"Stats Geeks"

[Rog]

One of our posters here has a signature tag that puts down "stats geeks."  That shows a lack of understanding and ,perhaps worse, an excess of rudeness.

Something on the "stats geek" topic from Allen Barra (no relation to Yogi) in his book about the greatest baseball debates of the last century.  Bob Costas says in his introduction to the book, "Sit.  Read.  You'll enjoy it.  And best of all you'll learn something.  Trust me.  It'll be good for you."

Here is part of what Barra says about those who criticize those who put down "Stats Nerds."

"Why can't you trust the statistics for this or that player?  Because (you), by God, like that player -- or don't like him, as the case may be.  The point is that someone can cite all the evidence he wants about a player only to hear (you) not refute it but disregard it; (you) have seen the player or players in question and the final word is that this player or that is better or worse because (you) say so.  Never mind that (someone else) has seen the same players.  The very fact that he would make a statistical case for a player (he) could have argued irrationally for makes (his) observations suspect.

"The truth is that (you) depend as much on numbers as anyone when it comes to making decisions.  What else, after all, are you going to rely on?  What, in the final analysis, are statistics but a record of what a player does when you're not watching him?  And we don't have a chance to watch 99 percent of the players 99 percent of the time.  No one does.  But you can be locked into a mindset where you give too many free passes for certain impressive-looking but insufficiently considered statistics.  Thus quantity wins out over quality."

Barra made this comment in his chapter on  "The Most Overrated and Underrated Players" and it is indicative of those who have little or no backup for their argument and thus are forced to ridicule "stats geeks" who actually present arguments backed by objective facts (often called statistics).

Often, as in this case, such ridicule is made by irrational individuals who will, for instance, give up on a team that less than three months later wins the World Championship because in their irrational and unsupported opinion, that team's season is over.  The person believes the team is done, and so in his mind it is.  Perhaps that is part of the reason he now so prematurely criticizes the architect of that World Championship, even after the architect has built three magnificent structures in five seasons.

How often do we read here something to the effect of "I don't care what the numbers say.  I've watched the player."?  In essence, they say, as my father used to joke, "Don't confuse me with the facts.  My mind is made up."  After all, they have seen the person play.  As Barra says, "Never mind that (I) have seen the same players."

What such an argument says is essentially, "I don't care what the numbers say, I've seen the player, and I'm better than you."  In the final analysis, what an egotistical attitude it shows.  Rather than an open mind.

Barra writes sports for the Wall Street Journal.

Incidentally, my criticism here is directed only at the foolish person who has the gall (when he should have guile) to say stats geeks have never played, so they don't understand and never will.  Look at all the words and decide at just how many levels that statement is wrong.  When a premise is wrong, it is hard to come to the right conclusion.

But why would that foolish person let logic get in the way?  In his mind the season is over, the answers decided almost before the question was asked.

And to that unnamed but obvious person I say, step back and overcome your prejudice.  I forgive you, and I've seen you come up with keen observations.  You don't have to be rude or irrational to make good arguments.  I've seen you do it, and it is impressive when you do.

[Islandboagie]

I know this isn't directed at me, Rog. But I'd like to still give you a little of my own feelings on the topic.

Back in the late 90's there was a noticeable lack of statistical knowledge by the Giants fans. Most were eager to give JT Snow and Bill Mueller their walking papers purely because they lacked power. What wasn't considered was their ability to get on base. With a solid middle of the order already assembled, I saw players who could reach base not as a weakness, but as a necessity.

Of course, the Giants fans voices were heard and good players who were at traditional power positions were replaced by players who had little more to offer than power.

Charlie Hayes, Russ Davis, Damon Minor, Andres Galarraga...some of those names will make the loyalest of Giants fans wake up in a cold sweat.

But they were still called upon, all because they could hit a few more homeruns. But when considering obp and defense, they couldn't hold a candle to Mueller or Snow.

Back then, fans were mostly blind to anything that wasn't seen as the traditional baseball norm.

The "money ball" era opened eyes. Fantasy leagues, analysts on TV, the Brad Pitt movie and the baseball network increased the average baseball fan's intellect. Blind tradition turned to research and we all became more knowledgeable because of it.

Unfortunately, now the statistic analysts have become just as stubborn and blind to their way as the traditionalists were.

Brian Kenny is a good example.

He gets in pissing matches with ex-ballplayers like it's a political debate. That's what it reminds me of, a political debate. Two extreme sides that refuse to consider a middle ground.

My guess is Kenny turned to baseball after the moneyball era and never knew much of the traditional side of baseball.

Kenny is what's wrong with statistical analysis. Not because he has interest in stats, but because he ignores tradition. He ignores the fundamental part of the game. Just as much as the traditionalists ignored stats 15 years ago.

Like I said before, it's just like politics. You're always right, the other side is always wrong, and at the end of the night, you learn nothing.

I prefer a balance, which I find myself often irritating both sides, but I'm OK with that.

I'll admit, I have found myself leaning toward the traditional side recently, because Bochy and his coaching staff find ways to win that don't make sense on a calculator. But that's why Bochy is destined for the hall of fame.

You or Brian Kenny might not believe in chemistry, but the Giants do, and that's really all that matters. Not acknowledging that might be a factor in winning, is 100% ignorant.

[Islandboagie]

And by the way, Randy has no business calling you a "stats geek" when he's already decided the Giants are going to finish in 3rd place before they've even rolled up the tarps.

[Rog]

Boagie -- Charlie Hayes, Russ Davis, Damon Minor, Andres Galarraga...some of those names will make the loyalest of Giants fans wake up in a cold sweat.

Rog -- Charlie was a very nice player in his first season with the Giants, but fizzled in the second. Davis actually hit decently in his two seasons with the Giants, but he was awful in the field. Although he was a favorite of Marc, Minor lived up to his name. Galarraga was a very fine hitter in his single season with the Giants, going .288/.351/.513/.863. I remember him just crushing one of his 12 homers (in 293 at bats) in the direction of the Coke bottle. It was one of the longest home runs I've seen there, especially by someone else than Barry Bonds.

I guess that is why you said SOME of those names.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2703/stats-geeks#ixzz3RWDfn6o9

[Rog]

Boagie -- You or Brian Kenny might not believe in chemistry, but the Giants do

Rog -- Gosh, Boagie, I have posted that I definitely believe in chemistry, I've posted that I've studied it for 40 years, and I've posted that it seems to be the area in which the Giants are the strongest. I even posted a study by college professors trying to quantify chemistry. That study ranked the Giants first and the Dodgers last.

I was of course criticized for the last one, since posters don't believe chemistry can be quantified. I don't either, of course, but I posted the study because it was the first one of which I was aware that at least TRIED to measure chemistry.

It seems that almost anything viewed as statistical analysis here is derided because as we all know, those guys didn't play the game. (Even when they did, apparently.)

It is really just one poster here who does that, but clearly even you have a stilted concept of me and stats. Yes, I value them a LOT, since they are facts. I have pointed out though that while statistics don't lie as some say, they can certainly be misinterpreted.

But I also understand the non-statistical part of the game. How could I not after about 60 years of watching it? I have talked baseball in detail with Chris Speier, Brad Wellman and Chris Lincecum.

I have posted that I yield on baseball mechanics to Boly and sometimes Don, but I have also asked on several occasions just what it is about the non-statistical part of baseball I don't understand. I have yet to receive much of an answer.

As for strategy, I don't think anyone posts more sides of a decision than I do. I try to point out both the why's and the why not's.

Anyway, Boagie, thanks for standing up for me on this topic. I must be learning a lot from you!

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2703/stats-geeks?page=1#ixzz3RWGMpfRl

[Rog]

Boagie -- And by the way, Randy has no business calling you a "stats geek" when he's already decided the Giants are going to finish in 3rd place before they've even rolled up the tarps.

Rog -- Personally, I think they're going to have a hard time finishing as high as 5th! The reason they haven't yet rolled out the tarps is that they haven't yet been able to find Vince Coleman.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2703/stats-geeks?page=1#ixzz3RWJeoLn5

[Rog]

I should have noted that Charlie Hayes played partial seasons with the Giants in his first two seasons in the majors. He was never known for his glove (although he did play almost all over the diamond), and he didn't hit very well those first two partial seasons.

After having only 11 at bats in his first season though, he drove in 43 runs in 304 at bats in his second partial season. The average player had 195 runners on base in 320 plate appearances and drove in 32 runs. Charlie had 194 runners on base and drove home 43.

When I posted before, I was referring to the two seasons Charlie played with the Giants near the end of his career.
Several players have had more than one tour of duty with the Giants, and at least one played for them three times. Shawon played for the Giants in 1996, 1998 and 2001-2002. Of course, he now coaches for them.

A trivia question: Although he made his debut May 30th of 1986, Barry Bonds wasn't the first choice in the 1986 draft, going sixth. Who was the player who was drafted first that season?

Two more trivia questions:

. Which team first drafted Barry (#39 overall in 1982)?

, How much more bonus money was he requesting in order for him to sign at that time?

[Islandboagie]

A trivia question: Although he made his debut May 30th of 1986, Barry Bonds wasn't the first choice in the 1986 draft, going sixth. Who was the player who was drafted first that season?

Boagie- Barry was drafted in '85. I know Will Clark was drafted ahead of Barry, but not 1st. Bo Jackson?

Two more trivia questions:

. Which team first drafted Barry (#39 overall in 1982)?

Boagie- Giants. I want to say that question was on one of the telecasts a few years ago.

[Rog]

A trivia question: Although he made his debut May 30th of 1986, Barry Bonds wasn't the first choice in the 1986 draft, going sixth. Who was the player who was drafted first that season?

Boagie- Barry was drafted in '85. I know Will Clark was drafted ahead of Barry, but not 1st. Bo Jackson?

Rog -- Oops! Sorry about the year. That wasn't a typo; I just made a foolish mistake.

With the information you provided, I now know who four of the five players drafted ahead of Barry in 1985 were. I don't believe Bo Jackson was one of them, but I haven't looked it up, so I could be wrong. The guy who was chosen first is in retrospect a big surprise. A happy surprised for the Giants, who drafted either 3rd or 4th that year (3rd, I think).

Two more trivia questions:

. Which team first drafted Barry (#39 overall in 1982)?

Boagie- Giants. I want to say that question was on one of the telecasts a few years ago.

Rog -- Good one. I knew he was drafted in the second round, but until I looked it up, I had no idea at which number.

Before the 1993 season the Giants spent $43.75 million to acquire Bonds. How much more bonus would they reportedly have needed to offer him for him to sign in 1982?

Looking back, Will was drafted #2, ahead of Barry as you mentioned, and the player I'm looking for who was drafted first was drafted in 1982, not 1986 was wrote previously, or not even 1985.

Sorry to so completely mess up the question. So who was the #1 overall pick the year Barry was FIRST drafted (1982)? The player later became his teammate.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2703/stats-geeks#ixzz3RXrfV8PW

[Islandboagie]

Sorry to so completely mess up the question. So who was the #1 overall pick the year Barry was FIRST drafted (1982)? The player later became his teammate.

Boagie- Strawberry?

[sfgdood]

Of course, the Giants fans voices were heard and good players who were at traditional power positions were replaced by players who had little more to offer than power.

Charlie Hayes, Russ Davis, Damon Minor, Andres Galarraga...some of those names will make the loyalest of Giants fans wake up in a cold sweat.

But they were still called upon, all because they could hit a few more homeruns. But when considering obp and defense, they couldn't hold a candle to Mueller or Snow.

Dood - Nobody here is campaigning for guys who ONLY hit dingers. Pablo is a two time gold glove finalist and set a postseason record for hits (not just HRs). BTW...I LOVED Andres. He was near the end but still a clutch hitter with enormous pop. His range was diminished but he was as sure-handed as he always was. A great clubhouse guy as well.




Back then, fans were mostly blind to anything that wasn't seen as the traditional baseball norm.

The "money ball" era opened eyes. Fantasy leagues, analysts on TV, the Brad Pitt movie and the baseball network increased the average baseball fan's intellect. Blind tradition turned to research and we all became more knowledgeable because of it.

Dood - Moneyball is and was nothing more than a novelty. It's a creative tact to take and I admit it's one way for a low revenue team to be more competitive, particularly since their options are limited. But how many titles has Beane won? It's far from the game-changing method he wanted it to be.

[sfgdood]

And by the way, Randy has no business calling you a "stats geek" when he's already decided the Giants are going to finish in 3rd place before they've even rolled up the tarps.

Dood - first of all every person has every right (business) calling it as he sees it. If you don't like it, that's fine...no skin off my nose. Second of all, 3rd place is how I see it now. I never said that's how it will definitely play out. I've watched this game long enough to know that things can change and surprises happen. Just because I am disappointed in the little help that FO has offered the players this offseason does NOT mean I will doubt this team's resolve. I hope they take some of the criticism out there as a challenge to prove it wrong.

To me even MadBum and Posey have things to prove...Posey because all his power completely left him in postseason and MadBum because of all the innings he threw...will it effect his upcoming season? Hopefully they use this as fuel to go large. Guys like Pagan and Cain coming off injuries will have some questions to answer as well. Will Peavy be able to brush off his horrid postseason and get off to a decent start? Will Belt finally put things together for a full season? Can the punchless additions make significant contributions? Can Panik minimize or avoid the sophomore slump? Will the young bench players continue to be a positive factor or will they drop off? There are more questions than this...there are question marks all up and down the roster. But of course since it's a team that will be receiving rings 2 months from now, we can't totally count them out.

[Islandboagie]

I think that's BY FAR the best and most accurate analysis on the Giants you've given all off season.

[Rog]

Rog --Sorry to so completely mess up the question. So who was the #1 overall pick the year Barry was FIRST drafted (1982)? The player later became his teammate.

Boagie- Strawberry?

Rog -- Believe it or not, Shawon Dunston, who was drafted #1 by the Cubs. Shawon could hit (.269 with a .416 SLG), but he couldn't draw a walk for the life of him (.296 OBP). In the end, he was probably best known for his rifle arm.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2703/stats-geeks#ixzz3Rclt71Bf

[Rog]

El Dooderino -- Will Peavy be able to brush off his horrid postseason

Rog -- Like Boagie, I am glad to see Randy's game is back. I would like to question this statement though. To paraphrase the great Samuel Langhorne Clemens, the reports of Peavy's postseason demise are greatly exaggerated. (Love to spell that word!)

Jake's first postseason start was a 5.2 inning shutout of the team that scored the 3rd-most runs in the National League.

His second start didn't go as well, as he yielded two runs to the Cardinals in just four innings. Even there though, after giving up a run in the 4th inning, he pitched out of a bases-loaded, one-out jam.

He started out shaky in his first World Series start, allowing a run in each of the first two innings. Then he settled down to pitch three shutout innings before tiring in the 6th. He gave up a single and a walk to start that frame, then departed with what was at that point a reasonably tidy outing.

Unfortunately Jean Machi allowed both runners to score, taking Jake from 5.0 innings with 2 runs to 5.0 frames with 4.0 runs. Jake Peavy version 4.0, collaborated by Machi, wasn't nearly as good as version 2.0.

Jake's final outing lasted quick. After a shutout first inning, Jake gave up 2 runs and loaded the bases with one out. In came dependable Yusmeiro Petit, who proceeded to do a very dependable job of letting the game get away. Unable to keep the damage petite, Yusmeiro allowed Kansas City to end the inning with a royal total of 7 runs, 4 of which were charged to Peavy.

If it had been the regular season, Jake would have been given his chance to pitch out of the jam. Who knows if he would have, but Petit certainly didn't, resembling an arsonist more than a fireman.

Jake left his two World Series starts tied 2-2 and down 2-0. Let's suppose his relievers allow only one run in those last two starts, instead of five. Jake would have wound up the postseason with a respectable 4.20 ERA.

Jake's postseason wasn't good, but it certainly wasn't horrid. His relievers allowed 5 of 7 inherited base runners to score, something quite unusual for what was a very good Giants bullpen in 2014. Nearly half the runs Jake allowed in the postseason came with relievers in the game.

Give Jake a C or a D, but by all means don't give him an F. His relievers yes, but not Jake himself.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2703/stats-geeks#ixzz3RcopA1vp

[Islandboagie]

BTW...I LOVED Andres. He was near the end but still a clutch hitter with enormous pop. His range was diminished but he was as sure-handed as he always was. A great clubhouse guy as well.

Boagie- I was tempted to leave Galarraga off the list because I liked him too. For a while there him and Snow made a very good lefty/righty platoon at first. I only included his name because while it turned out good, it still shows the mindset of the Giants wanting to bring in power to replace Snow's lack of power.

[sfgdood]

If it had been the regular season, Jake would have been given his chance to pitch out of the jam. Who knows if he would have, but Petit certainly didn't, resembling an arsonist more than a fireman.

Jake left his two World Series starts tied 2-2 and down 2-0. Let's suppose his relievers allow only one run in those last two starts, instead of five. Jake would have wound up the postseason with a respectable 4.20 ERA.

Dood - If...maybe...would have...bottom line is Jake was not sharp, especially after Game 1 in DC. He allowed a plethora of runners and was lucky to escape as many jams as he did. He's a dooky junk baller now with little K-ability. He needs pinpoint control and lots of bullpen help just to stay at a modest 4.00 ERA.

[Rog]

El Dooderino -- Moneyball is and was nothing more than a novelty. It's a creative tact to take and I admit it's one way for a low revenue team to be more competitive, particularly since their options are limited. But how many titles has Beane won? It's far from the game-changing method he wanted it to be.

Rog -- I guess that would depend on how one looked at it. Cots Baseball Contracts lists each team's payrolls over the past 15 years (starting with 2000).

The Giants' payroll, which some have been criticizing, has averaged $95 million over that time, with the team averaging 86 wins. That's not too bad.

The A's have averaged a payroll of $56 million over that time, while winning 88 games per season. That's exceptional.

The Giants have paid $1.1 million per win per season, while the A's paid $0.6 million per win per season.

The Giants won 100 or more games once; the A's, twice. The Giants won 90 or more games 7 times: the A's 8. The Giants finished below .500 on 5 occasions; the A's, 4 times.

In other words, the A's were a bit more successful than the Giants, all while spending just a little over half as much per win. Moneyball and its derivatives have done just fine. It has taken a small amount of money and made it successful.

Here's a fun one. As mentioned, the Giants' payroll over those 15 years has AVERAGED $95 million. The A's have never HAD a payroll over $82 million, and in fact, they have exceeded $62 million only three times.

That's a lot of success for a novelty.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2703/stats-geeks#ixzz3ReVi6I54

[Rog]

El Dooderino -- bottom line is Jake was not sharp, especially after Game 1 in DC. He allowed a plethora of runners and was lucky to escape as many jams as he did.

Rog -- I'm right with you here. Where we disagree is that I don't believe he was close to being "horrid," as you stated.

El Dooderino -- He's a dooky junk baller now.

Rog -- Last season Jake threw 89.9 mph, his first season below 90. Madison Bumgarner threw 92.0, or just over 2 mph more. Matt Cain threw 91.6. Tim Lincecum threw 89.6, with Tim Hudson going at 89.0. Ryan Vogelsong threw 90.5 after throwing 89.0 the year before.

One can argue that this is the reason the Giants' starting pitching is questionable, but Jake's fastball has been nearly as good as that of the average Giants starter.

Jake's ERA the past three seasons has been 3.37, 4.17 and 3.73. That's about the level of a #3 starter. With Matt Cain back, we would expect Jake to be the #3 or #4 starter for the Giants.

Anyway, what the point here that I was disputing is that Jake's 2014 postseason wasn't "horrid." If one looks closely, I think he sees that it wasn't.

Certainly not great. Not even good. But horrid?

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2703/stats-geeks?page=1#ixzz3RedwWGO2

[sfgdood]

That's a lot of success for a novelty.

Dood - true...but that success isn't solely because of the Moneyball effect. They also have cultivated a very fine farm system...much better than the Giants. In part that is because they trade off their best players before they begin to cost too much and they have received a lot of young talent via these trades. Those trades also keep them going past the first round in the playoffs

[Rog]

Rog -- That's a lot of success for a novelty.

Dood - true...but that success isn't solely because of the Moneyball effect. They also have cultivated a very fine farm system...much better than the Giants. In part that is because they trade off their best players before they begin to cost too much and they have received a lot of young talent via these trades. Those trades also keep them going past the first round in the playoffs

Rog -- That's all a part of Moneyball. That's why they call it MONEYball.

It begins with the players the team drafts. The Giants have leaned toward pitchers, perhaps in great part because of Dick Tidrow. That approach has worked well for them. The A's would focus more on players who get on base and play good defense.

As an example, the A's probably wouldn't have drafted Gary Brown. They would have loved his defense, but above all, you want your lead off man to get on base -- more than any other spot in the order. Gary walked all of 9 times in 210 at bats his final college season, so the A's would have had their scouts saying he swung at everything and their analytical types saying he can't get on base without an average over .300.

Gary is the type of player the A's might go after in the middle or even high rounds -- but not with a first round pick.

Then the idea is to develop those players into good, inexpensive major leaguers. When the players begin to become expensive, Moneyball says to trade them for younger, less expensive prospects. That is how Moneyball works, and why the A's have done so well with it.

Moneyball combines sabermetrics with scouting, which has been shown to yield the best results. It employs timing in using and keeping players. That keeps costs down.

To say Moneyball is a novelty is like saying science doesn't teach us much. Probably an overstatement in terms of the comparison, but hopefully we get the idea.

Anyone who doesn't think statistical analysis in baseball is worth much is likely to think Moneyball is a novelty at best. But teams learn, and sabermetrics is being used more and more by big league teams.

Guys like Boagie and Mark appreciate sabermetrics, but also place it in perspective. That's what more and more teams are doing.

As Don has said, Branch Rickey was using a lot of this stuff over a half century ago.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2703/stats-geeks#ixzz3RfRhDdKm

[Islandboagie]

Dood - true...but that success isn't solely because of the Moneyball effect. They also have cultivated a very fine farm system...much better than the Giants. In part that is because they trade off their best players before they begin to cost too much and they have received a lot of young talent via these trades. Those trades also keep them going past the first round in the playoffs

Rog -- That's all a part of Moneyball. That's why they call it MONEYball.

Boagie- Actually "Moneyball" the movie and the book focuses on using sabremetrics to sign players that are not the focus of most teams. Essentially, getting the best bang for your buck.

What it also focuses on is the idea that scouts and managers have been using a flawed system in evaluating players. It was a good movie, but the whole idea contridicts the point their trying to make since they focus on the 2002 A's, a team that obviously was successful due to great scouting prior to Beane adopting his own strategy.

I used to like Beane and his unorthodox style of GM'ing, but his true colors came out last year when he refused to take blame for the collapse.

Funny how everyone is just his puppet when things go right.