Comparing our HS team to MLB in some hitting metrics

Stats, 

Are you taking the Sabremetrics course from edx?  If so, it might be interesting for you to post updates and impressions as you go through it.

 

(I haven't been following the site much lately--real life* getting in the way--so I apologize if you've answered this elsewhere.)

 

*By "real life" I mean what my wife considers real life.  Obviously, all of us here know that baseball IS real life.

 

Swampboy,

 

Well, I’m TRYING to take it. The truth is, I’m having trouble keeping up.

 

It’s a fantastic experience, and showed me very quickly how little I really know about it, which has been humbling to say the least. One thing’s for sure though, there’s a lot more people who believe the way I do, i.e. how useful the numbers can be and how much they can tell about the game, than I ever imagined. If anything, I’d say my view of the numbers is now in the majority of those who really understand what’s going on, and those who keep saying how little use they are, going the way of the dinosaur a lot quicker than I thought.

 

I posted an interview Andy Andres with Joe Bohringer in the “Stats and Scorekeeping” forum. I know it’s a long read, but it is very informative. I have another one from Andres interviewing Cory Schwartz, Vice-President of MLB STATS, MLB.com. There have been many other interviews and articles which anyone who loves the game would enjoy.

 

I’ve been getting a bit hammered by “real life” myself, which is one reason I’m struggling a bit, but the main reason is, I’ve been away from academia for over 40 years. I wish I were 30 again!

 

One thing that these people all seem to think is going to revolutionize the game, is the new thing starting in 2015 that will track the ball and all the fielders. Something that’s unbelievable to me ism technology is leaping ahead so fast, its very likely that in the next decade portable units that do things like pitch f/x and hit f/x will be available cheaply enough that they’ll become more and more common at the lower levels(HS and College).

 

There’s been a quantum leap in the amount of MLB data that can be studied in the last 5 years. If and when that kind of data becomes available for just HS teams, things will get crazy quickly. Think about it. there are 30 ML teams and 210 affiliated MIL teams. There are more than 15,000 HSV teams alone, and at least double that if you look at JV and Fr ball too. Kids who are taking that class and capable of getting even more into sports data analytics are going to have all kinds of job opportunities because its not just baseball!

 

It really is an exciting time for sports because the way they’re being studied is changing so rapidly. I’m only mad that I missed that particular “boat” because I was born too soon.

I actually think that as defenses load up with more dramatic shifting to stop certain things that some players will then actively change their approach and game situations may dictate an alteration of approach to go against it.

 

For example a team down by 3 in the 8th inning has pull hitting lefty number 4 batter in the box leading off the inning.  If the defense shifts all but 2 defenders to the right side of 2nd base, would he lay one down and walk to first as a "inning starter" rather than try to bang one over the fence to cut the lead to 2 or simply try to rip against the defense in the hopes of beating it.

 

What is the value of plating one or two runs and turning the lineup over for the 9th?  I have seen those charts that track the likely winner of any game as the game progresses.  Teams down by 3 in the 8th face impossibly high loss percentages.  Score one or two and you might double or triple the chances for a comeback.

 

The permutations for game situation vs. long term statistical analysis are intriguing. 

 

And when will the OBP finally replace Batting Average as the hitting statistic for the Triple Crown?  I can remember telling my friends in the 70's when I finally found out what OBP was from the back of Topps Cards that it was a much better indicator of a hitter than Batting Average.  Can't say I was a visionary though, but I was a lot smarter than those knuckleheads. 

 

 

Couple things about this statement.  One is, keep in mind, when you are in the environment of a group of like minded people, it will always seem that's the way the whole world is.    Not putting this statement down stats, just saying I'm sure it seems that way.

 

Second, I don't think anyone put down the value of stats in regard to MLB.  Anyone who has been perceived as putting stats down has made comments regarding HS stats.  Simply because the range of competition is too great.  When you are looking at MLB stats, the vast majority of variables are constant.  I say vast majority rather than all because we all know the stats acquired in Colorado are skewed.  Even MLB takes this into account.  But, by and large, you have a consistent data pool in MLB which is why they mean something.

 

HS, not so much.  That's the only point I think most are trying to make.

luv baseball- There is a lot of interesting (and conflicting) research pertaining to shifts and how to "beat" them. Your theory applies in some instances, but you'd be surprised how often it behooves a batter to maintain his approach. The majority of the time, it's still best-case scenario.

As for the Triple Crown, well, I voiced my opinion pretty loudly during the Trout vs. Cabrera arguments - when Cabrera unbelievably won the MVP despite performing far inferior to Trout. The Triple Crown is nonsense - just like Pitcher Win-Loss. Batting average isn't THAT bad, but it's not very good either. To be honest, OBP isn't all that wonderful of an offensive indicator either. And RBIs literally are not an individual statistic. So, given that 2/3 stats involved in the Triple Crown aren't nearly close to statistically accurate and have been proven invalid by far superior statistics for decades, it absolutely blows my mind that ANYONE in baseball still pays any attention to it at all.

Game situation is big. Here's something I saw yesterday with the same batter.

 

Team is down 1-0 with a runner on third early in the game. Batter hits a ground ball to shor and is thrown out at first. Out 6-3 RBI. This was a big point in the game, an important RBI, and counted against his average.

 

Later, in extra innings, the same batter's team has taken the lead to go up by one run. Batter comes to the plate with runners on 1st and second. Outfield is drawn way in to try and prevent a base hit from scoring a run. Batter hits a high fly with some carry to centerfield. Ball carries over the fielder's head. Batter gets a double and an RBI on what would have been a fly ball out in most any other situation earlier in the game. If not for a good relay and play at the plate, he would have gotten 2 RBI's on what should have been a fly ball out.

 

The ground ball earlier in the game was really a bigger deal than the double, but you had to be there to know that.

 

 

 

 

+1,000.  Exactly so.  When Stats has faced conflict on this board on the subject of statistics, as long as I've been around and as far as I recall, the issue raised has always been as you say, plus small sample size, not an overall disagreement with statistical analysis of professional baseball.To suggest otherwise is disingenuous to say the least.

I actually remember that and for the most part I think you got booed out of the park there as I recall.  I thought you made good arguments although I did think both had monster years.  I was not trying to open a Triple Crown can of worms though, only to suggest that either existing stats or newer ones should eventually take their place in the day to day lexicon of watching ballgames and thereby fans paying attention to them.

I would be surprised however if anyone actually making a living in the game or trying to would ignore the information.  My angle is nothing more than a fan although I like numbers which is part of the games attraction to me.

For power hitters for the most part the opportunity for the HR would not warrant changing the approach.  In RBI situations or no one on base in 1 or 2 run games especially late in the game the HR still has big value compared to simply reaching.  I mean what would SportsCenter do without walk off homers.  I mean they invented the walk off as a term that anyone uses even for a grounder between someone's legs

 

Maybe with two strikes and you get something outside poke it the other way and maybe get a two bagger.  Although many times shifts become less pronounced in the RBI situations.  All in all though that is not the way the game is played anymore.

 

 

luvbaseball- Good post, I agree on all counts. When I say an RBI is not an individual statistic, I don't mean it's not important. I just mean that there are many other variables involved within the stat that it's not an accurate depiction of a player's individual intrinsic value to the team. Driving in runs is always important. And yes, I did get "booed" out of the park…but I really didn't/don't care, to be honest.  

 

Originally Posted by bballman:

Couple things about this statement.  One is, keep in mind, when you are in the environment of a group of like minded people, it will always seem that's the way the whole world is.    Not putting this statement down stats, just saying I'm sure it seems that way.

 

Yeah, but I’m guessing the chances of running into an “old fuddy duddy” here is far greater than running into one in an academic setting. And perhaps It works the same way for the people here getting reinforcement from so many like thinkers.

 

Second, I don't think anyone put down the value of stats in regard to MLB.  Anyone who has been perceived as putting stats down has made comments regarding HS stats.  Simply because the range of competition is too great.  When you are looking at MLB stats, the vast majority of variables are constant.  I say vast majority rather than all because we all know the stats acquired in Colorado are skewed.  Even MLB takes this into account.  But, by and large, you have a consistent data pool in MLB which is why they mean something.

 

HS, not so much.  That's the only point I think most are trying to make.

 

Yes, the range of competition is far greater and the numbers aren’t as accurate in HS than in MLB, but that only means it takes more work to glean information from the numbers, not that it isn’t there. When I hear a high level executive in MLB talk about using stats to help his team evaluate players they’re looking at, be it HS, college, or whatever, then say other teams are doing the same thing, who should I put more credence in? Should it be the people here like myself who are just opining about things they aren’t deeply involved in, or one of only 30 people in the world who is, and who says other teams are doing the same thing?

 

In the end, its all about context. I understand the limitations of HS numbers and take that into consideration. That’s far different than just dismissing the entire data set of HS statistics.

Exactly.  The question becomes what is the context of the HS numbers.  If you can quantify that, they will become more relevant.  Are a hitters numbers against pitchers throwing 90 or against pitchers throwing 78?  Are pitchers throwing against teams with multiple high level prospects, or against rec level teams?  The difference between the competition you face is SO great, that without coming up with some kind of metric that takes into consideration the competition, the numbers are almost meaningless in terms of evaluating that talent on the numbers alone.

Originally Posted by JCG:

Originally Posted by bballman:

+1,000.  Exactly so.  When Stats has faced conflict on this board on the subject of statistics, as long as I've been around and as far as I recall, the issue raised has always been as you say, plus small sample size, not an overall disagreement with statistical analysis of professional baseball.To suggest otherwise is disingenuous to say the least.

 

Well, all I can say is, you’re perception of what conflict I have faced on this issue is far different than mine.

 

Another thing I’ve learned during the time I’ve spent in the class on Sabermetrics is, I’ve been correct all along that sample size does not mean jack to the numbers, as far as the math goes. Sample size only matters if one’s trying to prognosticate a future event using the numbers. Many people get angry with me because I don’t now and never have advocated using the number to do anything other than judge what HAS taken place, not what WILL take place. It’s a subtle difference, but a significant one.

 

Why am I disingenuous when I believe the math and science that works on ML data will work on HS, college, or really any other data as well? ‘Peers to me that it’s the pot calling the kettle back on that one.

Stats this is a very interesting thread. I assume your data was collected by you or another quality scorekeeper. I took a look at the three years my son was on Varsity and their HR/PA was .0077 which sits almost exactly on your data point for this stat. (I know the scorekeepers in this time frame and they were all excellent so I know my data is good)

 

The main issue with HS data is really garbage in garbage out. 

 

Late add: There was a lot of variability in HR's year to year I think 4, 7 and 9 HR's on approx 850 PA. 

 

Great stuff.

BOF,

 

I don’t know how important it is, but to some of us it is interesting.

 

To respond to your assumption, as of right now, every piece of data I use was collected with me having scored the game. Perhaps I’ve not always been right, but I can guarantee consistency.

 

I’m not at all surprised your data closely matches mine. The local team who seems to have a position player drafted every season and is known as the local powerhouse only had 17 HRs in 1112 PAs for a HR/PA of .0153, so I’m guessing there are more teams like yours and mine than not.

 

I agree that the main problem with HS data is GIGO, but I’m sure it’s nowhere near as bad as what many make it out to be. To hear what many would have us believe, every coach is a cheater who’s trying to get his players honors they don’t deserve, every parent who scores is totally biased for their son or his team, every player or student who keeps score is completely ignorant of the scoring rules, and HS scorers are so intent on BS’ing or otherwise not paying close attention, they make tons of mistakes.

 

Those things do happen, but not to the degree that any data they produce is unusable. Instead, any uses for that data has to be taken with a grain of salt, not completely thrown out the window. To me, a lot of the “garbage out” comes from poor data entry, and poor retrieval access. The main reason MLB data is so good, is that everyone who wants it has access to it. Unfortunately, there’s no central location for HD data, and as far as I know, there’s no way to get to the data that is stored to run many of the things on it that would make it much more useful.

 

Our team has varied too, and been at a low of .0011 to a high of .0148 in 8 years, with a low of 821 and high of 1051 PAs, with a low of 1 HR to a max of 15. But it is always fun!

 

 

I should have added that my son's old home field was notoriously difficult to hit a ball out to LF/CF as the wind off the coast blew in for pretty much any game in the afternoon, which is when they all were. You may be right on the GIGO assumptions, but since most teams have parents doing SC, it likely would only have 1 player with distorted stats.  

BOF,

 

Your last post prompted me to try something. Using Google Earth, I checked every field we played on this season. One had no fences at all, but the others are as you see them below. Not real accurate, but not bad either.

 

L-325, C-365, R-315, Our Field

L-330, C-400, R-330

L-320, C-380, R-320

L-320, C-365, R-280

L-330, C-385, R-320

L-335, C-390, R-340

L-325, C-400, R-325

L-310, C-No Fence, R-385

L-320, C-365, R-320, 315

L-330, C-390, R-330

L-315, C-405, R-305

 

On the GIGO, I’m really seeing quite an improvement in the scoring of games. I don’t know why, but I think it has something to do with younger coaches being interested in some of the things that are possible, and they make the decision to pick better scorers than in the past.

My son's field was  L-300, C-365 R-320

 

I can tell you not many balls went out over the LF fence due to the wind. 

Suggest you take a basic Statistics course next...

Not what I said at all, but whatever.  Glad you're enjoying yourself.

Originally Posted by Soylent Green:

Suggest you take a basic Statistics course next...

 

Why? I don’t use the number to prognosticate. I only use them to see what’s already taken place, and for that, sample size means absolutely nothing. Never has, and never will.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd...statistical+validity

I’m not at all sure what information that link was supposed to provide. Do you think I’m some kind of ignorant dullard who doesn’t understand that larger samples make data more reliable? I keep trying to tell people like yourself that I don’t look at data from the perspective of how it helps me predict something. To me its just a way to see what’s taken place. I’m sorry if you and others can’t grasp that concept, but that’s on you, not me.

 

When you look in the paper and see the league leaders, are looking at them to find out what’s already taken place, or what’s gonna take place in the future? Me, I look at them to see what’s taken place.

And as people like myself have tried to explain to you... for years... 1. Statistics involves specific laws and rules, not just the bits that you grasp, and 2. Words have meanings within the context of the English language.  What you've stated above is inaccurate.  It is NOT simply a question of how predictive a given stat is or isn't, no matter how may times you repeat this. It's a question of how accurately given metrics reflect reality in the first place. As I understand your OP, you're trying to compare another of your questionable universes of highly limited HS data with a universe from MLB stats. Seriously, if Statistics is this large a part of your world, you might want to learn more about it than the readers' digest bits and pieces that you're constantly discovering and rediscovering here. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

 

Secondly, what I think about you doesn't matter much Stats.  But, since you asked... I think you're basically a guy who makes casseroles off the labels of soup cans, then pontificates as if he was a chef. Statistically speaking, that is. Welcome to the internet I suppose.

 

No interest in participating in one of your usual back-and-forths... where the multiple inaccuracies of your statements get addressed one by one... and you simultaneously change your original arguments and statements one by one to avoid the hard wrench of reality. I've been down that road with you before, Stats.  Have a great weekend.

I am wondering, why does this keep happening over and over and over?

 

Stats you could have posted this in another forum but you did it in the general topics, this allows most everyone to see it and make comments if they wish.

 

Here is what I see, SG's last post got some likes, that means 3 people following this topic agree with what he posted. 

 

Originally Posted by TPM:

I am wondering, why does this keep happening over and over and over?

 

It keeps happening because some people refuse to understand that not everyone in the world thinks like they do.

 

Stats you could have posted this in another forum but you did it in the general topics, this allows most everyone to see it and make comments if they wish.

 

Most anyone can and does comment on things from all the forums because they’re open to everyone. I don’t mind anyone making comments, in fact I like because it makes me think. I made the OP to try to show the difference between MLB and HS, and why the HS fences should be moved in to try to make the HS game LOOK more like the MLB game in the sense that more HRs would make it more interesting. Look what colleges are doing to try to increase HRs. Do you think they’re doing that because they want fewer HRs?

 

Here is what I see, SG's last post got some likes, that means 3 people following this topic agree with what he posted. 

 

Well yahoo and whoopdeedoo! 3 people out of what, 20,000 agreed with him? I suppose that’s reason enough for you to dig me about how many people love him and hate me.

Stats all you do here is continually post yet when people dont agree you argue.  So many years you have argued that too many people put too much emphasis on the pro game here on the high school baseball web and now you are bringing up why perhaps the hs game should be more like proball?
Am I missing something?

Originally Posted by TPM:

Stats all you do here is continually post yet when people dont agree you argue. 

 

What exactly is it I’m arguing about here? I posted something, and after that, I commented on what bbm replied, and in that I agreed with what he said. However, when bbm replied to a post by JGC, and both were basically attacking me, not what I originally posted. After that, SG as much as said I was a dullard and should take a Basic Statistic course, and from there all its been is attack me personally, with you of course jumping on the bandwagon to try to make me look bad again. So where is it that I ARGUED with anyone about something they said about the OP?

 

So many years you have argued that too many people put too much emphasis on the pro game here on the high school baseball web and now you are bringing up why perhaps the hs game should be more like proball?
Am I missing something?

 

Yes, you aren’t reading what I write, but leap to preconceptions about me and what I say and believe. What I’ve always said is that people shouldn’t use MLB stats to gauge HS players. FI, Johhny bats .575, therefore he’s a better hitter than anyone in the ML. What I was doing with the OP was trying to show how pathetic HSB is compared to MBL when it comes to HRs. It’s a RATE STATISTIC! MLB players hit singles, doubles, triples and HRs at 1 rate, and our team at another. They compare very well as far as hits per PA, but how those hits break down is very very different. If an adjustment could be made to make the breakdown more in line between the 2, I think the HS game would benefit.

 

That doesn’t compare HS players to ML players, it compares the rates at which they get base hits, and I did it as an exercise in the class I’m taking, not because I wanted to pi$$ anyone off. I thought I’d share what I found because I found it interesting, and of course someone like you with absolutely no information at all one way or the other has to go off half-cocked about me going against something I’ve always said.

 

Now if you’d like to re-read the OP and post a differing opinion or thought, go right on ahead, then we’ll see how much I argue. But as long as you want to continue to do little more than post personal things about me, you can pound sand. Right now no one knows what your opinion is about changing the HS game to make the hits fall more in line with MLB hits, but you can’t help spouting off about something that has absolutely nothing about the OP.

 

I honestly expected to have at least one person wonder if I didn’t include the walks and ROEs per PA because I was trying to hide something. One of the things the Professor and all of the people he interviews have expressed over and over, is how important it is to ask questions. There are lots of things to discuss and lots of questions to ask that have nothing to do with personal affronts, why not try them and give up on the personal garbage.

Stats, for the record, I never replied to anything JCG said. Look back thru the thread. I only replied twice to this topic and both were in response to comments you made. I don't think either of my responses were attacking you personally, just a response to comments you made.

Stats - All I can do is repeat: What you wrote in your OP is not correct, as I indicated. And it isn't a question of you needing to "see things the way I do"... It's a matter of understanding some fundamentals of Statistics. You are entitled to any baseball opinions you care to espouse... but when you make incorrect factual statements, as you often do, people are apt to call you on it, as they often have. Maybe stop blaming the messengers.

 

As for most everything else you've written in this thread... It seems to me that it's just so much personal drama. And frankly that's the familiar pattern with you: if you can't win a point on the merits, you start changing the subject, making personal attacks, and acting persecuted... usually in that order.

Originally Posted by bballman:

Stats, for the record, I never replied to anything JCG said. Look back thru the thread. I only replied twice to this topic and both were in response to comments you made. I don't think either of my responses were attacking you personally, just a response to comments you made.

 

I looked back and now apologize. You’re correct, all you did was comment on what I’d said and it wasn’t at all antagonistic. My only excuse is trying to go back and trace who said what, when, and to whom isn’t easy.

Originally Posted by Soylent Green:

Stats - All I can do is repeat: What you wrote in your OP is not correct, as I indicated. And it isn't a question of you needing to "see things the way I do"... It's a matter of understanding some fundamentals of Statistics. You are entitled to any baseball opinions you care to espouse... but when you make incorrect factual statements, as you often do, people are apt to call you on it, as they often have. Maybe stop blaming the messengers.

 

What “incorrect factual statements” exactly did I write in the OP that are incorrect? Is it that Hits per PA is really close between the numbers I have and what the MLB numbers are? Is it that there are big differences when you look at each individual type of hit? Is it that the rate of triples is very close to the same, but the HS numbers I have show a much higher rate than MLB for double? Is it that MLB rate for singles and HRs are both much higher?

 

Is it that even keeping in mind how small the sample I have is compared to the MLB sample, I don’t have the right to theorize. Or maybe its that those numbers seem to back up my thought that HS fences could be moved in to generate more HRs to make the game at the 2 levels more similar. Perhaps I was wrong when I said “Of course it would be much different where the fields weren’t a big as what we typically play on.”

 

So if you’ll kindly point out exactly what I said that was so wrong, I’d appreciate it.

 

I’ve discussed sample size and how I see it in relation to the numbers I generate with some folks who are much higher on the statistics food chain than anyone I’ve run across on this board, and to a person, each agrees with me.

 

As for most everything else you've written in this thread... It seems to me that it's just so much personal drama. And frankly that's the familiar pattern with you: if you can't win a point on the merits, you start changing the subject, making personal attacks, and acting persecuted... usually in that order.

 

And how would you feel if you were constantly attacked, not because some thought you expressed, but because you didn’t think the way the majority thought? I haven’t changed the subject here at all! Many others have, but I haven’t. I didn’t throw in some analogy that had nothing at all to do with the topic at hand rather than simply try to answer a simple question. Maybe you’re one of those with his feet stuck in concrete who believes everything about the game is perfect and questions should never be asked, whether they’re good questions or not.

Your last two posts is exactly what I was referring to.
A shame that you ruin your own topics even when they are good ones.

Return tomorrow for another dramatic episode of As The Baseball World Turns.

Originally Posted by TPM:

Your last two posts is exactly what I was referring to.
A shame that you ruin your own topics even when they are good ones.

 

So, even when I apologize for making an error, or when I ask someone who’s said I’ve made statements that weren’t factual to point out exactly where those statements were, I’m some kind of jerk.

 

If my topic was a good one, why didn’t you comment on it rather than make personal comments?  

Stats - It's always been clear that you thrive on the negative attention of these types of threads. You complain about it while always seeking more of it. That's your prerogative.

 

I've already isolated the inaccurate comments above. Others have laid it out to you as well... in this post and repeatedly in the past. You simply can't ignore fundamental Statistical rules just because they're inconvenient for you. You can interpret numbers anyway that you like, but it's useful to work with valid numbers at the outset... Otherwise, it's just one more exercise in futility. As I said at the outset... I really don't want to go back and forth with you... It never leads anywhere.

Originally Posted by Soylent Green:

Stats - It's always been clear that you thrive on the negative attention of these types of threads. You complain about it while always seeking more of it. That's your prerogative.

 

I thrive on the negative attention? How about these statements from you?

 

No interest in participating in one of your usual back-and-forths...

 

I really don't want to go back and forth with you…

 

You keep saying you don’t want to get into back and forths with me, then what do you do? Continue to get into back and forths with me. So who is it that thrives on the negative attention?

 

I've already isolated the inaccurate comments above. Others have laid it out to you as well... in this post and repeatedly in the past. You simply can't ignore fundamental Statistical rules just because they're inconvenient for you. You can interpret numbers anyway that you like, but it's useful to work with valid numbers at the outset... Otherwise, it's just one more exercise in futility. As I said at the outset...

 

Here we go again with your claim that I’m somehow ignoring fundamental Statistical rules. But what’s special this time is, you’re saying the numbers I work with aren’t valid, when what you mean is, my samples aren’t large enough for you to consider anything coming from them as being valid.

 

You’re saying no number is valid or worth looking at unless some magic threshold has been reached, and that’s just flat out BS. I don’t know how else to say this. When you do math, the resulting numbers are what they are. If someone chooses to assigning meaning to those results, then it’s on them, not the math nor the method. I don’t assign any meaning to them at all. All I do, is the math, then I let people assign their own meanings.

 

I really don't want to go back and forth with you... It never leads anywhere.

 

OOPS! Still looking to thrive? If you have to have the last word, just say so in a PM if you want to come off the hero, and I’ll gladly stop responding to you. If not, why not just stop, just as you’ve said many times you want to do. Better yet, rather than continuing to claim what I do is so worthless and wrong, why not do it yourself to see what you can come up with. Oh, I guess you can’t because you’d never get a large enough sample to make anything you did valid.

 

Seems to me though, it’s more likely you and others who think like you do hate what I do not because its worthless, but because you’re worried that things you’ve said in the past and clung to as being true, might just be shown to be wrong. I suppose what I posted about GAMESCORE is invalid as well. Even though it’s basically a measurement of only 1 game, in your mind I suspect it isn’t a large enough sample.

I really shouldn't be responding here, but I can't fight the urge. I'm probably going to regret this, but oh well.

 

Stats- I have said nothing to you on these boards since I blocked you a year ago. The reason I blocked you was because you sent a PM to me in a very condescending tone, first asking me what my problem was and then essentially telling me that if I can't keep up with your statistical jargon I shouldn't try to. I really wanted to respond by telling you to go **** yourself, but I decided it would be a waste of time then (just as this probably is), so I ignored you.

 

I'm going to explain something here that is going to seem very rude and patronizing, and I hope that you get the point. YOU DON'T KNOW MORE THAN PEOPLE HERE. Stop trying to explain how things work to people. To use my own self as an example, I have an undergraduate degree in economics. I wrote a Master's Thesis on statistical patterns in the game of baseball. I've applied countless advanced statistical principles pertaining to the game of baseball to my everyday life (which, of course, involves working for a big league team). Do you really think I can't follow and comprehend what you're talking about when you post your stats? Really? Do you really think others here can't comprehend stats?

 

Look, I don't care that you like taking in-depth looks at high school baseball statistics. I think it's a wonderful way to try to encapsulate many different ways of analysis. I LOVE numbers in baseball. I've made that very clear here (see: Trout vs. Cabrera MVP's). But I literally find it laughable that you think people can't follow along and understand what you're saying. Your responses are contrarian, rude, disrespectful, and condescending. If you want to share your information, feel free to share it. If you want to continuously argue about some sort of weird vendetta you've thought up in your head, kindly stop posting.

 

As an aside, I hope you're enjoying the Sabermetrics 101 course. You may stumble across some tenets I contributed to during my time working for Baseball Prospectus.

 

 

I don't really know what type of response to expect from this. It'll probably be argumentative again. In that case, I probably won't respond back. I said what I needed to say. Hopefully you take my words to heart and think about it for a minute. If not, oh well. Good thing I have you blocked.

 

Originally Posted by J H:

…Stats- I have said nothing to you on these boards since I blocked you a year ago. The reason I blocked you was because you sent a PM to me in a very condescending tone, first asking me what my problem was and then essentially telling me that if I can't keep up with your statistical jargon I shouldn't try to. I really wanted to respond by telling you to go **** yourself, but I decided it would be a waste of time then (just as this probably is), so I ignored you.

 

I won’t try to argue one way or the other about any PM I sent to you because frankly I don’t remember it. All I can say is, I probably responded to something you said. I may well have responded inappropriately in your mind, and if that’s true, I apologize. But the truth is, not everyone who deigns to comment about baseball metrics has your background, but everyone likes to make out as though they do.

 

I'm going to explain something here that is going to seem very rude and patronizing, and I hope that you get the point. YOU DON'T KNOW MORE THAN PEOPLE HERE. Stop trying to explain how things work to people. To use my own self as an example, I have an undergraduate degree in economics. I wrote a Master's Thesis on statistical patterns in the game of baseball. I've applied countless advanced statistical principles pertaining to the game of baseball to my everyday life (which, of course, involves working for a big league team). Do you really think I can't follow and comprehend what you're talking about when you post your stats? Really? Do you really think others here can't comprehend stats?

 

I don’t for 1 second think I know more than EVERYONE here, but I damned sure know more than some, and I damned sure know what I think. That seems to be the trouble. No one is asked for a resume’ before signing on here, so everyone’s left guessing, and when people guess, noses get out of joint.

 

Look, I don't care that you like taking in-depth looks at high school baseball statistics. I think it's a wonderful way to try to encapsulate many different ways of analysis. I LOVE numbers in baseball. I've made that very clear here (see: Trout vs. Cabrera MVP's). But I literally find it laughable that you think people can't follow along and understand what you're saying. Your responses are contrarian, rude, disrespectful, and condescending. If you want to share your information, feel free to share it. If you want to continuously argue about some sort of weird vendetta you've thought up in your head, kindly stop posting.

 

Again, it isn’t that I think EVERYONE can’t follow along, but you have to admit that not everyone has your background and understanding. I try to share things such as I did in the OP here, but there are those who automatically get off on some goofy personal tangent right off the bat, and anything I try to do gets lost in the swirl of BS. A couple folks made an attempt to carry on a discussion about the topic, but they were completely drowned out.

 

As an aside, I hope you're enjoying the Sabermetrics 101 course. You may stumble across some tenets I contributed to during my time working for Baseball Prospectus.

 

I am enjoying the course immensely. I’d be enjoying it a lot more if I was proficient in R. I’m a little long in the tooth to be learning another programming language. It would be helpful as well if I had a stronger background in statistics so I understood a lot of the buzzwords used, but again, I’ll soon be 68 and this is just a hobby, not a life’s work. How would I know if I did stumble across any of your work? I don’t know you, other than that you’re a scout for some MLB club. I know I’ve read each and every article that’s been suggested as background reading, so if something you wrote was there, I’m sure I read it.

 

 I don't really know what type of response to expect from this. It'll probably be argumentative again. In that case, I probably won't respond back. I said what I needed to say. Hopefully you take my words to heart and think about it for a minute. If not, oh well. Good thing I have you blocked.

 

I hope it doesn’t happen, but typically since I’ve posted on this site, the 1^st assumption is that I’ll be argumentative. A lot of that comes from my not willing to just take what someone says as gospel, no matter how many posts they’ve made here. It’s just my nature to want at least a little proof when someone is trying to get me to change my mind.

 

In the end, as I’ve said before, there are some pretty big wigs being interviewed for that class and the things that stands out above all are, ASK QUESTIONS and LOOK FOR ANSWERS! I have nothing but questions and do what I can to look for answers. But it gets a little old to hear about how worthless anything I attempt is because of sample size. It isn’t my fault there’s little HS data to work with because HS stats are generally viewed with such contempt. I had one of the top sabermetricians in the industry take my raw data, and he couldn’t believe the depth of what was there.

 

The problem is, I’m only one guy and can only score so many games. Heck, I’ve been trying for years to just get people to use the Project Scoresheet method, but no one wants to do it. Then we see an interview with Dave Studenmund, where he was noting some of the big changes in baseball data proliferation, and what does he say is one of the biggest? Lahman’s using Project Scoresheet, then Retrosheet taking it over.

 

I was using a bastardized form of Project Scoresheet for 15 years without knowing it, then converted to it pretty much fully when I converted my stats only program to a scoring/stats program. So here I’ve got reams and reams of data, with the data points growing almost by the week, but with virtually nowhere else to get data at the HS level. I take all kinds of flak because of a small sample size, and I understand that, but I’m doing my best to get that to change. Problem is, right now there’s just way too many people who refuse to even try.

 

Here’s an excerpt from the Joe Bohringer interview where he responds to a question and notes the data he had as an amateur scout was unreliable. All I’ve ever done is try to improve that data.

 

ANDY ANDRES: Did you notice at all, pre-Moneyball, this idea of stats versus scouts in any way, shape, or form? I mean, it's hard to do because, there weren't many analysts in the game. But did you notice anything at all that would lead to Lewis's basic thesis about trying to create this stats versus scouts thing in Moneyball?

 

JOE BOHRINGER: Not necessarily, and I probably would not have seen that because of the part of the player pool that I was swimming in. As an amateur scout and focusing mostly on high school and college players, I don't have very reliable data to help me make decisions on players anyway. So the first initial kind of advantage of statistical analysis was the low hanging fruit, what big league players were doing. And being that I wasn't sitting in big league ballparks every day, it didn't really help me make my valuations. But I also think that almost magnified the narrative so to speak, because it was the older veteran scouts that had been doing it for years and years and decades and decades. Those were the guys sitting in major league ballparks. So you had a group of scouts that really hadn't been raised that way and were still making evaluations in a part of the player pool where you could actually rely on statistics to help you make better evaluation. So on a day-to-day basis for me, because of the part a player pool I was swimming, it wasn't as big of a deal. But I definitely can see why there was the, I guess, the transition phase, while everyone was trying to figure out exactly what the right balance was between the two.

 

I hope that wasn’t too argumentative for you.

I am enjoying the course immensely. I’d be enjoying it a lot more if I was proficient in R. I’m a little long in the tooth to be learning another programming language. It would be helpful as well if I had a stronger background in statistics so I understood a lot of the buzzwords used, but again, I’ll soon be 68 and this is just a hobby, not a life’s work. How would I know if I did stumble across any of your work? I don’t know you, other than that you’re a scout for some MLB club. I know I’ve read each and every article that’s been suggested as background reading, so if something you wrote was there, I’m sure I read it.

 

R and SQL are very, very good tools for statistical computations in the game. I doubt any of my bylined work would be something you'd come across - most of my time with Baseball Prospectus was spent on the prospects side. I do hope that the course sways into some metrics pertaining to catcher framing, as that is the "new" horizon of market inefficiency. Next will be preventative modeling for injuries - both much more daunting of a task and much more important. I've heard very good feedback about the course from many people and wish I could participate in some way, but I don't have much time these days.

 

I hope that wasn’t too argumentative for you.

 

No, it wasn't. Thank you.

 

There are a lot of times when I read something on this website and I know, deep down, that my knowledge of the particular subject is far more advanced than the knowledge of the individual who typed the words I'm reading. I know that if I correct, or question, the individual in such a way, that person may take offense - as it may come off as me patronizing them. Stats, I have no doubt you are intelligent and progressive-thinking when it comes to statistical analysis. I have no doubt that you might have a more advanced grasp on the craft than some people here. I think you run into issues when you speak to people in (what seems to be) a tone that is proving them wrong and you right. Everyone here is trying to contribute to the best of their abilities. Trust me…I've had to catch myself quite often during my responses in fear of lashing out negatively to someone. I've been posting here a long time and I've watched a lot of people come and go. I'd urge you to reconsider the tone of your responses…not the message, because I think your message has some validity to it. But the tone. The tone is what creates the animosity and discontent from others. I think I'm speaking for everyone here when I say that stats aren't mean or scary. The way you sometimes present the information, however, is.