Well said.

Anyone that believes that “stats v. scouting” is a zero-sum battle is just being silly. I happen to understand the former more than the latter, but that does not mean that I disregard everything else. The truth is that they each give you a piece of the puzzle. Now, which part goes where is what’s up for debate.

As sabremetrics advance, people will resist the change because that’s just what people do. But, that doesn’t change the fact that these new stats give us a clearer and clearer image of the game we all love. Those who choose to ignore the improvement or even the most fundamental stats, do so at the expense of their understanding and appreciation of the game. Likewise, anyone that believes that there is nothing more to baseball than numbers on a spreadsheet is missing out on a significant portion of the sport. In the end, as Aristotle said, virtue is the mean between two vices.

Rec’d.

You did a good job of explaining this. I used to be one of those “with my eyes” guys when I first joined this site earlier this year. Now, after having read these guy’s posts and learning a little more about the science behind the numbers, I have become somewhat of a sabermetric guy (although, I will be the first to admit that I do not know a whole lot about them beyond the basics).

But, using stats with ample sample-size is a good way to predict what is likely to happen. To simply dismiss them would be irresponsible, just as dismissing actual play is irresponsible.

You need both to make an accurate observation.

All true. Well stated.

I would also like to point out that baseball statistics are influenced by numerous things: parks, pitchers/batters faced, division, league, etc. We assume that this all evens out over the course of a year, so that we can accurately compare Jeff Francoeur’s OPS of .653 last year to someone like Nick Markakis’s 2008 OPS of .897. But are these actually comparable? We can only compare them if we assume that on average all other factors even out. For example, we have to assume that the quality of pitchers each player faced was on the average the same, despite playing mostly different teams the whole season.

This is where some subjective interpretation is involved, and why scouts get paid to do what they do. Otherwise, any idiot could go to baseball-reference.com and get numbers. They have to look beyond the numbers, because while stats are objective measures of what a player has done and is more-than-likely going to do again, the cliched “change of scenery” could have an impact on those stats. The same can be said as fans. We should evaluate players based on both objective and subjective measures. The problem is, as fans, we are completely biased and usually irrational.

Case in point, Raul Ibanez. From 2001-2008 (2001 was the first year he had over 300 PAs) his numbers in the AL for SEA and KCR were .291/.352/.482. Now, granted this year is not over, but he is currently .312/.371/.656. We’ll have to see if he comes back to earth, or if somebody saw something that said he would do well in Philadelphia, or if it is just a coincidence (or if it is PEDs, that unfortunately is a reality nowadays).

My point is simply that it takes some combination of both numbers and observation, because not everything is on paper and not everything is comparable. I understand your point, when we get on here and start arguing about subjective “what I see,” it is completely biased and loaded to fit that person’s argument.

Nice post, here’s a big cheesy thumbs up from me

The rare post rec from me.

Stats our fur dummies.

Once a player commits an act he is capable of repeating it. Over time, the frequency with which he does becomes evident via some sort of rate stat. A good rule of thumb is that three full years in the majors provide a sufficient sample size for the observation of a player’s abilities and tendencies and how their results are extrapolated statistically.

Once these three year averages has been established, any significant fluctuation which is not counterbalanced by a commensurate fluctuation in the opposite direction is due to one of many factors including a trade to another team, a mechanical adjustment (intentional or otherwise), physical condition, PEDs, a more or less favorable spot in the batting order etc.

The difficulty arises when growth from the mean occurs. Whether the new trend is attributable to one of these factors or is just an anomaly created by an unbalanced distribution of the act in question is never easily understood.

For instance, Raul Ibanez’s 25.3 HR/FB ratio this year is 2x his career average. How much of this is due to the move from Safeco to Citizen’s Bank? The quality of NL vs. AL pitching? The protection of Jayson Werth over Jose Lopez?

Although each of these factors could certainly have triggered a spike in HR from Ibanez this year, its hard to believe that any situation in MLB could be good enough to sustain a rate of 1 dinger for every four fly balls.

I guess my main points here are that extra-statistical factors underlie the changes in statistics, and with a large enough sample size, the numbers never lie.

I believe it was spelled “Jobu”

Stats are wonderful things, if you have the time and ability to look them up and once you do, figure out how to understand them. I have no doubt they can enhance the enjoyment of the games you watch.

As a baseball fan for quite a while, I readily admit that I am limited to only the basics of what I generally see in the box score and player stats on the team web site because that’s really all I have time to digest. I think I’m more typical than the exception.

Is it possible here on TC to be considered a “true baseball fan” if you don’t take the time to be a student of stats? I’ll admit to being a bit intimidated at times to make ANY comment about a player’s performance unless it’s one that’s pretty much stat-proof like celebrating a hit, homer or RBI during a game in fear you guys may eat me for lunch.

Keep in mind though – there are some things stats can’t show. For example, where is the stat that would show the lackadaisical look on GAnderson’s face as he stands in left field looking like he hopes the ball is hit anywhere but at him? How about the runner who doesn’t hustle his way all the way to 1st base, figuring it’s a sure out and pulling up halfway instead of running all out to force the defense to make an accurate throw because sometimes they miss?

It’s things like this (and many other examples) that stats can’t and won’t show in the box score, so that’s why we gotta watch the games. When a player strikes out or makes a poor swing on a ball instead of a strike…the look on his face can sometimes show us if he cares about that failure or if it’s just another day at the office. When Hanson had the bases loaded and didn’t look like he wanted run home to his Mom, that told me a lot about him, but there’s no stat for that. It’s the fire in the belly kind of thing, do you see it or not?

As a fan of the game, that’s mostly what I’m looking for. I have a ton of patience for the player that may be struggling in some capacity of his game IF I feel by watching him play that he’s honestly trying.

So, this long comment is I guess saying I think we need both. Stats and what we “see” in order to truly understand and appreciate the game and those who play it.
.
.

And….while I’m here may I say that the posters here on TC have made me look at the stats closer than I ever have before and I THANK YOU for that.

This is one of my favorite postings, well done!

I’ll be the first to admit that with certain players I can lose objectivity but at the end of the day I try to take a step back and re-analyze my position. I’ve been a long time proponent of using observation in conjunction with stats but don’t think I could ever have explained it quite so efficiently. Hopefully this post (as it appears to have done) will open some eyes – it certainly has for me!