Gary Cohen Doesn't Understand, Derides Sabermetrics
by Eric Simon on Jul 6, 2010 11:00 AM EDT
Email
PrintDuring Friday night's game between the Mets and Nationals, Gary Cohen and Ron Darling shared the following exchange after a David Wright single in the fifth inning.
Gary: Can I say something about sabermetrics?
Ron: Yes.
Gary: Because we don’t talk about sabermetrics very often. And you know I think there are certain metrics that have come into play that are useful. But I think sometimes the people that are adherent to sabermetrics overrate the importance of them. In David Wright’s case, David has struck out a ton this year. Struck out 91 times. And yet he’s hitting well over .300. Now, one of the stats that the sabermetrics people like to throw at you is batting average on balls in play. And if you have a particularly high batting average on balls in play, they like to think that it’s because you’re lucky. In other words, if you have a high batting average on balls in play, it shouldn’t be that high, which means you’re having a fortunate year and you’ll come back down again.
[Game action narration]
Gary: Conversely, if a pitcher has a particularly low batting average on balls in play, they like to tell you it’s going to rise eventually. Well, to me that doesn’t make any sense. Certain guys hit the ball harder than other guys hit it. Certain pitchers induce more groundballs or more weakly hit balls than others. That’s part of what you’re trying to do. Am I totally off base with that?
Ron: No I totally agree with you, I think that for the average hitter, to have a high average putting balls in play, it’s probably because they do have some lucky hits. But certain hitters, like Wright, hit the ball hard almost all the time.
The list of people (or, in some cases, movements) who have been lampooned or belittled for making claims that run counter to conventional wisdom is as long as the list of baseball-related tasks that escape Alex Cora's skill set. Copernicus, Darwin, McCracken, and so forth. I respect Gary, Keith, and Ron very much and consider them among the best broadcasting teams in baseball. If you've ever had to listen to a Nationals or Diamondbacks telecast you'd probably appreciate GKR even more. Nevertheless, GKR are necessarily part of the "old guard" of mainstream media and membership requires that they defend the institution of sportscasting against those who seek to make their jobs more difficult by forcing them to back up their assertions with actual facts.
As is customary when mainstream analysts discuss sabermetric research, there's a tendency to latch on to a single point while ignoring (or failing to understand) the larger body of data. While G&R are right that there are some players who hit the ball harder than others, they didn't bother to mention that that conclusion is not only self-evident but is also the same conclusion that has already been drawn by the bath-fearing basement-dwellers who conduct evidence-based analyses of the game.
The correlation between line drive rate and xBABIP (expected BABIP) is critical in understanding why BABIP is important (speed plays a small role here, too), but G&R didn't mention it at all, either due to laziness (i.e. they didn't bother to do any further research on it), or due to old-fashioned dishonesty. I like to think it's the former, which is unsurprisingly common among anti-fact analysts*. They pull out part of what has been said and hold it up as an example of what's wrong with the movement in question -- in this case, the so-called spreadsheet-ification of baseball -- failing to understand, appreciate, or simply acknowledge the larger body of work that happened to include, among many other things, the one thing they did bother to mention.
* Not outwardly anti-fact, but certainly close-minded to ideas that might falsify what they believe to be facts about their wonderful game.
If you've read much of the research done on BABIP (here's some), on batted ball types, and on defense-independent pitching, you couldn't have understood it very well if your only takeaway was "high BABIP = lucky, low BABIP = unlucky" (for hitters, anyway). It's a little bit like reading On The Origin Of Species and coming away with "man descended from apes." Kinda, sorta, but not really. As G&R pointed out, some guys do hit the ball harder than others, and when evaluating whether or not a player's performance has been luck-aided we're sure to alter our expectations accordingly. For hitters anyway, the baseline for expected BABIP is adjusted to accommodate elevated (or depressed) line drive tendencies, among other things. It's fairly simple and satisfyingly intuitive, but if your M.O. is to slag down anything that makes you question what you've learned from fifty-odd years of baseball watching, it's a terrible inconvenience to your case when those new ideas make total sense.
The good news for G&R is that most of their audience is probably content to keep their heads buried in the sand, so the (possibly) stubborn ignorance of their appointed mouthpieces really only marginalizes the folks who actually want to understand the game at a level deeper than can be conveyed by outdated but comfortably familiar analysis. The truth is that sabermetrics makes it a lot harder to be a hack journalist/commentator, because it's not as easy to say things you believe to be true about baseball -- even if they aren't true -- because now we have the data to test the fidelity of those statements. The intellectually honest broadcaster (or writer, analyst, or fan) is skeptical by nature but insatiably craves the truth above all else. The intellectually dishonest one is perhaps willing to sidestep the truth in order to continue buttressing himself and his craft with the "conventional" wisdom that now crumbles under the burden of close, honest scrutiny.
G&R's contempt for BABIP and the like was on display again in the eighth inning of Sunday's game against the Nats while mainstream media mancrush Jeff Francoeur was in the process of striking out.
Gary: There’s just been a phenomenal number of strikeouts in this game. That is 24 strikeouts, 13 for Washington pitching and 11 for the Mets.
Ron: What makes it phenomenal is that there’s 13 runs scored. Usually you see these kind of games when the score is low.
Gary: You know what that means don’t you? A very high batting average on balls in play.
Ron: --laughter--
Well, yea, it does mean that, but its relevance to the big picture requires a basic grasp of randomness and small (as well as large) numbers. But all of that sounds like a lot of work (it's not) so let's just act smug and laugh at the nerds instead.
I used to rave about Gary Cohen's broadcasting and his quickness to embrace things like on-base and slugging percentages because those things made sense to me and I thought it was important (and commendable) that they be stressed above certain lesser things (batting average, RBI, and so on). I still like Gary a lot, but more for his game-calling and less for his grasp of the finer points of baseball analysis. Your average listener has no interest in understanding linear weights or regression analysis, but I think even casual fans can grasp the basics of things like BABIP (when explained properly) and FIP, and, contrary to what some may think, awareness and comprehension of these tools serve only to increase one's appreciation for the sport and its players, not detract from it. It's disappointing that Gary feels otherwise.
241 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
"I still like Gary a lot, but more for his game-calling and less for his grasp of the finer points of baseball analysis."
I said something along these lines in the game thread last night. Gary is a fantastic play-by-play guy, especially if you compare him to hacks like Sterling who barely tell you what’s going on in the game. Listening to his radio call of Endy Chavez’s catch – where he described, to a T, exactly what happened – the leap, the extension, the throw – tells you everything you need to know about Gary as a PBP guy. But on analysis, he’s very frustrating – all the more so because he’s an Ivy-educated guy who should be more open to this kind of stuff.
by dontstopbelieving on Jul 6, 2010 11:09 AM EDT reply actions
it's been an unbelieveably frustrating week
those comments by gary coming on the heels of jerry’s “that’s just baseball” speech in washington just totally knocked the wind out of me. i’d like to hear which metrics in particular he thinks are useful.
by pricedoutoftheciti on Jul 6, 2010 11:27 AM EDT reply actions
This is the problem I have with the MSM
They don’t understand sabermetrics, and instead of learning, they just deride one metric of their choice because it goes against what there eyes show (Kepner on UZR with regards to Teixeira) or the above with GKR and BABIP.
I think James might’ve made a post about it last July.
"We're investigating the investigative procedure of the investigation of Tony Bernazard"---Omar Minaya (he really didn't say it but he would"
Yaknow
Here’s the problem — you get people of moderate intelligence grasping various saber-stats, stomping their feet and shrieking that they’ve “proven” something when they themselves aren’t understanding the basic tenets. For many others, if you gave them a mythical truth serum, they’d probably say that they’d prefer to retain their status as a misunderstood minority anointed with special insight to a world in which wOBA was flashed on a screen every time a batter came to the plate.
Plenty of professed stat-heads don’t understand the issue of line drive hitting, but they’ll happily call anyone skeptical an idiot. They’ll just cite the exact stat that Gary did and claim that Wright has been lucky as a “fact.”
The main problem I (and I;m assuming folks like Gary have) is that in an effort to compare players, figure out whether how many doubles “produce” as many runs as X triples, we’ve made a lot of assumptions, but the arrogance has not softened accordingly. The people actually doing the research and thinking about the issues understand the inherent error, but a random college student who likes to feel smarter than the unwashed gets a whiff of the math and assumes that WAR or wOBA allows one to say with confidence that x player is “better” than y, “objectively.” That’s nonsensical garbage from people who know the words, but not their meaning.
by tmu on Jul 6, 2010 11:40 AM EDT reply actions 8 recs
I agree with this to a point.
But I think you can often say that player x IS better than player y, objectively. I mean, Angel Pagan is objectively better than Jeff Francoeur. The margin of error exists, certainly, but it’s not large enough to reverse a gap that large.
John Olerud, Hall of Famer. Got a nice ring to it.
I'm a huge proponent of sabremetrics
but yes, this is true. Against my best instincts, I’ve done it myself.
Rather than rail at Gary (or Keith or Ron), engaging the ideas in a rational manner is the best way for people to understand why sabermetric analysis is not only valid but vital part of player analysis.
Don’t get me wrong, at some point some players are, simply, better than others (ie – Frenchy vs Angel), but that doesn’t mean it needs to be stated arrogantly, or without rational explanation.
by SoCal Metfan on Jul 6, 2010 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions
All fans use stats to "objectively" say that one player is better than another, not just "professed stat-heads."
The only difference is what stats people value and trust.
…a random college student who likes to feel smarter than the unwashed gets a whiff of the math and assumes that WAR or wOBA allows one to say with confidence that x player is "better" than y, "objectively." That’s nonsensical garbage from people who know the words, but not their meaning.
I have no idea what the word “random” means here, and I doubt this has anything to do with being a college student, but yes, if I have a large enough sample size and Player X has a significantly higher WAR and wOBA than Player Y, I feel pretty confident saying that Player X is better than Player Y. WAR and wOBA incorporate most of the stats that I think are valuable, so I trust them. This is not any different from someone saying that Player X is better than Player Y because he has a higher batting average or more RBI. It’s done just as often (actually, much more so), and just as passionately. The only difference is in what stats we choose to use.
by EricAColucci on Jul 6, 2010 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions 7 recs
Yes
Using select numbers to buttress whatever argument one wants to make, numbers that fall short of the complete picture, is in no way solely a peculiarity of people who follow advanced stats. And to pretend that those people are the problem, in comparison to the much larger numbers using RBI and whatnot, is dishonest cherry-picking.
If it’s just pointing out that people sometimes are wrong in the way they use the advanced stats, while believing and posturing that they have superior knowledge — well, okay. Welcome to the human condition. So too do the much larger numbers who believe and posture that “actually watching the game” gives them superior knowledge (ignoring the inane assumption that statheads don’t watch games).
by SuperT on Jul 6, 2010 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
"Random"
here, means average or not so special. And I think it is college (or high school) students who often get overexcited about this sort of thing because they’re (1) being exposed to the math for the first time, (2) are being taught to regurgitate dogma in place of thinking critically and digesting inputs that don’t fit in tidy boxes and, (3) lack the self-assurance and maturity required to recognize one’s own fallibilities. Re: (2), there’s also something of a zeal for “hidden truths.”
People may argue about which player is better than which other player based on RBI, HR, etc., but for most sensible people, there’s an understanding/acknowledgement that there are apples and oranges involved.
by tmu on Jul 6, 2010 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Or,
the reason a lot of Saber-heads are high school/college students is because they haven’t spent 25+ years being told that AVG, RBI, Wins, and Saves are the best ways to categorize good players, and therefore are more receptive to “new” stats and metrics that actually do a better job of objectively describing skill sets/value – not that they’re innocently mesmerized by new math and it’s empty promises of revolution.
Save Jenrry Mejia!
You have to get the context right
I’m not talking about whether more saber-partisans are kids. I’m suggesting that the more partisan of the partisans, and the ones who are the more “elitist” about stats, are kids. They’re used to excessively nasty exchanges about everything, and often on the Intranets.
by tmu on Jul 6, 2010 6:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Everything you've written in this thread feels very condescending to me.
Maybe stats people come off “elitist” because when you’re constantly ignored, even though you’re right, you get pissed off. No one is more “elitist” than the traditional folks like Francesa, Cowherd, Beningo, Morgan, etc. These people laugh at the idea of using math in baseball analysis. These types think they are infallible, and that their knowledge and opinion is vastly more important than objective statistics. The people who use these statistics incorrectly are the minority as the entire purpose of sabermetrics is critical thinking about baseball through numbers. The majority of saber inclined fans take all the info given and look to find a reasonable conclusion. So yeah, maybe after awhile some may come off as nasty, but that’s only after hearing people make their unfounded assertions and putting down us nerds in our mom’s basements.
That's not "elitist"
That’s more jackass, populist, willfully ignorant posturing. Honestly, though, I can’t imagine why having a Francesca-type criticize you would be anything other than a badge of honor.
by tmu on Jul 6, 2010 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions
I believe the elitism he means is the privileging of the opinions of "baseball men" over outsiders
The idea that the opinions of those who’ve played the game or been hired into or around it should carry more weight — that is the elitist position in question (I think).
I think that's bullshit, sorry.
I think you should have a little more respect for students, high school or otherwise, that take the time to learn about sabermetrics. I guarantee you I’m one of at most five people at my high school who knows anything about advanced baseball metrics. By definition, those of us “average or not so special” high school students are actually pretty fucking un-average. All of us here, sabermetrically inclined or otherwise, student or not, pride ourselves on listening to any and all evidence we’re given. Honestly, this whole diatribe reads as someone who accepts advanced stats at face value, but doesn’t really want to understand the inner workings of the community that really desires to learn about them. That’s fine, but don’t stereotype.
John Olerud, Hall of Famer. Got a nice ring to it.
by squid92 on Jul 6, 2010 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I know one other person who is interested in sabermetrics in my school...
All the other baseball fans spew ESPN nonsense.
Your age would explain
the over-emotional reaction.
by tmu on Jul 6, 2010 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Seriously, the condescension is off the charts right now.
Cut it out.
John Olerud, Hall of Famer. Got a nice ring to it.
Jeebus
Read his frigging post. I’m sick of your double standards. Creep.
by tmu on Jul 6, 2010 7:03 PM EDT up reply actions
my "double standard" is:
1. Don’t lob ad-hominem insults at people who disagree with you.
2. Don’t complain, when you’ve goaded the shit out of people, if they finally snap back at you.
As far as I’ve seen, anyhow, most of the posters around here most of the time have disagreed with you in fairly courteous ways, addressing the substance of your points rather than attacking you as a person. And your response has been, ultra-consistently, to go on the attack with personal insults, childish goading, and adjective-drenched provocations, until people fight back, at which point you consistently accuse them of “losing it” and being “emotional” or “bitchy.” I’m sick of the passive-aggressive bullshit, and this is in no way a double standard; it’s just a single one that you don’t seem able to deal with.
by anonymous on Jul 6, 2010 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
No, not really.
I’m not going to respond to anything you post. Don’t respond to anything I post. That’s the end of it.
by tmu on Jul 6, 2010 7:17 PM EDT up reply actions
I'll respond as I please, thanks very much.
But I appreciate the courtesy of your not adding an additional gratuitous insult here.
I rest my case.
You enjoy this kind of thing. Fine.
by tmu on Jul 6, 2010 7:18 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm confused
I’m not going to respond to anything you post. Don’t respond to anything I post. That’s the end of it.
I suppose it's possible that
“anonymous” does not realize that responding to a post by saying “this is obfuscatory rhetorical bunkum” and “contentless handwaving” is not — how did he put it? - “fairly courteous.” Oh, of course - that’s responding to the “substance,” right? Laughable.
by tmu on Jul 6, 2010 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions
I do agree that anonymous sinking to the level of crossing out your post is pretty low.
Fight fair, you sneaky bastard!
John Olerud, Hall of Famer. Got a nice ring to it.
isnt the point of these boards for open reply to anything said?
stats, they are seriously never in Francoeur's favor
ugh dont remind me of that post war
stats, they are seriously never in Francoeur's favor
i think you need to take a chill pill
I want Jerry Manuel fired now, not three years from now. That is my stance.- John Peterson
Bumper sticker
“My Child Is a Decidedly UN-AVERAGE Stat Hero!!!!”
Lobby yer moms.
by tmu on Jul 6, 2010 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Also fascinating --
absolutely fascinating — is how you turn something like baseball stats into an “identity” issue about a misunderstood “community.” That’s how kids are learning to frame the world, I guess — every collection of people with a shared interest is a “community”, and every “community” is aggrieved. This is why we need to reinstate the draft. there’s such a need for drill sergeants.
by tmu on Jul 6, 2010 6:35 PM EDT up reply actions
...ok
That’s really not cool to turn this into an issue of my “discipline”, since you don’t know me. This is what I’m talking about. So, because I’m 17, I don’t have discipline? You don’t really know what you’re talking about. Seriously, I’m not trying to be disrespectful, but you need to meet me halfway. Younger people in general ARE more passionate about things, I suppose. But like I said, attributing that to “arrogance” is disingenuous.
And really, the “discipline” and “drill sergeant” comments really bother me. I’m really not trying to get upset, it wouldn’t be appropriate for this forum. But that is really just not a good thing to say, at all.
John Olerud, Hall of Famer. Got a nice ring to it.
Seriously, though
as I don’t know you, I obviously can’t speak to your “discipline,” and wasn’t. It wasn’t really directed at you personally.
by tmu on Jul 6, 2010 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, it sorta came off that way.
I’ll drop it, because I really don’t want to start arguing that topic.
John Olerud, Hall of Famer. Got a nice ring to it.
a little blunt
is what needs to be shared to clear the air, well fill it with smoke but you know what i mean
stats, they are seriously never in Francoeur's favor
this is obfuscatory rhetorical bunkum
Sure, granted, there are stupid “saber” types who makes stupid claims. But vague, contentless handwaving about “assumptions” is not a strong argument against weighted combinations of, yes, objective metrics that have been shown to correlate very well with run-scoring and game-winning.
by anonymous on Jul 6, 2010 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions 6 recs
Pot calling kettle black, as per usual
You can complain about my reference to “assumptions,” and I can easily call your reference to “weighted combinations” substanceless handwaving because you haven’t provided any support for your assumptions, other than the usual haughty-toned bitch fit.
by tmu on Jul 6, 2010 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions
although I should add
that I’m not opposed to “weighted combinations” in an attempt to try to provide context-neutral comparisons. If I’m a GM thinking about signing a player, gimme some. If I’m thinking about how many runs a player will add to my offense, run a simulation. But if I’m evaluating fielding, I’m going to try to at least double-check what the player’s “zone” was supposed to be and where he was positioned in that zone and whether his team had an inordinate number of lefties on the staff, etc., before I’m confident in my “objective” comparison of fielders. If I’m analyzing hitting, I have to think that the weight I give to slugging vs. getting on base is going to change relative to where I’m putting the hitter — who is ahead of him in the lineup, for example.
by tmu on Jul 6, 2010 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe jumping the gun a bit?
From what I understood, he was saying that certain people might just use the “finished product stat” without regarding how that was calculated, limitations, proper uses and reservations about that stat. Those were all taken into account by the person who invented and calculated said stat, but might have been ignored/neglected by some people who use it.
Typical example: UZR. A person looks at half season worth of data and say player “A” is better defensively than player “B” because his UZR is .5 higher. MGL will say that is not necessarily true.
In lobby campaign for Chris Carter.
by Michkin on Jul 6, 2010 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don't think I was jumping the gun here, but I understand why you'd say that.
I said this taking into account other claims that tmu has made in other threads, where this repeated “you’re making unjustified assumptions” objection to advanced metrics has always hinged on this weird lack of understanding that there’s an empirical basis for the different weights and adjustments that go into a single-number stat like wOBA or EqA or whatever. It’s pretty much a pure argument from ignorance — objecting only to the justification of the parts of the stat-construction process that you don’t understand. Because this objection would be removed by a simple bout of Google research, I’m getting tired of treating it as though it were grounded in a sincere desire to learn; so at this point I am being, perhaps unjustifiably, curt.
Of course there's an "empirical basis"
that doesn’t mean that it’s correctly derived, let alone objectively “right.” Even the different metrics disagree.
Anyway, you’re never going to listen to me, so read some of the other commentators posting in this thread, and you’ll have an idea of where I’m coming from.
by tmu on Jul 6, 2010 7:13 PM EDT up reply actions
This, more or less.
One thing that really chafes my patoot among certain… Saberreactionaries (shall we say) is probabilities— and not overwhelmingly-odds-favored ones— expressed or asserted as certainties. What he’s saying actually does make sense— there ARE guys who will put up and sustain for years significantly higher-than-average BABIPs… and there are guys that will pretty consistently give up significantly lower-than-average BABIPs against. It’s just that there are fewer guys with this skill (whether it’s speed, or the ability of appetizing-looking sinkers, or something we can’t quite put our statistical finger on, just yet) than most traditional baseball talking heads would likely aver, and that most variances like the ones Gary/Ron appear to discuss in the first segment— leaps within a player’s historical performance, not performance above league average— tend to be largely a matter of luck.
That said, my real point is that I think it’s a little unfairly dismissive to “write off” GKR (well, Gary, at least) as analysts using these particular comments. I hear this Gary-Ron moment, and I don’t necessarily hear disdain (well, at least not in the first instance); I hear a rational person poking and prodding at a new (to him) metric— and a reductive interpretation of it, at that— that doesn’t seem to mesh neatly with what the CW, the traditional narrative and his senses all purport to tell him. Absent an informed interlocutor (sorry, Ron), of course he’s going to “win” this “argument.” But he seems to be a lot more open-minded— both here and in general— than you’re giving him credit for being; given time and a better explanation than the ones he’s (apparently) gotten so far, I’m pretty sure he’d come to a better understanding of BABIP vis-a-vis luck/regression to the mean.
by LeiterMilnerFasterStronger on Jul 6, 2010 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think you're right
Gary seems very open-minded and it could very well be he simply hasn’t had the time to take an in-depth look into BABIP, or had a very good teacher.
I think the thing that is most frustrating (and caused this type of reaction) is that, Gary being the learned man that he is, we would expect him to hold off from publicly criticizing BABIP, and Sabermatricians in general, if he doesn’t have an in-depth education about it, rather than “cherry-picking” aspects of BABIP (that most saber-heads know to take into account).
Save Jenrry Mejia!
I'm more than a little disappointed...
… in the fact that he’s chosen to use the bully pulpit he has as Met PBP guy (and a respected one at that, both among Met fans and among other populations) to make such jokes/sport. It doesn’t really reflect well on him.
by LeiterMilnerFasterStronger on Jul 7, 2010 1:03 AM EDT up reply actions
Anger = disappointment
At least that’s how I feel and took most of the comment here.
Save Jenrry Mejia!
at the very least
using WAR and wOBA in your argument shows you are doing some research and gives you an idea of who has been the better player up to that point in the season and is better than the guy yelling back “but frenchy is second on the team in RBI’s”
stats, they are seriously never in Francoeur's favor
you couldn't be more right about the nats broadcast
like pulling an extra large sheet of coarse-grit sandpaper out of your ear canal
by Rob Castellano on Jul 6, 2010 11:42 AM EDT reply actions 2 recs
What I don't get
is why networks persist in trotting out clueless, witless homers like Carpenter when it’s clear that the baseball-watching public prefers the Vin Scullys of the world — guys who know how to set a scene, call a game, relay anecdotes, etc., and don’t have to go through a neutered chest-thumping exercise anytime their teams score runs. They can even have opinions, like Gary. Something tells me Jon Miller ruined this for everyone. If he’s the “gentleman announcer”, I can almost see the appeal of Carpenter. You have 60 some-odd spots for announcers/color men in the entire country, and we have to listen to the Marlins’ guys and Chris Wheeler??
All the good ones are in radio
DC is a perfect example. They’ve got these two bozos doing the television broadcasts, but their radio guys are actually very good. As someone who has had the MLB radio subscription, I’ve found most of the crews to be good – Sterling and screecher woman aside. And yet on tv it’s the complete opposite, as all but a handful are intolerable. I really don’t know what it is – perhaps radio forces you to be better at your job. But we’ve come a long way from the days of Scully and Garagiola doing the national games, and not in a good way.
I have a soft spot for Howie, but...
… if you think this Gary moment is egregious… well, perhaps they suffer by comparison, but Howie and Wayne Hagin are a rough listen these days if you’re looking for informed analysis.
by LeiterMilnerFasterStronger on Jul 6, 2010 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions
i agree
but thats mostly because wayne hagin takes it upon himself to speak all the time
stats, they are seriously never in Francoeur's favor
We had a nice run of great radio guy after great radio guy
It had to end eventually with Hagin.
McCarthy was good.
I assume he’s still good for the Philth. Is he radio only? Are the radio guys paid more because they shoulder more of the load, and is there a sense that they’re too yappy for TV?
by tmu on Jul 6, 2010 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Tom is the TV
play-by-play guy with Gary Matthews Sr providing the analysis.
"I want to win now, not 3 years from now. That's my stance." - Kevin Burkhardt
Really?
Hmmm. Do they do one of those “time-shares” with the radio team? I guess I pay the price for not being able to stomach Phillies broadcasts. Having McCarthy joust with GMS and Wheeler is sort of like ordering great pasta, but then unscrewing the top off the salt shaker and pouring it in the middle of the plate.
by tmu on Jul 6, 2010 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions
McCarthy is the absolute worst ... and on TV now
Talk about one of the worst downgrades of all time. The phils had Harry Calis, now its McCarthy ignorant blather.
i would love gary to go back and join howie
remember when he forced himself into the radio during the 2006 playoffs?
stats, they are seriously never in Francoeur's favor
It's a combination of factors
The national broadcasts worship at the altar of the so-called ‘casual fan.’ So you get bland, neutral presentation that pushes the stars, whether they are actually doing anything in that game or not. Expect to hear a lot about how gritty guys like Pedroia and Jeter are, because those are names that people know. The ‘casual fan’ doesn’t care that Reliever X is terrible at getting lefties out or something like that. They want to see the stars.
Local broadcasts are a little more complicated. Often there is a push to get an ex-player identified with the team on there whenever possible. This can be a disaster (see Dibble, Rob). Mets fans are kind of spoiled by having Keith and Ron be pretty decent at analysis and willing to criticize the team. Or really, just having a decent tv presence. There is a more general problem with TV, too, as there isn’t a need to explain what happens and why with any nuance, so you get people babbling on about things to fill time. There is a reason most of the good TV guys are ex-radio braodcasters. The over the top homerism is more recent and obnoxious. Possibly because Harrelson always gets his stupid calls on Sportscenter.
by Jeffrey Paternostro on Jul 6, 2010 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions
The worst part about this:
This can be a disaster (see Dibble, Rob).
He’s not even someone who used to play for the Nats/Expos, and yet he might be one of the most annoying homers in all of baseball. At least guys like Hawk Harrelson have been with their respective organizations to reach the point where their homerism is somewhat amusing. And I think Dibble could be a somewhat decent analyst if he toned it down a bit.
At any rate, I think you pretty much nailed it. It’s got a lot to do with who the suits think fans want to hear rather than hiring the best guys for the job. What’s even sadder, though, is that a lot of the casual fans do like these guys. When I listen to sports radio here in DC the overwhelming majority of fans who call in seem to actually like Dibble. Well, there’s no accounting for taste.
Homer is putting it lightly...
I can’t stand listening to Dibble whine and complain about some of the things he latches onto while having no historical connection to the Nats/Expos other than a paycheck now.
The first series at Citi Field comes to mind when he spent the entire weekend bitching about how the visitors bullpen being behind the Mets bullpen was an unfair advantage because their guys didn’t have a direct view of the field and had to watch on monitors. Instead of focusing on how shitty John Lannan is and how atrocious their defense is.
This past weekend was another great one where he spent most of the day Sunday complaining about Adam Dunn not getting a homerun on the ball that bounced off the top of the fence. I wanted to drive down there and ask him who gives a shit, you guys won. Adam Dunn isn’t going to miss out on the triple crown because of the call. Besides it’s YOUR ballpark, get your ground rules together if you don’t like it.
It's a Tool
It’s a tool, and like many tools used in baseball, it has its uses, its subtleties, and its limits. We’ve learned a lot in the past 35 years, but there are still a lot of holes in what we do. We understand that the big RBI guy with decent slugging but lousy OBP probably is not very good. Unfortunately, new stats can be misused ans misunderstood as well. A better way to look at BAPIP is that it is an indicator of something, not that it proves something.
I just wish Gary and Ron understood it better. It would make them better announcers. It might make them a bit more critical of Jerry Manual’s use of the bunt or apply more analysis than a snicker and a shrug to managers who bat their pitcher 8th.
by Marc from Brooklyn on Jul 6, 2010 11:53 AM EDT reply actions 2 recs
I wonder whether
an appropriately reverential letter (I think most people here really do appreciate Gary’s work), from a bunch of respected SABR and/or blogging folk to Gary, simply pointing this out, would be effective.
I'll bet it would
The more people learn about the stats, the more interested they become, and the more they realize that they’re accessible and not tedious — like figuring out where to stick the retirement money. Eric made an important point, and that’s that it enhances appreciation of the game. A lot of people may be afraid that it’s “dehumanizing” . . . as if ERA and batting average are dehumanizing.
I think gary would be receptive
The fact that he’s even talking about BABIP at all suggests he is willing to learn. Unlike others in the MSM, he at least seems open-minded enough to hear our the so-called stat-heads.
And Gary's really pretty sharp
I’m sure he’d understand it if he had somebody who knew what they were talking about explain it to him.
You don't cheer for the Mets. You drink for the Mets.
Agreed on all points.
The fact that he addresses the weakness of looking at BABIP without context shows that he already is ready to understand why DIPS theory is valid, even when subject to randomness.
by SoCal Metfan on Jul 6, 2010 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Very good writeup.
As I’ve gotten deeper into sabermetrics, it definitely has gotten more and more frustrating to listen to GKR. I had been distancing from them for other reasons over the years (mostly because after they “arrived” with the fanbase, they didn’t hide their knowledge that they had in fact “arrived”), but their openly dismissive attitude toward advanced statistics just screams of ignorance that I can’t shake. I still love their relative honesty and general meandering, but I guess I’m just disappointed that they aren’t as forward thinking as I hoped they would be.
It’s kind of like when you grow up and realize your childhood best friend has grown to have very different political beliefs.
by Jamesir Bensonmum on Jul 6, 2010 12:23 PM EDT reply actions
I'm in the same boat
I was introduced to advanced stats about a year ago (than you AA!) and it’s kind of been an “innocence lost” experience with GKR – which isn’t to say, I don’t think they aren’t intelligent human beings and the best crew in baseball, just that they are human have their faults.
Save Jenrry Mejia!
What's to not understand, Gary? Of the various sabermetric stats, I think BABIP is one of the simplest.
I mean, I understand it. If I can…
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Jul 6, 2010 12:26 PM EDT reply actions
Honestly
This isn’t THAT egregious, other than the needless statheads shots. BABIP does correlate with LD%, so higher line drive percentage = hits ball harder = higher BABIP. They kind of talked around it and Ron even mentioned that if you have a high BABIP you might have had some more fluky hits.
Of course, Wright has had his lowest LD% since 2006 this year and his career highest BABIP, so this year I think Wright has been a little lucky. (He is still King way too much to be hitting .320)
by Jeffrey Paternostro on Jul 6, 2010 1:13 PM EDT reply actions
Really??
That’s odd. I assume, however, that flyball XBHs and hard hit ground balls aren’t factored into LD%, however, because how hard is “hard”? (No Dickey jokes, please.) LD% would still tend to correlate with BABIP, and it’s probably more accurate that trying to have someone say that X groundball was hit hard.
by tmu on Jul 6, 2010 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Where's the derision?
I’m with Eric on 99% of this but I’m not really sure how he’s reading the contempt into what GKR said. He oversimplified the concept and then alluded to the problem with that oversimplification. He seems like the kind of guy who would listen if you explained it to him and have it clear in about three minutes flat.
The comment later on was just a call-back to what they were talking about earlier. It’s just funny. Call-backs are always interesting in a broadcast.
You are obviously right on the mark with what you’re saying about xBABIP and the mainstream media which digs in its heels and disparages the statistics that would expose their ignornace – but I don’t see this as an example of that. He’s at least bringing it up and starting a conversation about it, which is more help for the advancement of sabermetrics in the mainstream than we could hope for.
by Brian Mangan on Jul 6, 2010 1:18 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I see what you're saying
with regard to his words, but there seemed to be a derisory tone both times it came up
Yea
When it came up on Friday, it was broached by Gary in a, “Hey, you know what’s wrong with sabermetrics?” kind of way. When it came up again on Sunday, Gary and Ron were pretty clearly laughing about this wacky BABIP thing.
To be fair to GKR
BABIP is an odd stat in that it is used for both pitchers and hitters but has to be treated differently for both. Thus for example, we would expect David Wright to be able to maintain a .350 BABIP, but we would never expect a pitcher to suffer such a rate long term. It’s extraordinarily unlikely (barring the pitcher facing David Wright 100 times in a row).
Thus part of his problem is that he seemed to be talking about pitcher BABIP (little to no control over it) when referring to hitters. That doesn’t work.
Eric, when it first came up, I wanted to email Gary a post about the subject, but i couldn’t find an email link. In reality the best solution to this type of comment is to open a correspondence with GKR…but i have no idea how to do that.
Yes, perhaps
But I would hope someone who talks about baseball for a living might take the time to understand the difference between batter and pitcher BABIP instead of just dismissing all of sabermetrics as he did. To your last point, I don’t have Gary Cohen’s e-mail address but I do have a blog, so the rest of that story wrote itself.
Maybe, but
the people who their whole lives have been thinking that they understand the (baseball) world are always the least likely to try and learn or even understand others who argue that they’re at least partially wrong.
The old guard will most certainly not seek out something to change their understanding for the most part…but they can be taught if guided to the right.
I guess the only way
to reach GKR is through Burkhardt.
"I want to win now, not 3 years from now. That's my stance." - Kevin Burkhardt
What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
"I reject your reality and substitute my own"
-Adam Savage
by blueandorange4life on Jul 6, 2010 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't know that! Aaaaaargh!!!
"I reject your reality and substitute my own"
-Adam Savage
by blueandorange4life on Jul 6, 2010 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions
HE HAS TEH RINGZ
Well, OK, just the one, and if Gary thinks the 2004 Red Sox won the World Series because of Orlando Cabrera and not because of Manny and Ortiz and Pedro and Schilling… well, that’d just be silly.
Yeah that "grinded" my gears pretty good.
Ron was guilty of bestowing the title of “winner” on Cabrera as well.
Save Jenrry Mejia!
Hagin also said it last night
Not exactly a surprise.
From Fred to Jeff
and O to Jerr
Funny things
Are everywhere
- Dr. Seuss (if he were a Mets fan)
I understand the point of criticizing "high BABIP = lucky" statement, but Dubs is batting at an unprecedented rate.
He is hitting at .475 wOBA in June (.486 BABIP) and .432 in July (.529 BABIP). His BABIP in the year is .410. Checking the leaderboards for the past few years, the highest batter BABIP is usually hovering around .390. On hot streaks, players can indeed post ridiculous numbers like that, but for the rest of the season he won’t keep that up. Even if he “regress” to last year’s .394, which was already high for his career standards, he is going to regress a bit.
Also, it’s not out of the realm of commonsense that he is being a bit lucky too. His batted ball profile, speed and xBABIP don’t support those numbers.
About the 2nd conversation, walks and HRs are not balls in play. So, you can have an inning like this: K, BB, BB, HR, K, BB, BB, HR, flyout. High BABIP? Not necessarily.
In lobby campaign for Chris Carter.
I think they're flirting a bit with sabremetrics more and more, regardless of a little snarkiness here and there
I could swear Ronnie has brought up SSS at least 10 times this year when G, K or a chyron pops up with something like “3-6, 1HR vs this pitcher”. Ronnie at least smashes the conventional wisdom that the batter beyond reasonable doubt, owns this pitcher.
that seems a minor start
and reminds me of jerry’s, am i going to get the 9 out of 10 or the 1 out of 10
stats, they are seriously never in Francoeur's favor
For sure, I'm letting them off easy because they're pretty awesome otherwise
and no one else on TV even mentions OPS.
Rec'd, Excellent write-up
On the plus side, at least GKR were willing to mention BABIP, even if in possibly derisive style. That’s a start. That’s more than 95% of the MSM are willing to do. Both sides of this debate just need to stop getting so defensive every time the opposing side criticizes the statheads/old guard. On the other hand, its on GKR and others like them to do their due diligence, since its pretty clear that love it or hate it, Sabrmetric analysis is here to stay, and people like Morgan/MIller (other faults aside) do themselves no justice by continuing to stick their heads in the sand. GKR at least seem willing to engage with advanced stats to some degree
"I reject your reality and substitute my own"
-Adam Savage
by blueandorange4life on Jul 6, 2010 2:28 PM EDT reply actions
That looks like when one first came to AA and foolishly mentioned something like "UZR" or "BABIP = luck" and got some harsh answers like "SSS!" or the usual trial by fire.
Then, over time, reading over the webs, we began to understand those.
In lobby campaign for Chris Carter.
Exactly, over time I think they will get better at understanding
and integrating advanced metrics into their act
"I reject your reality and substitute my own"
-Adam Savage
by blueandorange4life on Jul 6, 2010 8:30 PM EDT up reply actions
i have a feeling
that a lot of MSM just chose to pursue a degree in journalism because it involved the least amount of math and did not expect to have to learn any new stats when they started covering baseball, instead that they would be able to comfortably rely on the same old stats they had memorized for their favorite players growing up. this obviously does not forgive them for refusing to learn about new stats or for their generally awful/blind opinions on other topics, just might give some insight as to why they are so dumb
stats, they are seriously never in Francoeur's favor
i think that's a silly thing to say.
"I only wanted a few things out of life -- a wife, children, to play baseball and to hunt deer." - Turk Wendell
I really don't care that Gary Cohen doesn't like the BABIP stat.
We as a community have a tendency to overblow basically everything, and it’s a little ridiculous at this point (see the Jayson Stark fanshot, where we basically turned a couple of sentences along the lines of “Furcal should be an all star rather than Jose Reyes” into “Jayson Stark wrote a whole article about why Jose Reyes shouldn’t be an All Star! How ridiculous!”)
We need to all grow the hell up and stop taking everything so personally.
http://www.doublebobbyjones.com/ -Double Bobby Jones: a Mets blog
by metsguy234 on Jul 6, 2010 3:05 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
"all grow the hell up"
Says the guy who once declared “Reyes will be out of the league by 2011: Lazyness doesn’t last long”.
And: “Omar is pretty obviously biased towards Latinos, and so he doesn’t take full advantage of the market. It makes me sick”
And: “I’m assuming people don’t like playing with Reyes, since he’s a huge distraction and a big prima donna”
You may not care about what Gary Cohen has to say about BABIP. And that’s fine, just pass on this and move along. Eric, the proprietor of this blog and writer of this particular post, does, enough so that he took time out of his day to write something thoughtful and discussion generating about it.
I have no problem with people who want no part of sabermetrics. My problem lies with people who criticize things without fully comprehending concepts, or those who put it down without any basis. I think Eric’s post fairly covered the topic — if Gary wants to wade into sabermetric waters, great! But if he does, discussion about what he says is fair game. It’s not personal and this post surely wasn’t.
by James Kannengieser on Jul 6, 2010 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions 7 recs
"You may not care about what Gary Cohen has to say about BABIP. And that’s fine, just pass on this and move along."
Basically, this. I was trying to think of a way to respond to the concern trolling of that comment but James’ response pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter.
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Jul 6, 2010 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions
to be fair, metsguy apologized for his little flirtation with the race stuff
But starting any comment with “I really don’t care [about the topic under discussion]” is tiresome. That you don’t care doesn’t mean nobody else gets to.
It's also not fair of you James
To point out that metsguy234 was wrong and/or inappropriate on another topic in the past and bring it up as a reason to dismiss his current statement.
I think we do as a community tend to overblow everything. I think this article is a good example of that. Gary was grossly oversimplifying the concept but this was on-air banter tailored to a mainstream audience — it wasn’t some pre-meditated and thorough panning of sabermetrics in general.
There are a LOT of examples of AWFUL broadcasters and writers. Gary Cohen isn’t one of them. Gary Cohen is a godsend for this team and was the only reason they were worth watching last year. I’m inclined to cut him some slack if he wasn’t perfect in his articulation of the intricacies of BABIP.
So I agree with metsguy234 on the merits of his above point, and think it may be overly cliqueish to bring up the other things he said.
It was entirely appropriate
Because I was addressing his comment that “we need to all grow the hell up” — it wasn’t a reference to his thoughts on Gary and BABIP. He is lecturing Eric, or the community I guess, to grow up — meanwhile he has a long history of posting immature and/or racist things. I chuckled when I read metsguy telling us to grow up and felt it was worth addressing.
As to your points on Gary — nowhere in Eric’s post or any threads here does anyone say Gary Cohen is an awful announcer. Quite the contrary, we (I hate saying “we” to represent the community usually but I think I’m safe here) love Gary. But just because he is a fantastic announcer doesn’t mean things he says aren’t open to criticism/discussion, especially when it’s about sabermetrics. As you may have noticed, this community is saber-friendly, so naturally when Gary starts talking about it, interest will be piqued. It’s like saying “There are a LOT of examples of AWFUL countries — the USA isn’t one of them. Cut the USA some slack and don’t discuss its poor decisions.” I don’t think you’d ever say that. Maybe you would, who knows.
No one is calling Gary an idiot. No one is saying FIRE HIS ASS — it’s just explaining that he seems to be a little off base and might do well for himself and the audience if he did some more research before broaching the topic on-air. I don’t see a problem with this at all. If I did, I would say so, evidenced here.
by James Kannengieser on Jul 6, 2010 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Wow
I had never read that thread before. Holy chewed cud, is that dude annoying. . . . HAHA! I’m going to keep responding in politico-speak!! HA!!! I wish him luck with his bathroom book.
Anyway, yeah, I’m not sure why Eric’s post merited a “grow up.” I think Metsguy was probably referring to some of the comments.
by tmu on Jul 6, 2010 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Hey TMU
Look at the total WAR of a team and a team batting average. You’ll see that WAR is a FAR better predictor of wins every single motherfucking year.
If we were to bet money on what teams were going to get the most wins with you using your favorite stats and me using mine, the only limitations to how much money I couls extract from you would be my conscience and your lifespan.
End of discussion.
Nothing can get by him; especially in a small room: Mike Francessa
by GenJackRipper on Jul 7, 2010 12:09 AM EDT up reply actions
What are you talking about?
I never suggested you should ignore composites and just rely on “traditional” baseball card stats (let alone a single stat like BA.) In fact, I don’t think anyone, anywhere would. It’s not surprising, considering that the stats were developed to best correlate to wins. I’m not Random Anti-Saber Guy.
Anyway, as you’re pretty confident in your stats, take ‘em to Vegas! I’m not kidding. Quit work and enjoy life!
Sorry, that's "the composites were developed"
That is all.
some people's opinion is worth less than others.
By demonstrating that the guy has made some idiotic statements in the past, his opinion should be valued less than someone like eric who has demonstrated his ability to reason and argue logical points.
Everything you have said in the past is fair game IMO
by Mike Clemente on Jul 6, 2010 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Except his recent posts are vastly different then his past posts.
As everyone on AA should know, more recent performance trumps past performance (if the sample size is decent).
by yellomellojello on Jul 6, 2010 7:45 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
do you keep track of everything we say on this site?
stats, they are seriously never in Francoeur's favor
i dont think i have offended you
or do i mind admitting when i was dumb or wrong
stats, they are seriously never in Francoeur's favor
Ha, I'm kidding
But I do have a decent memory and certain posts/comments are memorable. But if you ask me about comment 1125 in last Thursday’s GameThread, I couldn’t help ya.
by James Kannengieser on Jul 6, 2010 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Since I posted that, I'll respond.
Nowhere did I assert that the entire article was about Reyes. I posted the headline that encapsulated the part of the article that I wanted to draw attention to. All I wanted to do was contrast the specific mention of Reyes as someone that should have been replaced with Furcal with how Stark mentioned Votto, but in a vague way that tied him with Infante. You and a few other people are the only ones who turned it into a single minded article. We’ve crucified people at this site for worse than what Stark wrote, but it’s still worth pointing out things like this.
John Olerud, Hall of Famer. Got a nice ring to it.
Disappointing
to say the least. I usually enjoy the authors and posts on this site but this statement below shot to hell any credibility towards the point trying to be made.
‘The good news for G&R is that most of their audience is probably content to keep their heads buried in the sand, so the (possibly) stubborn ignorance of their appointed mouthpieces really only marginalizes the folks who actually want to understand the game at a level deeper than can be conveyed by outdated but comfortably familiar analysis’
Those that embrace sabremetrics and the like might do well to understand that talking down to your audience usually does not produce the desired result.
I don't know
At least he’s not saying people are too dumb to understand sabermetrics, which is a subtext of a lot of what shows up in saber-discourse.
by tmu on Jul 6, 2010 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Wow, think you're being a bit sensitive
The main point you’re quoting is how non sabre folks flippantly dismiss sabre geeks. It’s not really a snotty shot at the masses being dumb. I think you’ve read a couple sabre guys being a dick in the past and just assumed here.
NYM
I am a big fan of sabremetrics. But I think other proponents of it fall back on the “luck” explanation far too often. Sometimes things don’t fall perfectly in line with statistical projections. Things like FIP, BABIP are used to estimate what some of the more basic statistics should look like, but those estimations aren’t going to be 100% accurate for every player. But I don’t think that necessarily always the case of the player just getting some lucky/unlucky breaks.
Usually luck is the right explanation though.
You need a couple seasons of a someone like Ichiro or DWright before you usually conclude that they’re not just lucky. 90+% of guys don’t sustain outlier BABIP, ERA/FIP differentials for long.
That may be true
We often use the term “luck” as a catch-all for things that aren’t easily explained. If a pitcher is thriving with a .325 BABIP, he may be finding a smidgeon more like on his fastball, or something like that, something that is the direct result of an action the pitcher performs, not something completely out of his control. That runs contrary to what we normally think of as luck.
But here’s the rub: unless the trait is a repeatable skill, it doesn’t really matter whether it’s truly luck—something the pitcher has no control over—or not. What matters is that it’s something the pitcher is not able to do at will, and therefore is not ultimately responsible for his success or lack thereof.
There are some pitchers who succeed with high BABIPs on a consistent basis. Finesse lefties, knuckleballers, guys who gets tons of infield flies, whatever. But because it takes so long to determine whether the pitcher has that skill or not (three years, minimum, in my eyes and probably more like five) we might merely add the pitcher might be “lucky,” and I do firmly believe that is fair, regardless of whether it’s the Las Vegas variety is really at play or not. Once the player has proven it not to be the case, I have no problem qualifying the player’s strengths and/or weaknesses.
by Alex Nelson on Jul 6, 2010 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
But
I think in that case your lexicon matters, because, as you state, calling something “luck” sends the message that the pitcher is not actually in control over his performance, whereas he often is, the career “norms” being an aggregate of the times when he’s “on” versus the times when he’s “off.” And if you want to decrease resistance to advanced stats/metrics among “baseball people” look no further than how you toss aroudn the term “luck.” I mean, you can see how it might rub a pitcher the wrong way to have been called “lucky” when actually, he may have done a better job keeping hitters off balance.
by tmu on Jul 6, 2010 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions
The problem
Luck is four characters. Five if I write lucky. If you can condense the 499 characters you just used to four or five (I’ll even take seven), you can call me a convert.
man thats rough, you cant even fit grission into that character limt
Hey, wait! I'm having one of those things. You know? A headache with pictures?
by KeithsMoustache on Jul 6, 2010 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions
"non-predictive variance"
Is the best I can do for a rough synonym for the statistical sense of “luck.” I just think this usage of “luck” is too deeply entrenched to change, even if it is clearly a totally different sense of the word from the ordinary-language one. The best we can probably hope for is the occasional asterisk with an explanation like this one.
If the MSM is too dense to learn about or accept sabers,
instead ridiculing them as nerd-fantasies, then there is zero chance they won’t ridicule a term like “non-predictive variance” however appropriate it may be.
Save Jenrry Mejia!
"within the normo-zone."
That seems ESPN-friendly. “He’s had a solid year, but his performance is still in the normo-zone.”
by tmu on Jul 6, 2010 8:00 PM EDT up reply actions
I think that Gary is correct, but for the wrong reason
I think that a concluding that a hitter’s BABIP is ‘lucky’ can only be made in relation to his career numbers. David Wright’s career BABIP is .350, which is significantly higher than that of Geoff Blum (.274), who is the first replacement-levelish 3B that popped into my head. Wright has sustained that .350 BABIP for five seasons through a combination of hitting skill and speed. At what point do we stop writing it off as luck?
To me, the defintion of luck is waiting for your small sample size to catch up to you and taking it personally. Five seasons should provide adequate information to conclude that David Wright isn’t lucky to see a BABIP over .300. He’s doing something to earn it.
"It’s like being in love with an alcoholic. It’s like, you constantly defend her, and people are like, ‘Dude, your alcoholic friend is a mess,’ and you’re like, ‘Nah, you don’t know her like I do."- Jim Breuer
by spaceboy761 on Jul 6, 2010 4:05 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Yep, this.
Any conversation about BABIP for hitters has to start and end with xBABIP.
John Olerud, Hall of Famer. Got a nice ring to it.
so maybe it's better viewed as...
Above career BABIP = lucky
BABIP above .300 = lucky
"It’s like being in love with an alcoholic. It’s like, you constantly defend her, and people are like, ‘Dude, your alcoholic friend is a mess,’ and you’re like, ‘Nah, you don’t know her like I do."- Jim Breuer
i'd agree with A in general
but not B. Above .300 is sustainable if you hit a high percentage of line drives.
Hey, wait! I'm having one of those things. You know? A headache with pictures?
by KeithsMoustache on Jul 6, 2010 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions
I checked some more guys just for the heck of it...
Pujols- career BABIP of .320 (great hitter, tons of LD’s, meh speed)
David Ortiz- career BABIP of .300 (great hitter, lower LD%, zero speed)
Jacoby Ellsbury- career BABIP of .320 (decent hitter, great speed)
I think David’s speed puts him over the top and allows that .350 BABIP. Maybe a high rate of GB hits would support that? For what it’s worth, I can’t find a player with a BABIP as high as Wright’s other than Ichiro (.358), so maybe we’re wasting our time trying to explain a crazy outlier.
"It’s like being in love with an alcoholic. It’s like, you constantly defend her, and people are like, ‘Dude, your alcoholic friend is a mess,’ and you’re like, ‘Nah, you don’t know her like I do."- Jim Breuer
i think in ortiz' case, he's helped by HRs
since for a good chunk of his career anything that was a fly ball turned into a HR or bounced it off the monster for a double. Even with good speed and LD% dubs does seem to be able to sustain an abnormally high %. Perhaps he hits harder groundballs on average than other players as well. This is a problem i have with the ground-ball designation. Theres a difference between a weak dribbler to short and a ball thats scorched and only takes one hop before leaving the infield. I think better distinction between those kinds of hits would help identify who should be able to keep high BABIP
Hey, wait! I'm having one of those things. You know? A headache with pictures?
by KeithsMoustache on Jul 6, 2010 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm half speaking out my ass here
But i think weak dribblers still end up hits just as much as well hit ones. The dinks that go about 40 feet end up as hits a lot to offset the weak grounders that actually reach fielders.
It seems like Zimmerman robs DWright of about 10 hits a year off hotshots too.
They also do the big shift on Papi
Probably robs him of a handful of GB singles every year.
Also, not all batted ball statistics are equal
I recall reading something a year or two back which said that batted ball rates, like LD GB FB were affected by home fields — probably a calibration issue or what have you and variations from stadium to stadium. It could be that Wright’s batted balls are in the same proportion as in years past but the manner of recording them has adjusted somehow.
edit!
Above career BABIP = lucky
NOT
BABIP above .300 = lucky
"It’s like being in love with an alcoholic. It’s like, you constantly defend her, and people are like, ‘Dude, your alcoholic friend is a mess,’ and you’re like, ‘Nah, you don’t know her like I do."- Jim Breuer
For Hitters Correct Usually
But it’s not too difficult to check the GB/FB/LD%s to see if anything is different.
Agreed
Ichiro has an absurd BABIP too and he doesn’t even have the LD/hard contact thing going for him.
good speed helps him
Hey, wait! I'm having one of those things. You know? A headache with pictures?
by KeithsMoustache on Jul 6, 2010 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions
true to some extent, this gets back to my point i made elsewhere in the thread
that i think there should be a distinction between weak grounders and sharply hit grounders. Ichiro hits a lot of hard hit balls that take one hop to clear the infield. These are a lot tougher to get to than balls that bounce 2-3 times before reaching the fielder. They’re not considered line drives, but they’re hit much harder than the kind of grounder that turns into a routine play. I think if they were better at separating the two types of grounders, the numbers would start to make a bit more sense.
Hey, wait! I'm having one of those things. You know? A headache with pictures?
by KeithsMoustache on Jul 6, 2010 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions
someone like ichiro could probably benefit from a 5 hopper
stats, they are seriously never in Francoeur's favor
Ichiro is a unique case. He made an art of hitting infield singles, slapping the ball where the fielders aren't and hitting line drives/HR when he feels like it.
Also batting from the left side and having considerable speed are part of his game.
In lobby campaign for Chris Carter.
Can we lobby Ted Berg to lobby GKR???
or must we lobby Berg to lobby Cerrone to Lobby Burkhardt to lobby GKR?
also what are GKR’s thoughts on phrenology and Myers-Briggs personality tests? maybe we can disabuse them of some other foolish notions while we’re at it.
HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.
Phrenology and baseball
When your head grows really, really large, in the shape of a sweet potato, you hit an inordinate number of home runs at an advanced age.
by tmu on Jul 6, 2010 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I believe your head only gets large if you drink too much nerve tonic
What Would Matt Szczur Do?
by Hoyadestroya85 on Jul 6, 2010 6:02 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I already suggested that
I think it’s our best hope. Go to it, Ted! Maybe Gary thinks Lysenko’s biology and Giotto-style perspective are due for a rethink
add Lamarckism and inherited traits to the mix?
GKR may not be to keen on this Carl Linnaeus character either
HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.
berg scores another touchdown
i award you 12 deli sandwiches
HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.
I dunno, this is heavy stuff.
Only the pros at Daily News Live can handle this stuff.
John Olerud, Hall of Famer. Got a nice ring to it.
can you just learn them about a lot?
if you know a lot about sabermetrics maybe they could give you or someone time on air on sny to teach about them, would be better than anything they currently show
stats, they are seriously never in Francoeur's favor
by astromets on Jul 6, 2010 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I've been watching a ton of Jamie Moyer this season
And people truly seem to be jamming themselves on his pitches. I think that metrics have their merits and they have their holes. I’ve been sitting here for weeks waiting for Moyer get lit up for six runs in consecutive outings but the fact is that it isn’t happening.. Guys are either popping up or not getting it out of the infield.
What Would Matt Szczur Do?
So has David been a little bit "lucky" this year or not?
It seems like his line drive pct. is about 21 % (last time I checked, which was last week), and there were a decent amount of guys ahead of him, but David was about 2nd place in babip behind only Austin Jackson I believe at about .390 something. Anyone know what his Xbabip is? It would seem to me, maybe he has been a tiny bit lucky, but not abnormally so. Also, the fact that outfielders play him so deep allows him to drop more dunkers in than the avg. player I would imagine. So power hitters could often expect a little extra luck beyond what their line drive pct. says.
David has a .410 BABIP which is kind of insane, like last year.
ZiPS projects a .373 BABIP, so actually .410 is not absolutely insane. David has shown he can sustain a high BABIP over the past two years and over his career. David has probably also been “unlucky” in striking out more. I would expect a lower BABIP and lower Ks for a roughly similar average and stats in general.
So I wanted to delve a little further into the specific David Wright BABIP issue.
On fangraphs you can get his BABIP splits for batted ball types, and they are as follows:
Grounders: .289
Fly Balls: .325
Line Drives: .778
What are the league averages for BABIP for those batted ball types (I couldn’t find them on FanGraphs)? It would be interesting to see if he is able to sustain a significantly higher BABIP for a specific type or if they are all proportionately high. For example, perhaps he hits particularly hard ground balls so his GB BABIP is unusually high (but explainable).
baseball reference has them
im not sure where but I’ve seen them before
I want Jerry Manuel fired now, not three years from now. That is my stance.- John Peterson
Cool thanks I found it
In case anyone’s curious the NL BABIP are as follows:
Grounders: .232
Fly Balls: .138
Line Drives: .720
So it seems Wright’s big difference is on Fly Balls. Any theories?
Where'd you find it at?
I was trying to find it on Baseball Reference, but I didn’t see it.
"I want to win now, not 3 years from now. That's my stance." - Kevin Burkhardt
On the front page
click the link for Splits and scroll down.
Here’s the link:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/split.cgi?lg=NL&year=2010&t=b
Scroll about 2/3 the way down and look under Hit Trajectory.
Having said all that though
It would appear Baseball-Reference and FanGraphs have different classifications.
Wright BABIP Splits on BR are as follows:
Grounders: .322
Fly Balls: .234
Line Drives: .759
yeah thats weird
i can understand how their might be some discrepancy with flyballs and line drives, but how do you have trouble classifying groundballs.
I want Jerry Manuel fired now, not three years from now. That is my stance.- John Peterson
Line Drives are suppose to be much higher than fly balls and grounders.
I can’t find the exact ones for the NL, but I did find them for the AL.
Grounders: .229
Fly Balls: .143
Line Drives: .728
So if anything, it looks to me like less of David’s fly balls would fall in for hits. The others are probably near his career norms.
John Olerud, Hall of Famer. Got a nice ring to it.
Whoops, Balagast got there before me.
(tips hat in deference)
John Olerud, Hall of Famer. Got a nice ring to it.
Oh and I do think people take Sabr stats way too far sometimes
Like this article where he chooses Zimmerman over Wright for 3B in the ASG:
That’s taking one stat (in this case defensive stats like UZR) way too far.
also if they are just looking at D
they are ignoring the fact that wright is leading in (likely) every offensive category
stats, they are seriously never in Francoeur's favor
The reasoning (as I understand it)
Is that they are going by projections (in this case ZIPs), and regressing the heck out of split data.
Either way I think its a bit overboard to put that much emphasis on UZR (which is only reliable over a full season really).
UZR isn't even reliable over 1 season
I think even the big sabre sites say you should average the last 3 seasons of UZR to get a good idea of how he will do the next year.
Yeah, that's when sabr is used stupidly, i think.
We may be analyzing things neutrally and context-equal and weighted, etc., but we ARE measuring actual performance.
John Olerud, Hall of Famer. Got a nice ring to it.
Single season UZR, sure
but if you have a few years worth of UZR and DRS, you have something worth talking about.
Let's look at the projections...
Wright: .404 wOBA or 47.5 runs per 700 PA
Zimmerman: .375 wOBA or 29.8 runs per 700 PA
So Zimmerman’s defense would have to be 17.5 runs better to equal Wright.
Let’s look at the career UZR/150…
Wright: -0.6
Zimmerman: +12.5
Zimmerman’s UZR projection would probably be a little lower due to regression also.
Cameron states in the article and in the comments that the difference between the two over one game is negligible and that Halladay’s (the starter) groundballness tips the scale toward Zimmerman. I would go with Wright.
also
to my eye, it appears wright has gotten better defensively every year, and also improves in season as the year goes on. i would guess that lessens the gap in zim’s defensive edge
stats, they are seriously never in Francoeur's favor
Zimmerman is clearly better, but here's their numbers this season
Wright: 3.3 UZR; +4 DRS
Zimmerman: 6.4 UZR; +13 DRS
Wright’s been good, but Zimmerman has been Brooks Robinson-esque
yeah well no denying zim
just saying wright aint so bad either. random, but at least he got his gold gloves before people realized who zim was
stats, they are seriously never in Francoeur's favor
i should side note
i dont know how zim remained unnoticed by msm when he got called up and was awesome a few months after being drafted
stats, they are seriously never in Francoeur's favor
What does Halladay have to do with this?
Did the Nats pull off a trade?
Personally, I would rather not have my announcers discuss the nuances of BABIP and the like on-air.
When I’m watching a baseball game I’d just like the color guy to call the game and the analyst to tell a story or break down a swing. That’s it.
When I want to get into statistical analysis I’ll come to AA, Fangraphs, BP, etc.
"Seriously, Lana, call Kenny Loggins ‘cause you’re in the danger zone."
I like to have a balance personally
Sometimes it gets really old hearing guys try to relate things that are so outdated they don’t apply or make observations on guys mechanics from vantage points that are terrible.
How do you balance it though?
How does one casually insert a discussion of BABIP or any other Saber stat while calling a baseball game? Having read some of the articles explaining advanced stats, they make Joyce jealous.
"Seriously, Lana, call Kenny Loggins ‘cause you’re in the danger zone."
I think the thing to do is just let go of the need to explain everything
You can drop any stat you like into a discussion if you explain its relevance without necessarily going into detail at all about how it’s computed. Say “Pagan has an amazing 2.7 Wins Above Replacement already this year, suggesting he’s among the 5 best center fielders in baseball,” rather than “Pagan has 2.7 WAR, which is calculated by combining the hitting metric Runs Created with an estimate of the runs he’s saved defensively,” etc… People who want to learn more about the statistical sausage-making process can JFGI; broadcasting should be about serving up the end result in easy-to-understand form.
I agree
They can’t avoid discussion of players’ value relative to one another. It’s integral to the topic of the team and the game.
I only started watching baseball 10 years ago, as an adult, so I well remember learning about it. I knew basically just the obvious things that are part of the culture, like 3 strikes you’re out, etc. ERA, as far as how it was calculated (I blush to recall), was a mystery, but it was always obvious from the context how I should read a reference to it. And that’s how a casual fan would hear references to WAR or FIP or whatever. You come to know what it stands for, and you hear various numbers in relation to one another.
And then when I had more questions than context could answer, I went looking. Which is how it will go with these stats.
then they need someone to explain all those stats
so the majority of people watching aren’t like wtf is he talking bout?
stats, they are seriously never in Francoeur's favor
I know this is a baseball blog, BUT...
While monitoring Twitter for LeBron James new, this came across my Twitter stream.
I couldn’t help but chuckle since I had just finished reading this post and the subsequent comments.
"Seriously, Lana, call Kenny Loggins ‘cause you’re in the danger zone."
Frank
is a bit of a douche anyways. Not to mention a Van Gundy dickrider.
"I want to win now, not 3 years from now. That's my stance." - Kevin Burkhardt
Somebody might ought to let him know
Italy ain’t gonna be the champs this time out.
What a douche.
Come on people, now
People driving people, people now
Come on everyone be people now
Save Jenrry Mejia!
No one is born knowing sabermetrics.
(Well, maybe Eric, James & Sam.) This stuff takes work. And it didn’t just show up in circa 2010 style either. Twenty five years ago it was considered revolutionary to read in the Baseball Abstract the number of runs scored by a team in support of its regular starters. There were networks of people who were scoring games just to be able to analyze the stats, because MLB and Elias wouldn’t let anyone else see the stats except for what they wanted published. (I know because I did some of the scoring, albeit on a minor level.) I am not going to hold it against Gary even if he never learns what BABIP is. Gary grew up listening to Murph and Lindsey and got to live his dream by becoming them — arguably a better version of them. And now maybe there are a whole bunch of kids and young adults who grew up on Gary but also grew up on sabermetrics, and maybe they will, in the next generation, become guys who can call a game as well or better than him, but also can understand and explain metrics to their audience.
From Fred to Jeff
and O to Jerr
Funny things
Are everywhere
- Dr. Seuss (if he were a Mets fan)
I think the salient point
is not that GKR should necessarily understand everything about objective baseball analysis (I certainly don’t), but that they should avoid talking about things they don’t understand as if they had the authority of someone who does. Gary in particular seems to have a very rudimentary understanding of why BABIP is important, but he spoke last weekend as if he knew all there was to know about the subject and was therefore in a position to dismiss it — and perhaps all of sabermetrics as well — as failing to pass his under-informed sniff test.
Either know what you’re talking about or don’t talk about it at all. I know next to nothing about quantum physics, so it’d be pretty haughty of me to write it off as fringe science without fully understanding what it is I’m so casually dismissing.
by Eric Simon on Jul 7, 2010 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
i'm surprised this article took so long to be written
i figured the backlash would have been almost instantaneous.
strong girlfight in this thread
I want Jerry Manuel fired now, not three years from now. That is my stance.- John Peterson
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Amazin' Avenue
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Snoop Dogg delivers memorable first pitch at U.S. Cellular Field
- The Juice: Mesoraco’s grand slam helps Reds complete four-game sweep of Braves
- Please hold: Indians’ Joe Smith jumps the gun on relief appearance
- Local radio host honors Cubs’ Tony Campana with parody song
- Roy Halladay bobblehead with glove on wrong hand selling on MLB.com
