single he could move to third or possibly even score. On a walk he doesn't move at all.

I'm not disagreeing that singles aren't nice, but a guy that has 30 singles isn't as good as a guy that gets 25 HR and 15 BBs, despite what average says.

That's true but I don't need sabremetrics to tell me that.

Many of them teams got by because they were around before the time of sabermetrics. Now that we realize the flaws of the traditional stats, I don't see why sabermetrics aren't more widely accepted. Do people not want as much accuracy as possible? Do they want to be misled in a way? Because thats what many of these traditional stats do. Just because one guy gets 100 RBIs doesn't mean he's a better run producer than a guy that gets 80 RBIs. He may come under the benefit of a much better offense.

I'd rather have the guy with 100. At the end of the day, it's more runs and he fits in better within that offense. It's about a team idea instead of a bunch of individual pieces. The player with 80 may be better, but the guy with 100 fits into the system better. That's the guy I want.

A pitcher that has 15 wins isn't better than a pitcher with 7 simply because he has 8 more wins. If the former receives 8 runs a game compared to the 3 by the latter man, and he typically allows 2 more runs, is he really a better pitcher?

Again, that's basic math. I don't need sabremetrics to tell me that. I can barely spell sabremetrics and I could tell you that. I remember a game where Randy Johnson threw a one hitter and lost because of two walks and an error plus no runs from his offense. I can look at a box score and tell how well Johnson pitched that day.

See what I mean? You can find flaws that are seen in most traditional stats that really don't tell the full story like sabermetric stats do.

Sure you can find them. You just don't need to.

 

[Megatron]

I do get your point, but neither On-Base Percentage nor Slugging Percentage fall under the sabermetric stats category. OPS, or on-base plus slugging, does, but the two you mentioned do not. Those are very easy to calculate stats and have been done for many many years, before sabermetric stats became popular.

While neither may be labeled as one, considering OPS is simply adding the two stats together you may as well count them as well. If nothing else, they're a more advanced stat.

Like I said, I'm sure it's good for those people who NEED to know every minor detail, but since I don't, I don't really care about it.

Fair enough, but would you say they are more telling and aren't as flawed as the ones used in traditional sense?

EDIT:

But if the guy is on second he's not going anywhere on a walk. On a single he could move to third or possibly even score. On a walk he doesn't move at all.

While that's true, that's all circumstance. A single and a walk get the hitter to the same spot, and that's all he can control. A hitter can only control what he does at the plate, and in that sense him getting a single or a walk delivers the same end result - a trip to first base.

I'd rather have the guy with 100. At the end of the day, it's more runs and he fits in better within that offense. It's about a team idea instead of a bunch of individual pieces. The player with 80 may be better, but the guy with 100 fits into the system better. That's the guy I want.

RBI is a very flawed stat, though. If the guy with 80 doesn't benefit from having the same talent around him, yet still gets 80, doesn't that make him more valuable. RBI is almost fully dependent on the ability of the players teammates and not the player himself.

Again, that's basic math. I don't need sabremetrics to tell me that. I can barely spell sabremetrics and I could tell you that. I remember a game where Randy Johnson threw a one hitter and lost because of two walks and an error plus no runs from his offense. I can look at a box score and tell how well Johnson pitched that day.

Well that's good that you recognize that, as many outlets (national media, etc.) try to use wins as a justification of a pitchers talent. Felix Hernandez only went 13-12 in 2010 but he was the best pitcher in the AL. Wins had nothing to do with it.

Sure you can find them. You just don't need to.

But if you're going to argue the merits of a player, don't you want the most factual/truest information possible?

 

[Slyfox696]

While neither may be labeled as one, considering OPS is simply adding the two stats together you may as well count them as well. If nothing else, they're a more advanced stat.

Umm...doesn't the fact you add the two stats together to create a sabermetric mean they are NOT a sabermetric stat? That's like saying you might as well consider the prime numbers 3 and 5 composite numbers, because if you combine them they make a composite number.

Fair enough, but would you say they are more telling and aren't as flawed as the ones used in traditional sense?

In the same sense I'd say a grading scale of 1000 is more accurate than one of 100. Sure, you can be more precise rating things out of 1000, but the grading scale of 100 still tells you mostly what you need to know about the quality of the person.

If I see a batting line of .327 with 32 HR, 103 RBI, 99 BB, 58 SO in 565 AB, I don't need sabermetric stats to tell me that's one hell of a year at the dish.

 

[Megatron]

Umm...doesn't the fact you add the two stats together to create a sabermetric mean they are NOT a sabermetric stat? That's like saying you might as well consider the prime numbers 3 and 5 composite numbers, because if you combine them they make a composite number.

Hmm, fair enough. However, like I said, they are more advanced than your typical batting average.

In the same sense I'd say a grading scale of 1000 is more accurate than one of 100. Sure, you can be more precise rating things out of 1000, but the grading scale of 100 still tells you mostly what you need to know about the quality of the person.

If I see a batting line of .327 with 32 HR, 103 RBI, 99 BB, 58 SO in 565 AB, I don't need sabermetric stats to tell me that's one hell of a year at the dish.

Sabermetric stats would tell you the same thing but could also tell you how well of a season that players having compared to his contemporaries. If a player only earns a 3.5 WAR from that season listed above, it's not as good of a season as it's face value looks.

 

[klunderbunker]

But if you're going to argue the merits of a player, don't you want the most factual/truest information possible?

In short, no. If I'm a manager or a fan, I don't want something that I need to read a book or have some computer science guy explain to me. I want something that I can look at quickly and make a decision on. It takes away all of the instinct from the game and I'm going to take instinct and basics over technology every single time. I don't see the need to change something that's worked for all those years. Bear Bryant was once asked what you use to win football games. "Some points on that scoreboard." This is baseball, not rocket science.

 

[Megatron]

In short, no. If I'm a manager or a fan, I don't want something that I need to read a book or have some computer science guy explain to me. I want something that I can look at quickly and make a decision on. It takes away all of the instinct from the game and I'm going to take instinct and basics over technology every single time. I don't see the need to change something that's worked for all those years. Bear Bryant was once asked what you use to win football games. "Some points on that scoreboard." This is baseball, not rocket science.

I guess that is where we differ, then. I want to know how much a player himself makes an impact. A .300 average is a nice number, but if he doesn't hit anything but singles and strikes out a lot I'll realize the average doesn't reflect the player as well.

And your bolded statement is what I believe people have wrong about sabermetrics. Most of the explanations for sabermetric stats aren't overly complicated and very logical, along with not being pages upon pages of explanations. I won't dare say I remember any of these formulas to calculate them by heart, but reading a small bit will provide why the stats are calculated the way they are.

 

[Slyfox696]

Sabermetric stats would tell you the same thing but could also tell you how well of a season that players having compared to his contemporaries. If a player only earns a 3.5 WAR from that season listed above, it's not as good of a season as it's face value looks.

Baseball has been around for over 100 years. Never has there been a season in over 100 years where batting .327 with 32 HR, over 100 RBI, 100 walks and 58 SO in less than 600 AB has been considered anything but a very good season.

Again, I'm not saying having advanced calculations and stats cannot help. What I am saying is that baseball has been around for a LONG time, and it's really not that complicated of a game. Everyone knows what a five-tool player looks like, and it's not hard to tell who the best players are. And since those numbers matter to probably less than 1% of people who follow baseball, it's really not something I worry about.

 

[shattered dreams]

I have been interested in sabremetrics for a while. I find it amusing to see Sly talking about a "sabremetric stat" like it is something with a specific definition. Sabremetrics is more a concept than anything and a vaguely defined one at that. KB's ravings about needing a Computer Science degree are equally amusing because there are plenty of "sabremetric" motivated stats that are really quite simple to understand. That is actually the nice thing about most sabr stats actually. Even if you might not at first easily understand what goes into them, it is easy to interpret them comparatively.

It is probably also important to make a distinction between what happened and what is going to happen. Traditional stats do a decent job of measuring what happened. They don't do much of a job of predicting what is going to happen. Hey great you figured out a guy with a great stat line did good. Now there are two such players on the market, which one is better? How much should we offer them? Although it is true that falls towards the management side. Do fans need to know? Like most things, depends on your level of interest.

How far down the sabremetric rabbit hole have you gone megatron?