Why all the angst?

Pretty simple. Garbage in Garbage out. (and I am a stat guy)

I would also point out that there is so much variation in conditions (and players) in HS that I suspect this has a significant effect in the validity of many statistics. Just a thought anyway. 

I think "why all the angst" is a straw man argument.  Not sure there is that much angst.  It feels like I should say if I am a stats man or not, but I don't know what that means.

But I would like to learn some, stats to me were what's on the back of a baseball cards. 714 was a stat, then 755. Now I listen to Brian Kenney, and agree with his stats arguments when it supports my view of a player, disagree with stats arguments when I don't like the player.  At my kids age, I just like to see the bat square on the ball, pitches to the spot and kids learning the game.

You could start educating me with UZR and how they figure that out.

Glad your here, statsgnat!

Originally Posted by BOF:

Pretty simple. Garbage in Garbage out. (and I am a stat guy)

I would also point out that there is so much variation in conditions (and players) in HS that I suspect this has a significant effect in the validity of many statistics. Just a thought anyway. 

I have no argument with you implying that many amateur stats are based on poorly scored games, or that there is a tremendous amount of variations in just about everything. But that doesn’t address my original question. What do you think they’re being used for that they need to be as valid as ML numbers?

I think a statement you made in another post about wraps up why:

I think no matter what stats you come up with, there is always the human element involved.  What an individual sees in a player or the situation in which a player performs will always have a bearing beyond the stats alone.

For instance, ground ball out to short will go down in the book as a simple 6-3.  However, if you saw the play and it was one in which the SS went deep into the hole and made a jump throw (Jeter play) to first, it is obvious that it was more than just a 6-3 play.  Human element comes into play in addition to stats.  Stats tell a part of the story on a player, but not the whole story.  

JMHO

Isn't that obvious? Parents don't want their kid compared to other kids using dissimilar data. They worry that a college coach is going to see a gaudy 1A high school batting average on some kid's video, and choose him over their kid who only hit .350 in 5A. Do they have a legitimate concern? I sure hope not, but I think it's an emotional reaction.

bballman,

I have absolutely no argument with your post. But I’m really finding it frustrating that I can’t get anyone to say what “story” is being told and how the numbers are supposedly being used that make them so unfit.

The closest anyone’s come is on of all things a FPSB site, where the use was stated as When the coach is trying to use stats to justify playing time or batting order.

Exactly. In ML baseball there are 26 fields that are reasonably comparable, and even then there is enough variability for scouts to know that, for example Denver, where everyone knows that pitching numbers will be skewed there. In HS ball there are tens of thousands of fields alone. You have players from 1A-5A range, just too many variables to come up with meaningful statistics. Plus you have the fact that kids are making huge developmental changes while they are in HS.  

College coaches and professional scouts could really care less about high school stats. They obviously realize the discrepancies that can and will arise.

Originally Posted by MidAtlanticDad:

Isn't that obvious? Parents don't want their kid compared to other kids using dissimilar data. They worry that a college coach is going to see a gaudy 1A high school batting average on some kid's video, and choose him over their kid who only hit .350 in 5A. Do they have a legitimate concern? I sure hope not, but I think it's an emotional reaction.

Well, I can certainly admit they MIGHT be used for and parents may very well feel that way on an individual basis, but it doesn’t explain why there are so many people who are dead set against them and they don’t even have a kid on the team. You’d think for every parent who thought their kid was getting screwed, there’d be one who was being made to look good.

There has to be more to it than that.

No compilation of statistics can match the brilliant calculations already made by the human mind.  Read:  I know it when I see it.

Originally Posted by BOF:

Exactly. In ML baseball there are 26 fields that are reasonably comparable, and even then there is enough variability for scouts to know that, for example Denver, where everyone knows that pitching numbers will be skewed there. In HS ball there are tens of thousands of fields alone. You have players from 1A-5A range, just too many variables to come up with meaningful statistics. Plus you have the fact that kids are making huge developmental changes while they are in HS.  

OK. No argument. But what is it you think they’d be meaningful for if they were valid? Its not enough to just the numbers aren’t any good. Any good for what?

Originally Posted by Bum:

No compilation of statistics can match the brilliant calculations already made by the human mind.  Read:  I know it when I see it.

Fine. Then why are stats being used by anyone for anything in baseball at any level?

There is no question stats have a purpose.  I think it's just that some people stand by the stats to the exclusion of everything else.  Or at least it comes across that way.  When that happens, there are others who bristle, knowing that there are other factors that come into play.  Once again, my opinion.

I think this is the reason why there are still scouting bureaus in the MLB and in college.  If all that mattered were stats, you wouldn't have to go out to actually see a player.  Just look at the numbers and draft.  Or look at the numbers and make a trade.  No one does that.  It's look at the numbers and then go look at the player.  Once you factor in the human evaluation - along with the numbers - you talk about it and make a decision.  

MLB is the most even any level of play is going to be.  The numbers mean more there than anywhere.  But even so, someone needs to actually see a player play before deciding what that player is worth to their team.

Stats are used, but it is the human mind that mans the rosters.  So relax Scorekeeper, you're not quite irrelevant

Stats are important in some ways.  Certain stats can create interest, others can create doubt.  And if we took it for granted that the stats are actually true, they can mean even more.  

Here are some examples off stats creating interest...

Home runs - Someone is hitting a ton of home runs, many more than others on their team or in their conference.  Should that be ignored or followed up?

Strike outs - Some pitcher is averaging two strike outs an inning. Ignore or follow?

What about the kid that is a high profile prospect and he is hitting .200 for his high school team and striking out a lot? Ignore that or red flag?

What about the pitcher that is a high profile prospect giving up over a hit an inning and walking a lot of hitters and not striking out many?  Ignore those stats or red flag?

Someone can have a very high batting average or very low ERA and still not be a next level prospect.  But the very best players should dominate statistically and most often they do!  When they don't dominate statistically it's time to go see why?

Statistics are nothing more than information.  Some information is more important than others. To me, all information is important and the more I have the better. If you saw that a kid had 80 Ks in 40 innings pitched wouldn't you want to get out the radar gun. If a kid has hit 20 home runs and next highest in the same conference had 4, wouldn't you want to see that kid hit? After watching them, you might not like them at all for many reasons, but the stats caused you to go see them.

Did I miss something? Where is all this "angst" about statistics? Where are all the people who are anti-statistics? Was there a thread that I missed?

If you think that stats aren't important, sit in a All Area, All Region, All State meeting where coaches are picking these teams!  Ironically, then listen during these meeting how stats in one conference/area are not important and in the same breath, how in another area they are gospel. 

While coaches may or may not care about HS stats, many do care about the post season awards players are awarded.  I'll end with this, imo, the best college coaches out there don't care about stats or post season awards because they know exactly what they are looking for in a player and whether this or that player fits their need. 

Stats,

Assuming you are primarily referring to high school stats, it is an understatement to say, "I can understand why they would often be seen as not being valid."  

It's not that they can often be seen as not being valid, it's that they are never "valid" in the sense that they don't feature large numbers of reps in even competition with competent recording and judgment.

It's not that long ago that MLB decided major conference D1 baseball stats were sufficiently "valid" to be a useful analytic tool for the draft.  High school stats aren't anywhere near that level of reliability, so it's hard to imagine many practical uses beyond "blunt force analysis" to identify unusually dominant performance of a level that would probably already apparent to scouts even without the stats.  

Rather than ask "what the heck people are trying to do with them that causes so many to disavow their use," perhaps you could suggest some possible uses high school and other amateur stats might be put to, despite all the manifest ways in which they are inaccurate and unreliable.  Until then, you have a product people don't find very useful, and the responsibility for finding a use doesn't lie with them.

Thats because they understand the differences in the various conferences/areas and the context from which those stats come from.

Once again - the human factor.  I like PG's post.  Stats can be an indicator - good or bad - but someone will need to see a player before they make a final decision.

bballman,

I agree that there are some who stand by the stats to the exclusion of everything else and its wrong. But, there are also some who refuse to consider the stats, and that’s just as wrong. But here, in this forum, who has advocated using stats to the exclusion of everything else?

If the amateur numbers could be counted on the same way MLB numbers can, you can bet it would save MLB teams lots of scouting $$$$. But again, where have you ever seen anyone advocate using stats to the exclusion of everything else?

Originally Posted by Bum:

Stats are used, but it is the human mind that mans the rosters.  So relax Scorekeeper, you're not quite irrelevant

Why are you hopping back and forth over the fence. Either stats are irrelevant or they’re not. Can the human mind make the best baseball decisions without using any other measurement?

Excellent post PG!

Originally Posted by Rob Kremer:

Did I miss something? Where is all this "angst" about statistics? Where are all the people who are anti-statistics? Was there a thread that I missed?

Have you read the posts in this thread?

Originally Posted by Swampboy:

Assuming you are primarily referring to high school stats, it is an understatement to say, "I can understand why they would often be seen as not being valid."  

It's not that they can often be seen as not being valid, it's that they are never "valid" in the sense that they don't feature large numbers of reps in even competition with competent recording and judgment.

How many times does it have to be said that it all depends on what you’re trying to do. If you’re trying to figger out who to give a $5M signing bonus to, I wouldn’t depend mainly on stats either. But, if I was trying to determine a lineup or who put on the bump, the numbers could be a great help.

It's not that long ago that MLB decided major conference D1 baseball stats were sufficiently "valid" to be a useful analytic tool for the draft.  High school stats aren't anywhere near that level of reliability, so it's hard to imagine many practical uses beyond "blunt force analysis" to identify unusually dominant performance of a level that would probably already apparent to scouts even without the stats.  

Why are you jumping to the conclusion that anyone’s talking about using stats as the main tool to determine who should be drafted?

Rather than ask "what the heck people are trying to do with them that causes so many to disavow their use," perhaps you could suggest some possible uses high school and other amateur stats might be put to, despite all the manifest ways in which they are inaccurate and unreliable.  Until then, you have a product people don't find very useful, and the responsibility for finding a use doesn't lie with them.

If its such a no brainer, why doesn’t anyone say what they’ve tried to used them for but the numbers fail to provide the answers. I know what I use them for, and it isn’t to try to draft anyone or decide who to give a scholarship to. Its just information to me.

I must decline to comment further due to my doctor's orders.  He's legitimately concerned this thread is making me dumber.

Originally Posted by Bum:

I must decline to comment further due to my doctor's orders.  He's legitimately concerned this thread is making me dumber.

Tell him his concern is unnecessary.

Yeah, I have read this thread and still can't find all those anti-stats people. All I see is a healthy "use them for what they are worth," attitude. Depending on the the judgment being made, HS stats range from somewhat important to relevant only in the anomaly. 

But "angst?" Naw.

I know a guy who used to have a lot of "angst" over the stats.  Then he started scoring the game himself and his stats had his son batting about .250 - .300 points higher then the coaches!  

So dad feels better in some way I guess, though his kid is still a bench player.  So even with "dad's stats", I guess he still has some angst.  

I think that is the problem Rob, it seems like there is a lot of bandwidth being used for no reason.

Hmmmm.... let me think... if there is anyone on this site... who comes close to taking this position.... ahhhh... mmmm....  nope, got nothin'.  

My goal is to become team scorebook keeper while my son is playing high school ball so I can inflate his stats to get more looks from colleges.  Forget being a member of the school board. 

Stats, 

Surprising no one, you completely missed my point and tried to lead the conversation as far from it as possible.

My principal objection is to the way you framed this issue in your OP and follow-on comments.  You spend many hours of your life preparing high school statistics and trying to convince people to use them.

Everyone else thinks they are garbage.

You think everyone else's "angst" is the problem, and you feel vindicated because no one will actually use high school stats to make lineup or other coaching decisions and prove to you that they failed.

In fact, if everyone else is quite happy thinking high school stats are garbage and you alone think they are valuable, the burden is on you to show how they are not garbage. 

I don't need to attempt to fix a wristwatch with a crowbar to know it is unsuitable for my purpose.  Same with high school stats for close judgments.

I will go so far as to say that high school stats are of no value at distinguishing levels of skill/performance where genuine doubt exists among informed observers.  Stats can identify the handful of top players who everyone already knows should contend for player of the year, but the vast differences in scorekeeper judgment, the unevenness of competition, and the small number of reps preclude them from being a useful tool for revealing differences among players of nearly comparable skill level.  

I have seen occasions where stats can cause confusion (e.g., the third starter, who gets the ball only when the team plays three games in a week because of a make-up game or a spring break tournament, and who pitches against the weakest opponent of the week, may have better stats than one of the starters who throws more innings against better opponents), but I have NEVER seen a situation where high school stats changed my mind about the relative merit of two players.

In the specific application you mention of helping a coach make out a lineup, they are completely useless for several reasons already mentioned plus others, including:

--Stats fail to record more than half of the observable performance because the typical high school team practices more days than it plays, and they get far more reps on practice days than game days.  Our high school coach's standard answer to parents who questioned his lineup was, "Come to practice and see what I see."  If he sees a player field 100 balls in practice during the week and 10 in the course of the two games they play, should he really let a narrow difference in in-game fielding percentage overturn the judgments he made watching the 100 reps?

--You can't accumulate enough stats to make meaningful comparisons in time to affect team performance in a short season.  High school teams in my area play a 20-game regular season.  If a coach really isn't sure which of two players deserves the last spot in the lineup a) it probably doesn't matter which of them starts because they are both replacement level players, and b) there is no way to collect a meaningful amount of stats before the season is over.  

The ball is back in your court.  You tell us what use your high school stats are, and explain why they can be useful despite the drawbacks everyone else sees in them.  Or you can keep pretending the problem is everyone else's angst.

There isn't angst. There's only frustration in getting the original poster to understand stats aren't nearly as important as he believes in recognizing talent. Then the original poster drones on and on until posters can't stand it anymore and go screaming into the night.

This more or less covers it, but I'd add that the primary misuses/abuses of stats pre-HS (and probably to a lesser extent in HS) are a fundamental lack of appreciation for what sample size means to statistics, and an endless search for some way to manipulate inherently incomplete/unreliable stats (often because of sample size issues) to support some preconceived position that even a modestly competent coach could subjectively analyze in his sleep.

I took several statistics courses at the master's degree level and I find Stats4Gnats' rhetoric completely incomprehensible.

Stats4Gnats' statistics is to baseball what a decoder ring found in a Cracker Jack box is to Scotland Yard.

Hey, look, I understand the desire to geek out on baseball stats. I was the scorekeeper/statistician for my kid's teams prior to HS. There were fun things that could be done with the data, and when they'd get up to 60-70 games over a spring and summer, the samples were no longer meaningless. 

But they weren't all that meaningful, either. Or at least they didn't reveal much that we already didn't know. My son's little league team, 11 kids, had a future NBA first round draft pick, and a White Sox 2nd round pick, one future D1 wide receiver and a future mid-major D-1 pitcher. Plus my son. Another team in this league of five teams had another NBA 1st rounder (now an all star.)

Guess what the stats showed about those kids? Thank God we had the stats! We would have never known they were better than the other kids!

But I loved keeping the scorebook and looking at the data, and showing different aspects of it that drill down a little deeper than the usual metricS.

I think I always knew, however, that it was just an indulgence for me. It's fun! And it lets you relive the performances of your kid and the other kids on the team and see those performances at times in a different light. 

So I understand a little bit where gnats is coming from. He's kinda like the over proud bragging dad applied to baseball stats rather than his own kid's performance. 

So, no reason to get all hacked off at the guy. No reason not to challenge his assertions, either, but heck, I read his posts. (Well, maybe not all of them. I do have to make a living.)

Rob, you have a more generous heart than me.  But I also think that folks get irritated by the manner of the OP's posts as much or more than the content.  I think my first contact with guy was when he broke down a simple statement I made and condescendingly schooled me in 1000 words or so on exactly why I was so wrong to have said something so foolish and how happy he was to set me straight. 

Or he'll beg people to define a term, and then when somebody is nice enough to do so,  he'll come back with all his numbers to explain why the that person's  understanding of the term is wrong, and how he's got a better way of looking at it due to his thorough analysis of one HS team's stats.

The masses speak! This thread is amazing.

JCG, you nailed it.

No one is against high school statistics.  Heck, every game for Bum, Jr.growing up but for a few unattended were scored, typically with quips on the margin such as "diving catch by the left fielder" or "first varsity start".  The score book was a work of love, or art, and reviewing them brings alive the feelings and action, intended to allow the reader to go back in time, not predict the future.

Scorekeeper (I mean Stats) does not seek discourse or dialog but attempts to state a position which is intransitable.  This is the nature of every troll.  Try as we may, the gulf is there for us to jump but,

alas,

we plunge again into the quagmire. 

Stats.  100% jump and 100% miss.