The Overflow of Stats Has Norman Chad Slightly Perturbed
1-liner, Media Gossip/Musings July 20th. 2009, 4:30pmStats, Stats, Stats!: Another terrific riff from Norman Chad, who sets his sights on the media and its annoying infatuation with statistics. “The [Wall Street] Journal reduces all of sport to numbers, graphs and pie charts — it’s a statistical junkyard, with spare parts nobody needs.” Also getting the treatment: USA Today and ESPN. “‘… a low 5.2 strikeout rate and 1.6 K/BB ratio are worrisome. His .260 BA-BIP and 84 percent strand rate are both primed for regression. Jurrjens’ 5.03 xERA is nearly three runs higher than his actual ERA, an ominous indicator.’ Heck, I’m scared.” Us too. [Couch Slouch]
68 Responses to “The Overflow of Stats Has Norman Chad Slightly Perturbed”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 20th, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Numbers are scary!!!
July 20th, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Can you get rid of the pizza in the braces invisalign ad on the right banner? It is really, really, like twogirlsonecup really gross. kthanxbai
July 20th, 2009 at 4:35 PM
It’s very disturbing how in sports writing it is seen as a badge of honor to be willfully ignorant of advances in understanding the very things that your writing about.
July 20th, 2009 at 4:35 PM
Norma?!?! That’s the name of my 2nd ex-wife!!!!!!
July 20th, 2009 at 4:37 PM
I guess I am one of those few who actually LIKE the numbers and stats. Certain stats can be misleading.
Take for example Kevin Slowey from the Twins. Dude has the most wins on the team, but his ERA and WHIP are pretty high for a guy that has that many wins. If you look at the run support he has compared to the rest of the staff, it makes sense.
July 20th, 2009 at 4:40 PM
When I read this, I imagined Joe Morgan’s lips moving while he read this and just nodding his head in agreement.
/I miss that site
July 20th, 2009 at 4:42 PM
somewhere, a single tear rolls down NickP’s banned eye
July 20th, 2009 at 4:43 PM
i can enjoy sports and see who is good without help from advanced calculus so i see what he is saying
July 20th, 2009 at 4:45 PM
That’s awful close to paddlin’ the school canoe, there jpq.
Also, as I said yesterday, Chad’s off base here, but Jurrjens is a bad example. Pretty much any scout, using any measure, even the sabermetricians, will tell you Jurrjens is ticketed for big things.
July 20th, 2009 at 4:46 PM
it’s simple fucking math…it’s easy as fuck to understand so why is there so much hate over stats?
of course they don’t tell the whole story…then again, neither does the eyeball test.
July 20th, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Stats don’t bother me, but I’m surprised Chad is annoyed by them. He is a poker guy. Those guys are running odds through their heads constantly during a game.
July 20th, 2009 at 4:51 PM
NickP got banned?
July 20th, 2009 at 4:54 PM
younglefty: I say what I say. I just say it here. If I vanish one day, you’ll know I should have just said it other places and not here like a lot of others do
July 20th, 2009 at 4:55 PM
NickP got banned?
Yeah, what Tallguy said.
July 20th, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Does that mean you’ll say it over at our place? Sweet! Pageviews!
July 20th, 2009 at 5:00 PM
boom! bannin’
July 20th, 2009 at 5:03 PM
What if they shot NickP in the face/
July 20th, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Does that mean you’ll say it over at our place? Sweet! Pageviews!
didn’t know there was a market for out of touch old commenters. Whitlock might write an article on how my going to another blog is bad for blogging.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Wow. Norman Chad was never funny, but now he is willfully ignorant too? I love that he takes aim at the UPenn study, seems to purposely misunderstand it to make a lame joke, and then mischaracterizes his misunderstanding as a stats issue.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:06 PM
somewhere, a single tear rolls down NickP’s banned eye
It is a travesty that NickP got banned, and I continue to exist. I would actually sign a petition to have Nick reinstated, despite the fact that he treated me like a retard.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:10 PM
seriously, though, I agree in large part with Norman Chad here. There are just too many stupid stats. They predict fantasy numbers before football games, so you can see if you might win. There’s too many GRONK’s and PERONK’s and GLORP’s, and they cloud the idea that you can just think a dude is good at baseball.
Norman Chad uses hyperbole, but he’s not too wrong in his message.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Well, you know the old adage, shoe fitting, and all that.
/kidding, kidding
July 20th, 2009 at 5:14 PM
+100000000000000000
July 20th, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Except stats time and time again show that people don’t really know who is good at baseball. The problem people have with stats is they so often conflict with the mental picture peopl have of a player so they dismiss the stats, when they should really be dismissing the mental picture. Or you can keep giving Nate McClouth and Micheal Young Gold Gloves.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:19 PM
Even the most basic thing like batting average (and without getting into why its a bad stat in and of itself). You can’t see the difference between a .280 and a .300 hitter. There is actually a very small amount of hits that make that difference over 500 at bats. It’s like five a month (someone do math for me). You would NEVER realize that even if you watched every game. That stats tell us that and because BA has been around so long we understand it. The new stats are every bit as useful as that people just don’t have the comfort level with them yet.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Except stats time and time again show that people don’t really know who is good at baseball.
you don’t mean people, you mean baseball writers. I’m not at all devaluing all stats, what I’m saying is that I don’t need to know that a guy is hitting .321 in his last 14 at bats against LHP with 2 outs and RISP. Just let me watch the pitcher throw the ball to the batter. I’ll see what I need to see, promise.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Before anybody does the math, just go watch the final bar scene in Bull Durham. He explains the difference between a .250 hitter and a .300 hitter perfectly. It’s like one hit a week.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:23 PM
True.
But sometimes stats (especially very specific individual stats) aren’t telling the whole picture in a team sport. Some things done for the benefit of your team can negatively impact your personal stats… I know, there is yet another stat to account for that as well, and so on, and so on…..
/Jeter is still a shitty fielder- with my eyes, heart, and calculator.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:24 PM
don’t worry fellas. You neo-con baseball dudes have gotten rid of me, the casual baseball fan. I’ll leave you to VORPing your own WHIPs.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:27 PM
i guess ted williams being the last man to hit over .400 is just unimpressive then.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:28 PM
If the Jurrjens article said that opposing batters don’t think he has cy young caliber curveball or his motion isn’t as deceptive as most succesful pitchers, would that be acceptable analysis? Because both those statements and the stats quoted are the same thing. Using some, albeit incomplete, evidence to express the opinion that his future results will not be as successful as his past results.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:29 PM
This is VERY true in football and (especially) basketball, less so in baseball. Any effect on personal stats in baseball are almost invariably due to a negative impact from your defense (as a pitcher) or those hitting around you (why Ryan Howard won the MVP over Pujols a few years ago, can’t get RBI’s with nobody on base). Pretty much the only take one for the team thing I can think of in baseball that isn’t accounted for in the stats is when a pitcher intentionally walks the last batter he faces before coming out.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:29 PM
In football or basketball, yeah. Baseball’s a different animal. Pretty much everything you do is individual effort, and that’s why stats like ERA and BA are misleading. It’s the Cowherd types that shout “nerd alert!” that are the kneejerk guys putting words in other people’s mouths. Nobody will argue that having a lower ERA or higher BA helps show you’re a better ball player. The argument we’re trying to make is that there are better measurements, that don’t come with the built in prejudices you’ve always had. The .280 vs. .300 BA argument is perfect. On paper, it looks like a huge difference. 20 points! In actuality, it’s really not that big a gap.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Damn Taguchi, we even have the same time stamp.
/high five
July 20th, 2009 at 5:32 PM
I’m not at all devaluing all stats, what I’m saying is that I don’t need to know that a guy is hitting .321 in his last 14 at bats against LHP with 2 outs and RISP
This is a totally different complaint and completly valid. TV crews need to fill time and say stupid stuff to do it. Doesn’t matter if its stats or a story about the announcers cousin.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Not as impressive as the 1.287 OPS he had that year.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Not to mention that’s an old stat. Just a little more detailed than what you see in the boxscore.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:34 PM
/high five
We’re hateable together!
July 20th, 2009 at 5:34 PM
Are you serious? That’s effing insane.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:36 PM
Perfect example of why stats (new or old) don’t tell the whole story. Or how the team you are on can influence your pitching and hitting stats based on the defense, speed in the lineup, power in the lineup, etc..
There are stats to include many of those things, but one always leaves something else out and standing alone can be misleading, which is really my point.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:38 PM
Statistics are fine, used in the proper context. I don’t understand why people get their panties in a bunch over them. Some of them are unnecessarily obtuse (VORP is an example), but otherwise measuring athletic performance (especially baseball) using numbers has always been around. It’s just evolving. We’ll learn over time what numbers are good and which are just noise.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:38 PM
which would have never been possible unless he hit over .400
yes williams is awesome regardless of what stat you use.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Except stats time and time again show that people don’t really know who is good at baseball. The problem people have with stats is they so often conflict with the mental picture peopl have of a player so they dismiss the stats, when they should really be dismissing the mental picture. Or you can keep giving Nate McClouth and Micheal Young Gold Gloves.
A-fucking-men.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:40 PM
Or, more accurately, it’s a perfect example of why RBI is a bad stat with which to measure offensive efficiency. The new stats do a much much better job of eliminating factors outside the control of the player, which make them much more dependable. None of them are perfect, but they’re better.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:41 PM
True, but holy shit, that 1.287 number is crazy. That even gives a middle of the road stat person as myself a semi.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:42 PM
There are stats to include many of those things, but one always leaves something else out and standing alone can be misleading, which is really my point.
Which is why sites like Baseball Reference and Baseball Prospectus put them side by side in nice, neat columns. So you can get a full picture.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:42 PM
word.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:42 PM
Like I said before, BA is an okay stat. It just has a couple of holes that newer stats don’t have.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:43 PM
So in 2006 Freddie Sanchez hit .344 and Pujols hit .331. Did Sanchez have a better year than Pujols?
July 20th, 2009 at 5:44 PM
I know nothing about most of these stats, but I know one thing: if stats say this team sucked, they should do away w/ stats.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:44 PM
which would have never been possible unless he hit over .400
true but the batting average tells a lot less of he story than the OPS does. For example the year Gwynn hit .394 his OPS was “only” 1.022, which is really good but hardly superhuman, and he never broke 1.000 at any other point in his career.
True. And a war veteran who hated reporters. A lot of reasons to like that guy.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:48 PM
more homeruns more rbis..and visually i can see that pujols is a better player i dont need to know his vorp + slurp – ops ÷ plop to see it
July 20th, 2009 at 5:49 PM
I was going to be a smartass, but this brings up a good point. In any form of statistical analysis, you have to remember to put things in context. To take the Jurrjens example, some of his stats my appear a bit unsavory, but he’s not the ace of the staff, and he isn’t expected to be. Comparing him to league leaders (and sometimes league averages) can be misleading as well. It’s worth it to take the time to compare players only to players of like kind, in terms of context. Also, Maxwell, you got BB and K numbers for ‘06? I’d like to see those too. (I think we’re agreeing here)
July 20th, 2009 at 5:51 PM
FYI, if a player has 550 AB in a season (AB, not PA), the difference between a .280 average and a .300 average is 11 hits (154 vs. 165), or approximately two hits per month.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:53 PM
go back to slurping more of what you really love to slurp.
[drops mic] [exits stage left]
July 20th, 2009 at 5:53 PM
That’s the context thing again. Nobody on that team had over a 1.000 OPS, but they only had two guys under .700, and only one more than that under .800, and he was at .793. Sure, there have been much better hitters before and since, but rarely will you see a team that has so many that are of that caliber. That’s why the Reds were dominant.
July 20th, 2009 at 6:00 PM
more homeruns more rbis
This is exactly the point. In order to make BA more useful to your understanding, you add some additional stats. So why are you so against OPS if it shows so simply (0.851 vs 1.102) what it takes you so long to express?
July 20th, 2009 at 6:02 PM
I think it’s because what is the normative range, or the acceptable range, isn’t widely known. If there was the same benchmark like there is with BA, there would be no problem, I’m sure.
July 20th, 2009 at 6:03 PM
See, my “sum of the parts” argument always works. This means the NL is better than the AL. Fact.
July 20th, 2009 at 6:05 PM
Sure, there have been much better hitters before and since, but rarely will you see a team that has so many that are of that caliber. That’s why the Reds were dominant.
but that’s my problem with it. When I watch football games w/ “younger guys”, all they are doing is looking at their phones to check on their fantasy stats. It’s all individual BS. The 1975 Reds TEAM was a juggernaut. I don’t care what Dave Concepcion’s VORP or RISP or OPS was. I knew the fucker was good on that team w/ Morgan at 2nd.
The Bills score a TD and my buddy is screaming because fucking Alge Crumpler caught a 20 yard TD from LEndale White and that’s worth XXX points. Who fucking cares?
July 20th, 2009 at 6:08 PM
The Bills score a TD and my buddy is screaming because fucking Alge Crumpler caught a 20 yard TD from LEndale White and that’s worth XXX points. Who fucking cares?
Isn’t your problem really with fantasy then?
July 20th, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Now I know it’s a made up story.
Seriously, I’m with you…. I get so pissed when I have people at my place watching games and they yell about fantasy numbers during a game.
July 20th, 2009 at 6:14 PM
Fuck the advance of knowledge! The Earth is flat and at the center of the universe!
July 20th, 2009 at 7:14 PM
best sentence today
well done!
July 20th, 2009 at 8:06 PM
Fuck the advance of knowledge! The Earth is flat and at the center of the universe!
fetch: that sounds like a clown comment. and that is not a compliment
July 20th, 2009 at 8:07 PM
Isn’t your problem really with fantasy then?
TST: yes, you are probably right, but for some reason I group that “stat geek crowd” into the “fantasy crowd”. my bad if I’m wrong
July 21st, 2009 at 8:19 AM
It’s arguments like this that make me miss FJM the most.
July 21st, 2009 at 9:21 AM
What I don’t understand is why the anti-stat people always want to make it an either/or proposition. Stats do not give you a complete picture of what happens in baseball, but it is also impossible to fully understand baseball without stats. I want to get a full picture of the game, so I not only watch a lot of games, but I check out the stats, too.
Also, why do stats make anti-stat people so angry? Feel free to enjoy baseball in any way you want – can’t we all just get along?