| By Adam H. Wong |  | By 10-19-2011 |
There's something to be said about the breadth of statistics. More than just analytic explorations, statistics offer a glimpse into concrete evidence that isn't immediately evident. They reveal hidden trends; reverse platoon splits, an increase in walks from the beginning of the season to the end, or possibly the inverse. They offer explanations beyond our eyes. I embrace the power of numbers.The problem with statistical analysis is that sometimes proof-texting occurs. Someone takes a seemingly relevant sample, but its size and context distort the statistics.
Small sample sizes do not yield statistically significant results. Dave Cameron recently wrote an article on the subject, and he's completely correct. Pitcher vs. batter splits are interesting, but in no way are they predictive of future results.
Let's take a look at a few of the microsplits that will inevitably be used during the World Series, so we can be well informed and laugh at those who tell us otherwise.
Chris Carpenter
Adrian Beltre -- Beltre will be an interesting case to watch, because his average of .333 looks great for a player to have against a pitcher. Too bad it was one hit in 2004. You know, back when Beltre had his career year with the Dodgers. Ignore this, because you don't want to miss Beltre's happy-feet dance. Nothing is worth missing Beltre's happy-feet dance.
Mike Napoli -- Napoli went 3-for-3 against Carpenter in 2010. In this sample, Napoli lit him up with 3 H, 1 HR and 3 RBI. So when someone mentions that Napoli is guaranteed success against Carpenter, know that his 2011 batting average is 680 points less than his career average against the Cardinal's starter, and that should sound ridiculous to anybody -– so don't take it seriously.
Michael Young -- If Young faces Carpenter, he will be labeled as having a disadvantage because of the righty matchup. The biggest disadvantage that Young has is that the last time he faced Carpenter they were seven years younger. In short, if someone brings up Young’s .333 average against Carpenter as a relevant statistic, we can assume they work for FOX.
Octavio Dotel
Adrian Beltre -- If we can start to extrapolate conclusions from about 200 plate appearances in the regular season, then Beltre has the most relevant microsplit to examine. Beltre amassed 22 at-bats against Dotel from 1999 to 2011, with no matchups against him in '04 and '06, batting .227/.217/.409. The next thing to look at is that at one point in time, Beltre faced Dotel when Bill Clinton was president. This is relevant because, well, it's not – and that's the problem with these microsplits.
Nelson Cruz -- Cruz had two at-bats against Dotel in 2007, blasting a two-run home run in one of them. If Cruz faces Dotel, the broadcasters will inevitably tout that Cruz is a threat to hit it out, because Cruz is a selfish baseball player and wants to destroy every postseason record possible.
Jason Motte
Yorvit Torrealba -- Torrealba and Napoli went for a combined three PA and three whiffs against Motte, so it must spell certain doom if either catcher faces him. Motte also hasn't allowed a line drive this postseason, so there's that, too. I expect Napoli to put up a good at-bat because the two PA he put up against Motte were in 2010, and this new-and-improve Ranger-fied Napoli is better than the old, obsolete Angel-y one. Torrealba will probably make weak contact or strikeout, because he's Yorvit Torrealba.
C.J. Wilson
Lance Berkman -- Berkman drew a walk against Wilson in the 2010 postseason, so some might cite his experience as an indicator of possible outcomes when they face each other. Berkman has a career BB% 15.5, so of course he's going to walk against Wilson. If you enjoy drinking games, take a shot every time Berkman and walk are associated in the same sentence. This will make you forget that the Mariners haven't been in a postseason for about a decade. Or remember, depending.
Nick Punto -- Nick Punto had one at-bat against Wilson in '05 and didn't reach base. Nick Punto had one at-bat against Wilson in both '06 and '07, drawing a walk each time. In '09, Nick Punto had three at-bats against him and notched a hit. I almost fell asleep just now, because Nick Punto is boring.
Ryan Theriot -- If Theriot gets an at-bat, it will be noted that he went 1-for-4 against Wilson. Only four Mariners had an average above .250, so he has that going for him. Ignore this stat, because everyone else ignores Ryan Theriot.
Mike Adams
Matt Holliday -- Holliday has faced Adams at least once a year since 2008. Holliday got his first hit off of him this year, so Tim McCarver will probably note that he is riding a hot streak against him. McCarver will chime in with this tidbit of information, so we should probably ride the mute button. Tim McCarver can make broadcasts sound like a radio-edited rap song.
Yadier Molina -- Molina faced Adams once in his career in '05 and notched a hit. His perfect average will be proclaimed amazing. And then he will strike out, crushing the hearts of Molina fans everywhere. Ken Rosenthal will report that the sound of breaking hearts can be heard all the way from Milwaukee. Ignore this stat.
Albert Pujols -- Pujols faced Adams every year since '04. His slash line is only .125/.333/.250, thus revealing to the casual fan that Pujols will have trouble hitting Adams, but he'll be able to draw walks. Then the casual fan will remember that he is Albert Pujols, and realize that conclusion is dumb.
Michael Gonzalez
Lance Berkman -- Berkman's average against Gonzalez is .333, with their first plate appearance occurring in '05. Commentators will undoubtedly state his success against the southpaw. Berkman has a .260 career batting average against lefties, so it makes sense. Of course he's due! Joe Buck and McCarver will proceed to awkwardly high-five.
Albert Pujols -- Pujols has one hit against Gonzalez, and that came back in Gonzalez's 2003 rookie season. It would be great if Gonzalez could keep him hitless, because it seems like Pujols hits everyone. Gonzalez could hold that over his head forever! How great would that feel!? Although, Pujols has never hit Horacio Ramirez either, so I guess he isn't that special.
Batter versus pitcher data is misleading. It's an interesting afterthought, but by no means should it be used as an indicator for future success. It's completely possible that Napoli sees the ball better out of the hand of Carpenter than other pitchers. It's completely possible that batters find success against certain pitchers because of a mindset. They've had success against them before, so their confidence skyrockets when they face them. These microsplits offer us an interesting insight to small, inconclusive samples. That's exactly what they should be limited to -- insight.
Adam H. Wong can be reached via email at wong@prospectinsider.com, and you can follow him on Twitter here.
microsplits-in-the-world-series
Comments
The following 27 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: Edman on 10-20-2011 04:16:44 While I find statistics interesting, I never worry about them when I'm watching a game. I don't care to try to predict what event will happen. It's the manager's job to break that down. I don't really care how Albert Puljols might hit against pitcher X. If I was actually building or managing a team, I would care. But, I'm not, so I'll just remain a fan, and let the game unfold as it has for many years. Honestly, I don't really care what drivel comes out of the mouth of an announcer. I don't watch the game for them. They're simply background nice between pitches. I hope there is never a day when the World Series is played like a computer game. When the announcers, managers and coaches become so well trained that the game becomes a mental petrie dish. The real beauty of baseball is that just when you think you have it figured out......you don't. |
| 2. By: Edman on 10-20-2011 04:18:18 background noise, even.....okay, bedtime |
| 3. By: Rudolf on 10-20-2011 07:28:32 agreed. |
| 4. By: Edman on 10-20-2011 11:37:43 Adam, I appreciate the effort that you've made. I've been following the game for nearly 40 years. I started out with basic statistics, then followed the Bill James approach. Now, some think they need to discet the game to a micron. Why? What is fun about being able to predict what will happen, rather than to wait for it to happen? The math of baseball is important for those making decisions. However, it is only one tool. Observations by the coaches and managers is also important. Since you sighted Dave Cameron. A couple of years ago, he stated a matter of factly, that Doug Fister would never be more than a #4 or more likely #5 starter. Why? Because he signted statistics. At the same time, then pitching coach Rick Adair was raving about the pitcher Fister could be. Why? Because of observation. There is no stat for that. They are one tool, and certainly not the determining tool. |
| 5. By: valencia on 10-20-2011 19:32:59 I agree 100%. There's too much emphasis on sites like USSM/LL on statistics, and not enough on scouting. Numbers can help you predict what a player will become, but ultimately you need to use scouting to help you predict, and coaches to help you develop players. You can't just rely on one and ignore the others, and a lot of SABR guys don't really understand that. |
| 6. By: Adam H. Wong on 10-20-2011 19:40:16 Edman, I agree with you completely. I liken statistics analysis to media analysis for movies. Film is great on its own. It provides entertainment, a sense of morality and prompts the questioning of our existence. However, using the tools of semiotic, psychoanalytic and Marxist analysis can lead to a deeper understanding of the text. The Dark Knight is an amazing movie on its own, but delving deeper with psychoanalysis will yield disturbing results we couldn't extrapolate without that tool. One of the best things about baseball is that it keeps you on your toes. Case in point: Dan Johnson. Or Edgar's double. I'm glad that Napoli had that night that he had, going 1-for-2 with a HR and a BB. It's interesting that Napoli is now 4-for-5 against Carpenter with two HR. By no means is it a conclusive predictor, but it's a quirky statistic to keep in the back of our minds. |
| 7. By: Adam P. Boyd on 10-21-2011 03:48:32 Good stuff Adam. So far it has been one hell of a series. Edman - your posts are insufferable. Why? Because you spell at a 5th grade level. You spell dissect - discet; cited - sighted, signted. It is hard to take anything you say seriously when you write like a child. This is not an ad hominim attack, but one based off of substance and credibility. If you have been following the game for nearly 40 years, you should at least have learned how to write/speak English at an adult level. I am sorry but criticizing the author of this piece with that kind of adolescent nonsense? Juvenile and disrespectful. Regardless - nice work Adam. |
| 8. By: Edman on 10-21-2011 11:29:02 Adam P., if you want to see juvenile, I suggest that you read your own post. Are you the grammar police? As far as I can tell, Adam P., you're the only one with a problem. The author didn't have a problem with what I wrote. It wasn't an attack on him or his article. It was stating a personal opinion, of which he understood. And apparently, one that you're incapable of understanding. This is a site about baseball, not about the proper use of grammar or writing without the use of a spell checker. What I find far more insufferable are people like you. That you would even mention a couple of spelling errors, as if you're personally offended. How smug and tasteless. Compared to some here, I'm a novelist. However, do I feel the need to tell them how to write? No, because I understand their intent, even it the way, it was stated wasn't perfect. Some of us have that ability. Evidently, from your lofty position, that's unacceptable. There is only one person who's writing I have a difficulty with, because at times, I don't understand what he was trying to say. Oh, and by the way......I write for a living, and get paid very well for it. However, the last thing I expected here was a prig like you to be so pompous about spelling errors. |
| 9. By: Edman on 10-21-2011 11:36:01 Oops, I better correct one sentence before Adam P does.... No, because I understand their intent, even if it was not stated wasn't perfectly. Now I feel better. |
| 10. By: Edman on 10-21-2011 11:38:41 LOL....I guess I blew that one. There ya go, Adam P., enjoy. |
| 11. By: skyway park on 10-21-2011 11:55:13 I reread #1 to see if I had missed something the first time I read it. I really didn't see any personal attacks on the writer, it was a well written piece. I believe most fans don't use statistical analysis while watching a game that is more for scouts, managers etc. |
| 12. By: maqman on 10-21-2011 13:14:03 As a retired writer/journalist, foreign correspondent, editor and publisher I find Edman's posts to be intelligent and persuasive. I have found that those who can write do so and those who can't critique the mechanics of language. I've always preferred the former to the later. |
| 13. By: DKulich44 on 10-21-2011 13:16:33 Ed, Isn't it ok for people to like baseball for whatever the hell reasons they like baseball? Why do you care if people like stats? I absolutely love the statistical side of baseball, and I think it provides great insight. And if you think USSM/LL is just about statistics, you couldn't be more completely wrong. If you do remember the Fister post, Cameron argued unless Fister changed his approach and/or added velocity he'd never be more than a 4th starter. Well, guess what Fister did!? He changed his approach, and added velocity!!! Pretty neat, right? Most of what Cameron said was based on scouting report and results, not advanced statistics. The worst thing you can do is listen to the team's pitching coach rave about players, and take that for factual information. Adair would never come out and tell you that Fister has the upside of a #4 starter. Why would he? That makes absolutely no sense. And if you think Fister magically has become an ace type starter based on his numbers in Detroit you're completely off base. He's a very good back end of a rotation guy, capable of posting a good ERA and giving you a ton of innings, but he'll never give you 200+ innings with 200+ K's. He's a serviceable 3 or 4 starter in the AL. |
| 14. By: Hackinator on 10-21-2011 15:24:31 Well said Edman...statistics can't tell you what is in a persons gut that motivates him.... they can't tell you if a guy had a physical issue that gets corrected ... they can't tell you if someone gets stronger or more flexible and due to that become a better player... I hope my email passes the Adam P. school of blog journalism |
| 15. By: Edman on 10-21-2011 17:12:54 DKulich44, please tell me where I indicated that it isn't okay for people to like stats. I was speaking from my perspective, not telling anyone else what to think. You're free to love stats as is anyone else. It's not my thing, and never will be. As far as Cameron's remarks about Fister, I do remember what Cameron said. And, is typical for those to praise at the alter of "Team Dave", you also remember what you want to. His mention of change was obvious, kind of like saying if Seager had cannon's like Albert Pujols, he'd be a better power hitter. I have no problem, except that Dave's style is to completely dismiss anyone's opinion that doesn't match his own. And, though he said the words, he fully set the tone that Fister would never amount to anymore than a #5 starter. Not that things could change, and that he would keep an open mind about it. He consistently ripped anyone who suggested otherwise. Much as he did in a recent debate about Kyle Seager, when he told a poster that he was completely wrong if he though Seager was a good hitter. No compromize, he was flat out wrong. I'll take Fister's "servicable" ability any day of the week. He might be a #3 starter in Detroit, be he'd be a #1 or #2 starter on several teams. And please, who gives a crap if he gets 200 strikeouts in 200 innings? Are you so much a stat geek that it is important? I'll take helping your team win every night he takes the mound. Baseball history is full of guys that didn't strikeout 200+ batters in 200+ innings. Now do you understand why some baseball purists dislike guys who let statistics rule their thought processes? Greg Maddux says hello. He only had one season with more than 200 strikeouts. |
| 16. By: DKulich44 on 10-21-2011 17:41:23 Ed, The tone of your post was my issue. You made it sound like that if you like stats, you're not a fan of the game. Re: Fister I think Fister's value should be evident in the return Seattle got back for him and Pauley. A fringe outfielder in Wells, decent bullpen arm in Ruffin, fringe starter in Furbush, and a prospect with a lot of holes in Martinez. If his upside was that of Greg Maddux, I'm pretty sure you'd have seen a lot more than that come back. And like I said, Fister has made a ton of adjustments to his style and gained velocity since the article was written. If you think Dave, Jeff, et al. blindly follow statistics, you couldn't be more wrong. They have an interest in them, just like a lot of people around here and around MLB do. Whether you enjoy them or not, statistics play a big part in the game and dismissing them as useless and hurtful to the game is somewhat ignorant. And as for the part of Cameron dismissing those who's opinions differ from his, he does that when the basis for the opposing argument is completely asinine. If you actually read his stuff, instead of bashing it, you'll see he is pretty well respected. As for your whole argument on statistics, anyone who blindly follows microsplits is doing exactly what most stat people don't. They're trusting a small sample. Anyway, I'm not here to change your opinion, as that's generally impossible. Just trying to show you that statistics are pretty useful when used correctly. Sure, they can end up wrong but so can scouting eye (Sean Burroughs says hi). |
| 17. By: d2ret on 10-21-2011 18:37:50 start the Darvish campaign!!!! Japanese dollars must stay in Seattle!! or yen.. |
| 18. By: Edman on 10-21-2011 18:59:47 DKulich44, you can not read my intent, even though nobody but you saw it that way? You go ahead and sell yourself on your own opinions about Fister. Nice way to downplay the trade. Bravo. I'm very aware of Dave's altering of statistics to match his preconceived bias. So no, he doesn't blindly process the data, he molds it to fit a desired result. He's done it for years. Since when did I dismiss statistics? They are valuable tool for evaluating players. But, they aren't the only tool. And, if you want to put yourself head-long into them, be my guest. I, like many, don't find a lot of value in it. But, you do. I'm good with that. So, Dave's rude and often childish response to "asinine" comments is fully acceptable. Who defines asinine? And do not lecture me on not reading his stuff. I've read much of it, and I've run into the same general attitude from those who worship him. Rush Limbaugh is well respected by his "dittoheads", but that doesn't make his opinion more right than others. If you want to live in the "one tool" world of stats, that's up to you. But, in the real world, it's the scouts that decipher what the stats guys identify. They don't use one tool, they use many. Both statistics and scouting included, and excluding neither. |
| 19. By: DKulich44 on 10-21-2011 19:19:11 Ed, If I wanted to live in the one world tool of stats, would I come here? I like to get knowledge from as many places as I possibly can, as do most "stats" guys. This notion that stats guys only care about what a guy does on a Tuesday when it rains in a domed stadium while their parents are in attendance is just the sort of thing most "stats" people argue against. I'm sorry I mistook your tone, but to me, it sounded like a post to say "Look at what stats have done, they ruin the game, and everyone that blindly follows them is dumb." Like I've seen so many times before. I apologize for that, and it was it was wrong of me. I do disagree with your opinion on Dave, as he's one of the better minds in the sport and just as, if not more, correct as anyone with most of his assessments. He doesn't just draw from stats, and I've learned more about baseball from guys like him and Tango than anyone else. Those type of people really changed the game. Anyway, my point was, baseball is fun for a lot of reasons. You have yours, I have mine. No need to bash the way people perceive it, call it useless, or criticize it unless it's completely off base. I like stats because I have all the access I could possibly imagine. I can't make it to see these players because I'm all the way on the other side of the country, but I can look at their results, read scouting reports, and form opinions. I really enjoy doing that, and so far, I feel like it's really strengthened my knowledge and appreciation for a sport I've loved since I started playing at 4 years old. |
| 20. By: aerichner on 10-21-2011 19:37:43 Yeah, Edman came off very dickish with that first comment, but that's not new. If you don't notice it maybe it's because you "worship" Edman like apparently some of us "worship" Dave Cameron. I only subscribe to the church of Chris Crawford! Holla!!!! Also, hope to read more from the two new writers. Good job, fellas. |
| 21. By: DKulich44 on 10-21-2011 19:40:32 Haha the Church of Chris Crawford is pretty fantastic. |
| 22. By: Chris Crawford on 10-21-2011 22:38:53 Peace be with you. |
| 23. By: DKulich44 on 10-22-2011 00:50:22 And good scouting be with you. So say we all. |
| 24. By: nighthawk180 on 10-22-2011 15:47:55 While I dont post very often this seems like a good time. I at one point in time on Dave's site been told I was wrong and stupid by not only Dave but 5 or 6 of his followers at that time. I simply disagreed with a trade idea at the time. It was about Langerhans if I remember right. My comment was along the lines as what could this 4th outfielder do to help this team. Something as simple as contesting a bench player trade and got bashed. Then we got him then the praise started hardcore. From that point on I read his articles but dont post because I have similar opinions as Edman. I like alot of his ideas too but some not so much. I like to see as many incites of the game as the rest of us on the M's blogosphere. I lean more to the traditional side scouting, coaches and whatnot but I dont completely think that stats are all that definitive. I think the stat community can go a little over board with some of them. For instance war makes no sense to me what so ever. What makes a 14-14 record (Felix) only worth 4.7 war? He won 14 games? Wins above replacement I get that but how many 10 game winners were there? Is that telling me that a replacement player last year was 10-10 or so. I would take as many as I could. I know many things are taken into account when considering war not just win/lose record which is a crappy example looking back at it but you get where Im going with this I hope. Then comparing War to money given is even more stupid. Wont go down that road. Some stats in my opinion are pretty for reaches to prove a point. Not all of course but some. Some I dont understand but others I do. I would like to become a Baseball Scout I must learn these stats along with judge and predicting performance but there are many things that stats cant judge. Who thought that Carp losing 30 or so pounds would make him a major league starter. There is no stat that could prove that. Yes Dave has some good ideas and Jason gets along with him and what not but I dont like some of his idea's but if I say that Im completely wrong. Why put that on a public setting and not expect someone whether right or wrong (within reason)shouldnt be shunned. Sry for the long post guys thx nighthawk180 |
| 25. By: nighthawk180 on 10-22-2011 15:51:38 Dont get what i meant at the end there but i hope you guys get my point. lol totally missed that idea sry. |
| 26. By: DKulich44 on 10-23-2011 12:20:20 You're defining WAR to yourself completely incorrectly. Pitcher WAR has nothing to do with wins and loss record, and everything to with how well a pitcher pitches compared to his peers. There are different ways to measure that, most using FIP as the stat that WAR is derived from. What Felix's 4.7 WAR this year means is he helped the Mariners win 4.7 more games than a "replacement level" pitcher would have (basically average of any arm that could be had for league minimum). WAR is a pretty valuable tool because you can use it to compare different positions to eachother on the same scale. Want to know if a short stop was as good as a left fielder? WAR is a good method of doing that. Taking it the next step and assigning money value let's us know what type of contracts a player deserves. Teams use systems like this to value players all the time. And of course statistics can't judge everything, no one is saying they can. But used correctly with good scouting and you can get a pretty good idea of a player. Sure, players break the mold and the models, but that happens with scouting reports just as much as it does with statistics. As for Dave's site being a "public setting", it's his site. It's more a classroom than an open forum. You wouldn't go into a college class and stand up, disagree with the professor without lack of solid data, and except to not make the professor a little mad right? Dave's site is what it is, and he choose it to not be an open forum. If you present a logical argument that's well constructed anyone over there will generally listen. Same with Lookout Landing. |
| 27. By: Edman on 10-23-2011 18:46:20 Classroom? Are you kidding me? And, your comment about "lacking solid data" is way off base. I know someone who posted there, who has a far superior grasp of baseball statistics, than Dave does. He explained his views, at the time, regarding Doug Fister, and was told he was off base, and banned. Who was right? You may see it as a classroom. But it's not. He's more like Sheldon on "The Big Bang Theory".....he dismisses anything that he doesn't agree with. And, if Dave's use of statistics were so valuable, he's be doing Tony B's job for the Mariners. He's a guy with an opinion, that uses statistics to validate them. And for the record, MLB teams use statistics to find kids for the scouts to evaluate, in most cases. Not the other way around. They still depend on evaluating skills by observation. |
Haven't created a Prospect Insider account yet? Sign up!
|
|
 |
|
|
| Copyright 2010 Prospect Insider | Created by AQ Central Prospect Insider is optimized for Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome |