There is no such thing as a stats vs. scouting debate
ByI did not make up that headline. I believe it, but other people have said it before me. Stats can tell you some things, scouting a player can tell you others. Some people take either extreme, but I think that for the most part we understand that both are necessary components of the game. Keith Law demonstrated this today. He revealed his Cy Young ballot and presented his rationale for picking Tim Lincecum.
Lincecum led the NL in FIP (Fielding Independent Pitching) and WAR (Wins Above Replacement), both of which normalize a pitcher’s stats to account for the help he received from his defense, and he led both categories by wide margins. He also led the NL in VORP, which adjusts for park but not for defense, by a narrow margin.
Law was trained as a scout during his tenure in Toronto, and continues to act in that capacity today for Scouts, Inc./ESPN. Yet he uses advanced metrics in justifying his ballot. He understands the value of both, because he’s familiar with the benefits of both. I wish there were more writers like that.
20 Comments»
RAB Info
The Founders
Mike Axisa, Ben Kabak, Joe Pawlikowski
Editor-In-Chief
Mike Axisa Archives | Email
Managing Editors
Ben Kabak Archives | E-mail
Joe Pawlikowski Archives | E-mail
Contributing Editors
Larry Koestler (Archives)
Moshe Mandel (Archives)
Stephen Rhoads (Archives)
Weekend Writers
Hannah Ehrlich (Archives)
Matthew Warden (Archives)
Special Contributor
J.R. O'Grady (Archives)
Technical Consultant
Jay Gordon
Subscribe to RAB by RSS and Twitter
Follow @RiverAveBlues Search RAB
Banner Design By
The Mason Williams Watch
Principal Skinner: It was all a ruse, Simpson! There’s no such thing as “Scotchtoberfest”.
Groundskeeper Willy: ACH, YOU USED ME, SKINNER!
scotchtoberfest sounds like something out of my johnny walker blue drinking wet dreams….
WALKER BLUE!!!
this will end badly.
(golf clap)
http://prettyboring.com/files/....._mouth.jpg (NSFW–Profanity)
Wainwright had the most wins on the best team! He should’ve won!
/FJM
//No really, fire Joe Morgan.
Carpenter led the NL in WPA and WPA/LI. I give him the NL Pitching MVP.
I like that he gave 2nd place props to Javy Vazquez.
He seems to have been neglected in the articles I’ve read that said Lincecum beat out “the pair of Cardinals.”
They all four had great seasons, but Javy’s was 2nd best.
Carpenter had some better rate stats, but in 25ish less innings.
5.41K/BB ratio?? Damn Javy! Beat out the whole group in that category, and his name wasn’t mentioned *in whatever I’ve come across* nearly often enough. Dude just got no voting love. Booooo.
In a related story, wouldn’t this puppy make a great bong?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/g.....681570613/
In a related story, wouldn’t this puppy make a great bong?
After reading that line, but before clicking on the photo, I was thinking why would you turn a puppy into a bong and how in hell would you do it?
It’s not a dog, and it wasn’t turned into a bong, but I just can’t wait the 25 minutes for the open thread…so…
http://stay-at-home-dog.blogsp.....-beer.html
In a related story, I’m thinking about making a bacon and fritos pot pie.
/not really
//no interest in hierba
Maybe I could interest you in some curried grits?
I suppose with some tubing you could rig it up to be a hookah. Bong, though, I’m not sure is feasible.
By the way, we should call any tangential remark relating to marijuana JoePawl baiting. Just sayin’.
Eh, you’re not the only one.
Fortunately, I live where the sick people are allowed their med-cin.
Plus, I use the term ‘bong’ loosely. I wasn’t sure I was in the presence of such a connoisseur.
If you’re ever on the Left Coast, I’d be honored to host you in some ‘festivities.’
That’s fine, just spurn my generous offer…
Law is a tremendous writer.
I don’t think you could go wrong choosing any of the three in the NL and Greinke or Felix in the AL.
I’ve been dying for this thread, but was unable to access RAB last night and instead argued via Twitter with Victor Rojas, which was just a mistake.
First off, I wish all writers had the sense in their brains that Keith Law and Will Carroll do. At least they take the time to rationalize their votes and don’t just go along with the consensus top 3 based on ERA, Ws, and geriatric baseball metrics.
Carpenter should have appeared on no ballots. Zero. Ubaldo Jimenez had a better year than he did, but because the mediots hyped Carpenter since the break, he was going to be on a ton of ballots.
Jon Heyman and Victor Rojas go and call out Law and Carroll via Twitter, with Heyman going as far as calling them “dumb sports writers”. This is exactly why so many fans have so little respect for so much of the BBWAA.
Just citing WAR, because it’s a good aggregation and overall view of a player’s season contributions, I cited Haren and Vazquez having a better year than Carpenter (only so much you can do in 140 characters). Rojas comes back with “number r used to justify ones point…but before u even go to WAR; Haren (3.14 era) 2nd half: 5-5 4.62 & gave up 103 H in 99 1/3 IP” following up with “Haren lights out 1st half but wasn’t consistent. Carp in half, only 10-1, 2.06 80k/109IP – u need to trust ur eyes not just #s”
Of course the trusting eyes argument of course comes into play, yet Rojas cites statistics, flawed ones at that. He argues Carpenter is more consistent, but only cites 2nd half numbers. And he just discredits WAR for ERA. Not even ERA+, ERA.
At least Heyman had the class to apologize for his “dumb sports writers” comment. Rojas is officially garbage in my book.
Where are the writers attacking homers and fanboy writers for their votes? This holier than thou, b.s. nostalgia eminating from these mediots around baseball is beyond ridiculous. I wish I had the resolve to be like some of you here and just say screw the awards, but when they cite them for future HOF decisions, it gets frustrating when you see a Jim Rice go in and you have to fight for a Bert Blyleven and eventually a Mike Mussina.
And I’m done. Thank you for the thread, Joe. I needed that.
One of the problems of using stats vs your eyes is the selective nature of the stats that you use. I get the impression that this is another example of somebody using stats selectively to support their POV and not an example of a consistent application of this process. Any one with ESPN is of very dubious credibility ( Mr’s Phillips, Reynolds, etc) They are not exactly interested in advancing the sport but rather stroking their egos, along with some other things.