Nomar4prez wrote:The conclusions drawn from the statistical analysis of players are just theories.
yup. just like gravity is a theory.
they're both based on induction. you observe events, record them, and then draw conclusions about what will probably happen in the future in similar situations, generalizing as much as possible. it's all just theory.
"I don't buy everything I read,
I havn't even read everything I've bought"
"I find it more comforting to believe that this [life] isn't simply a test."
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Bases this season: 0
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: at Morimoto's, eating $50 worth of sushi
I can remember Joe Morgan was called an idiot on here last year for not believing in sabermetrics. Um.....sabermetrics is just a theory.
Sabermetrics isn't just a theory. It's not something that can be believed in or not believed in like Creationism.
"Sabermetrics is the mathematical and statistical analysis of baseball records."
The game is played, sabermetrics analyzes the statistics. There's nothing there to believe in. You look at the data and you draw conclusions from it, mathematically.
If Joe Morgan says something like, "I don't believe in sabermetrics" it just shows he doesn't know what it is. He has also repeatedly and mistakenly claimed that Billy Beane wrote Moneyball, which he did not. He's also admitted to not liking the book while at the same time admitting he's never read it.
The conclusions drawn from the statistical analysis of players are just theories.
Yeah, Nomar. Sabermetrics are not a theory. They've been proven by the many years of baseball stats.
The reason why sabermetrics is possible is that baseball has been around for so long, and detailed stats have been taken for so long.
It's not a theory. They are predictions with a high statistical likelihood. Yes, they may not come true. They are not facts or conclusions, they are predictions. But they come from "the last 500 players we've seen since the 1800s that had stats like this guy for his first five years tended to have stats like this for the sixth year, so we can predict with X percent certainty, barring injury, etc., that he will have a year like this."
They are far better predictors of future stats then "I saw that pitcher in Pawtucket, and he's a phenom. He'll win a Cy Young some day."
Joe Morgan isn't someone I'd choose to defend. He is one of the captains of the vield insult. He makes things up about players and people he doesn't particularly like or agree with, instead of just saying, that guy is a jerk. A couple of things instantly jump to mind.
Slandering Moneyball without having read the book. Or even being aware of the book's actual author. Moneyball is pretty sensationalized, and is years behind what the statistics community has been touting for decades and in some cases over a century (guys were arguing on-base percentage over batting average in since the mid-1800s, one year walks were even counted as hits with respect to the batting title). I'm not defending or endorsing the book, but woudln't it be best to at least pick up the book before forming an opinion?
One of the big ones I heard from Morgan was Jose Canseco was a "selfish hitter". The implication was that he was always trying to hit a homerun, and didn't care about the success of his team. I don't think anyone needs me to point out that Canseco is, has been, and always will be a major dink, and if Morgan, like the majority of people on Earth, felt that way, he should have just said so. But Morgan's claim that Canseco was a selfish hitter doesn't have any foundation. If you go back and look at his situational averages, they all respond in the expected fashion and defy Morgan's claim. He didn't base it on anything observed or recorded. Morgan just made something up about Canseco because he didn't like him. And he does stuff like that all the time. It's really sinister and underhanded.
Sabremetrics will not tell you if Canseco was a selfish hitter or not. Nor is it just swinging for the fences. It is not moving a runner over to third base with no outs, it is not taking pitches to give a baserunner a chance to steal, there is a host of things it can be. And sabremetrics, just like all the other invented ways to analyze players does not prove anything. It is always and will always be judgement calls and personal opinions on someone. And as with stats in all things, you can make them "prove" anything depending on what stats you use and how you use them.
SouthBronxBombers wrote:Sabremetrics will not tell you if Canseco was a selfish hitter or not. Nor is it just swinging for the fences. It is not moving a runner over to third base with no outs, it is not taking pitches to give a baserunner a chance to steal, there is a host of things it can be. And sabremetrics, just like all the other invented ways to analyze players does not prove anything. It is always and will always be judgement calls and personal opinions on someone. And as with stats in all things, you can make them "prove" anything depending on what stats you use and how you use them.
I do not want to touch that with a thrity foot pole for the eventual tired arguement that will result, but my question would be, and Joe Morgan will? What Morgan does is practiced by dozens upon dozens of people in baseball. He projects his dislike of someone onto a flaw that doesn't exist.
And what's with steering this to sabermetrics? Or any kind of performance evaluatioin? I was just pointing out what a shoddy job one ESPN on-air personality does, and how his personal agenda plays out in the media. You want to defend his ripping a book he never even looked at? You want more knocks on Morgan?
1. Lobbies to get his buddies and teammates into the hall of fame, but makes statements about only allowing players who truly deserve to be there into the hall (he is on the veterans' committee that votes players passed over by the writers in). Care to argue that Tony Perez was better than Ron Santo by any means you'd like? To Morgan, truly deserving of the hall of fame means someone he likes personally.
2. I know this is steering things dangerous close back to the whole statistics-or-scouting thing, as if they have to exist in conflict when they do coexist just fine, but back in 2003 when he ripped the Oakland Athletics brand of baseball, saying that because they do not move runners along and conserve outs, they cannot have postseason success, he missed one obvious point that I think you will forgive me for in bringing up numbers.... the Athletics scored more runs per game in the postseason than they did during the regular season. The offense played better than it did during the regular season.
3. Morgan attacked Tommy Gioiosa about his charges against Pete Rose when more allegations surfaced in 2001. Morgan said the source was not credible, as Gioiosa had not come forward with this information at any time earlier, even when Gioiosa said the same stuff in 1990. Then Morgan went on to attack the journalistic integrity of Buzz Bissinger, who published Gioiosa's comments. Bissinger has a Pulitzer to his name and has made a career out of telling the truth.
Morgan spouts off stuff that is not true all the time and could care less about checking up on what is actually correct. This has nothing to do with statistics and everything to do with Morgan dishonestly pushing his own personal agenda.
All sabermetrics are used for are formulating trends and projections. There is no mathematical theory behind it, besides the foundational theory of statistics, and there is no proof. Do not get those concepts mixed up.
People can object to sabermetrics all they want, just like people can object to stock projections and so forth.