The Hardball Times:A conversation will Bill Baer

• bobr

  +2

  Perhaps a minor point in the discussion you are having, but I think there is an error in identifying sabermetrics as science. More accurate would be to call it social science. Like economics or sociology et al, it may use a scientific method and rely on statistics, clinical research, model building and the like, but it always remains subject to the vagaries of human behavior.

   

  That is in no way meant to demean sabermetrics. Polling, for example, has become very reliable since "Dewey Defeats Truman", but it is still less certain than physics or chemistry. If we keep that distinction in mind, we may remain more modest in our assertions and less prone to dogmatism in our pronouncements. 

  Posted 6/28/2008 [reply] [flag]

  • John Brattain

    +1

    That's an excellent point--mind if I use it sometime?

    Best Regards

    John 

     

    Posted 6/28/2008 [reply] [flag]

    • bobr

      +1

      Not at all. Thanks.

      Posted 6/28/2008 [reply] [flag]

      • John Brattain

        +1

        I didn't waste any time:

        Best Regards

        John 

         

        Posted 6/28/2008 [reply] [flag]

• dackle

  +1

  Sabermetrics will tell us that it’s most likely a fluke that will even out over time. What some sabermetricians will not tell us is that when they say it will "regress-return to the mean,"whether it will happen within the 162 game unit that is being contested or outside of that. Is the Angels 31-13 record in games decided by two runs or fewer evening out something that occurred in 2007, or will it even out sometime in 2009?
  
  And from an earlier article:
  
  Sabermetrics tells us that their career totals indicate that they will eventually hit with RISP. If indeed this is true, then the Jays have the AL East wrapped up; the players are due to become beasts hitting with RISP, since all can be expected to reach career norms. With their pitching in place and the expectation that base runners are due to be cashed in early, often and repeatedly in the very near future, how can they possible miss?
  
  
       I don't think this is quite what happens with regression to the mean. If 44 coin flips result in 31 heads (call those "wins") and 13 tails ("losses"), for a "winning percentage" of .705, then regression to the mean does not mean that over the next 118 flips (for a total of 162), that the coin will go 50-68 to even its record out at 81-81. It just means that our best guess going forward is that the coin will play .500. So our best guess of its record after x flips will be:
  
  44 flips  .... 31-13 record (.705)
  54 flips  .... 36-18 record (.667) (ie 31-13 + a 5-5 record)
  100 flips  ... 59-41 record (.590)
  162 flips  ... 90-72 record (.556)
  1000 flips ... 509-491 record (.509)
  
       Likewise, with the Jays batting with RISP, it just means that the Jays can be expected to hit around their career norms with RISP from now until the rest of the season (and into the future). By doing so, their season totals will be lifted toward those means. 

  Posted 6/28/2008 [reply] [flag]

  • John Brattain

    +1

    I should've flagged that point as a touch of hyperbole. It was merely to illustrate the need to be proactive since if you wait too long for that to happen you can be in too big a hole to extracate yourself from since you have no idea what the time frame is for that to happen.

    Heh ... it would be awesome if it worked that way though eh? Look what hot hitting with RISP has done for the Twins this year. A Jays team hitting .370 (pulled out of the air) in the second half?

    Yowza.

    Best Regards

    John 

     

    Posted 6/28/2008 [reply] [flag]

    • dackle

      +1

           The point though is that there is no "time frame". In the example, the best guess for tonight's game, tomorrow's game, the next 50 games, the rest of the season, the next 10 years, is always .500. Likewise, if Rios is slugging .402 vs his career average of .446 (assuming this represents his actual ability), the best guess for tonight, next week, the rest of the season, the next five years, is always .446.

           Now if he slugs .446 over the next 300 at-bats, then he'll end the year at .423. That's regression to the mean.

       

      Posted 6/28/2008 [reply] [flag]

• stevet

  +1

  John,

  I don't think I disagree with your general point.  But frankly I'm not certain I agree with it either, simply because in the broadly vague manner in which you make it.  You refer somewhat obliquely to "when it's a noun instead of a verb" and "when it becomes an ideology", but you don't provide any specific examples of analysts/writers who have done these things, and compared them with specific others who haven't.

  As a result, I'm left unable to know exactly what and who it is you're objecting to, and who on the other hand is doing work that you find laudable.  Perhaps I'm not good at reading between the lines or something, but someone with my crude powers of perception needs an argument to provide more specifics.  Otherwise I'm left as I am, kind of shrugging my shoulders.

  ST

   

  Posted 6/29/2008 [reply] [flag]

• John Brattain

  +1

  I don't think I disagree with your general point.  But frankly I'm not certain I agree with it either, simply because in the broadly vague manner in which you make it.  You refer somewhat obliquely to "when it's a noun instead of a verb" and "when it becomes an ideology", but you don't provide any specific examples of analysts/writers who have done these things, and compared them with specific others who haven't.

  Well ... I prefer not to talk out of school. To go into too much detail would be borderline pointing fingers. Folks take this stuff personally enough as it is without divulging into details that may end up embarrassing someone. 

  Generally folks know the type I'm talking about and have similar experiences (as my feedback is informing me).

  I also personally like some of the "culprits."

  I could publish my e-mails that I have received but I'm not comfortable doing that. I keep the nasty ones as well since there's usually a  useful point or two I like to keep as reference.

  I find when I'm offering (hopefully) constructive criticism I find it goes over best not to personalize it otherwise defenses come up and dialogue (which I'm shooting for) ceases.

  If that causes shoulders to shrug--so be it, better that then take an approach that would make it hard to look myself in the eye in the mirror ... it's a challenging enough task as it is ;-)  

  Best Regards

  John 

  Posted 6/30/2008 [reply] [flag]

Leave a Comment

Links (1)

Parrish the thought...
Published 6/28/2008 by jkbrattain at Baseball Digest Daily
... and A conversation with Bill Baer . Anyway, on Ball-Hype a poster named Bob R. made an excellent point on the science of sabermetrics that I thought I’d mention here: “ Perhaps a minor point in the discussion you are having, but I think there is an error in identifying sabermetrics as science. More accurate would be to call it social science. Like economics or sociology et al, it may use a scientific method and rely on statistics, clinical research, model building and the like, but it always remains subject to the vagaries of human behaviour. That is in no way meant to ...