The worst stats in baseball and why!
Posted 11-01-2011 at 03:40 PM by bravos4evr
Howdy folks, with all of the recent grumblings about the Braves due to the epic sep. collapse I have seen a lot of finger pointing and blame gaming going on and much of it built around a poor understanding of modern statistics and a hangup on the old stats you found on the back of a baseball card growing up. (not as much on here really as on a certain AJC writers blog... eeesh)
So i figured I would point out the worst stats in baseball and why they are worthless. Be prepared as most of these are the stats many of you grew up with. It's not that they are "bad" per se, but they either don't tell the entire story , or have been replaced with something better!
1) Batting Average- This is probably the most used stat in the game still. It pops up on the screen (though some broadcasts now feature OBP) when you watch the game, casual fans still see it as THE stat to determine who is the better hitter. The problem is, it only tells us one bit of information. How often the player got a hit when compared to his total number of at bats.
The problem with this is that players don't just get a hit or make an out. They can walk, get hit by a pitch or reach by an error. Being that errors are not related to hitting skill , let's ignore that part.
The most important thing a hitter can do is not make an out. So a walk is much better than an out it's the same as a single with no one on base and it allows the following hitter to have an RBI chance. So walks are very important and the ability to take walks is signs of a good hitter.
For example:
Player A hits .300 and has a .320 OBP
Player B hits .275 and has a .370 OBP
Obviously player B is a much better hitter, as he reaches base much more often and gives his team more chances to score runs.
Now the second best thing a player can do is hit for extra bases. Batting avg doesn't express this either, it just shows that he got a hit. But SLG% shows how many bases per AB the player got. Example *same players from above)
Player A hits .300 and had a SLG% of .420
Player B hits .275 and had a SLG of .500
Player B again is the preferable hitter as he hits for more power, advances base runners further and contributes to more run scoring.
Now you combine OBP and SLG% and you get OPS which is not perfect but is at least a better stat to use if you have to use one stat than batting avg. (wOBA and RC+ are better, but they are some deep diving stats which may take a bit to get familiar with)
So forget about batting avg as THE hitting stat and at least use OPS.
2) RBI's- RBI's may be THE SINGLE MOST OVERRATED STAT IN THE GAME!!!
RBI's have been used,wrongly, to determine what players are run producers. But what it actually determines is the quality level of the players who hit in front of said batter. You can't drive in runs if nobody is on in front of you and having runs on in front of you isn't a skill that can be attributed to you! it's more symbolic of the TEAM'S offensive ability.
Example: 2 players each have an OPS of .900
Player A plays for the Mariners and has 82 RBI's
Player B plays for the Yankees and has 120 RBI's. Is Player B better? no he just had more chances to drive in runs than Player A.
This season Mark Texiera had an OPS of .835 and close to career lows in avg/OBP and SLg yet he had 111 RBI's! Compare this with Ryan Braun who had an OPS of .994 and career highs in all 3 and also had 111 RBI's! I don't think it's a stretch to say Braun was much better than Tex this year. But to some , the RBI total would say they were equally productive! Not true.
There really is no saber stat to use instead of RBI's, just don't use it. Focus on the stats I listed under Batting avg instead!
3) Wins- The RBI stat for pitchers!
Wins for pitchers has been used forever as a symbol of their season. If a guy won 20 games he must've been good eh? Well the answer is generally yes a pitcher must've been good to win 20 games. However, it doesn't mean he was better than a guy who won 15 games ... or 12 games!
Wins are contingent on some very specific parameters. Pitcher must go at least 5 innings and leave with the lead. The problem with this is even if he leaves the game in the 8th with a 9-0 lead and the Bullpen blows it, yet the team comes back to win.. He gets a no decision, though he just went 8 scoreless innings! Whereas a crummy pitcher can go 5 1/3 giving up 6 runs and because his offense is a monster, he wins 9-6!! One got the win but he is obviously not a better pitcher!
The best pitchers are determined by park adjusted ERA(ERA+) and fielding independent pitching(park adjusted) xFIP. These stats measure the things that pitchers have control of. In fact if you look at a pitcher and see his ERA is say 3.20 in July but his FIP is 4.30 you can expect him to regress a bit so those two numbers end up closer together. of course the larger the sample size the more accurate (as an example, Maddux career ERA 3.16 career FIP 3.10) Now I know these look kinda weird, but trust me , they are a better way to see who was the best pitcher this year. Verlander ha an FIP of 2.99 this year yet even though everyone thinks he could win the MVP and the cy young, he's only the 11th lowest in the category in MLB and the 4th highest in the AL! Yet he won 24 games and had an ERA of 2.40. I think CC Sabathia actually deserves the Cy Young as he was lower in almost everything but wins and ERA... (and Verlanders bABIP shows he was very lucky)
But anyway, ignore win totals, they mean very little about how good a pitcher was! Brandon Macarthy was amazing for the A's yet his record was 9-9 why? His team stinks at scoring runs!
4)SAVES!
We all love saves. We all like seeing the fireballer come out in the 9th and shut it down. But I'm going to tell you how worthless the save stat is and why. But first let's determine how a save is awarded !
A pitcher is credited with a save when he finishes a game won by his club, is not the winning pitcher, and either (a) enters the game with a lead of no more than three runs and pitches for at least one inning, (b) enters the game with the potential tying run either on base, or at bat, or on deck, or (c) pitches effectively for at least three innings.
Well, (A) seems to be awfully broad. How much stress is there really with a 3 run lead and no one on base? Not much i wouldn't think yet the avg closer will encounter this scenario 20-25 times a year and be rewarded for it by making 10 times more than another reliever! Hardly seems fair
(B) Now that's a stressfull save, success at this would of course dictate greater pay and hype
(C) hardly ever happens and though silly in a way, doesn't occur often enough to make a difference stats wise.
Now if they had some sort of TRUE SAVES stat like Jim Caple and others have suggested that would only award a save with a one run lead in the 9th or entering the game with the tying runs on base THEN Saves would be worth a darn! But it's hard to say that this closer is best cus he had 52 saves, when 28 of em were with 3 run leads!
So how to determine who was the best closer? There is a lot of debate about this. But ERA and FIP really don't work due to the small sample size of innings and that often relievers come in with other pitchers baserunners on. If those guys score, well it doesn't hurt their ERA!
I am of the opinion that the most important thing a closer can do is not allow baserunners. You do this by striking guys out and not walking them. They can't score if they never touch first right?
I would suggest looking at 3 different things:
1) a K/9 ration of 7.5 or higher (the higher the better)
2) a BB/9 of 3.50 or lower (lower the better)
3) the lowest % of inherited runners scoring (this is more important for non closers guys like setup men and such) you could also look at K/BB ratio... same thing
4)finally look at the total innings pitched versus the above stats, the more innings a guy goes and maintains close to the above numbers the better he is.
Kimbrel had a k/9 of 14.84 (wow!!!) he had a BB/9 of 3.74 over 77 innings and 46 saves (K/BB ratio of 3.97
Valverde had 49 saves a K/9 of 8.59 and a BB/9 of 4.23 over 72 innings (obviously Kimbrel was better) K/BB ratio of 2.03
JJ Putz had 45 saves a K/9 of 9.47 a BB/9 of 1.86 over 58 innings K/BB ratio of 5.1
Now Putz had a great year. but I'm not 100% he would have maintained his K/BB ratio over an additional 19 innings. I'm not saying Kimbrel's year was better, but I think they are close.
Okey Dokey! I hope this helped you understand a little bit how some of the old baseball card stats have been made a bit , well... obsolete and I hope that i've opened you up to some new and better ways of observing and measuring the game we all love!
Make sure and comment at the bottom if you read this feedback is always appreciated!
So i figured I would point out the worst stats in baseball and why they are worthless. Be prepared as most of these are the stats many of you grew up with. It's not that they are "bad" per se, but they either don't tell the entire story , or have been replaced with something better!
1) Batting Average- This is probably the most used stat in the game still. It pops up on the screen (though some broadcasts now feature OBP) when you watch the game, casual fans still see it as THE stat to determine who is the better hitter. The problem is, it only tells us one bit of information. How often the player got a hit when compared to his total number of at bats.
The problem with this is that players don't just get a hit or make an out. They can walk, get hit by a pitch or reach by an error. Being that errors are not related to hitting skill , let's ignore that part.
The most important thing a hitter can do is not make an out. So a walk is much better than an out it's the same as a single with no one on base and it allows the following hitter to have an RBI chance. So walks are very important and the ability to take walks is signs of a good hitter.
For example:
Player A hits .300 and has a .320 OBP
Player B hits .275 and has a .370 OBP
Obviously player B is a much better hitter, as he reaches base much more often and gives his team more chances to score runs.
Now the second best thing a player can do is hit for extra bases. Batting avg doesn't express this either, it just shows that he got a hit. But SLG% shows how many bases per AB the player got. Example *same players from above)
Player A hits .300 and had a SLG% of .420
Player B hits .275 and had a SLG of .500
Player B again is the preferable hitter as he hits for more power, advances base runners further and contributes to more run scoring.
Now you combine OBP and SLG% and you get OPS which is not perfect but is at least a better stat to use if you have to use one stat than batting avg. (wOBA and RC+ are better, but they are some deep diving stats which may take a bit to get familiar with)
So forget about batting avg as THE hitting stat and at least use OPS.
2) RBI's- RBI's may be THE SINGLE MOST OVERRATED STAT IN THE GAME!!!
RBI's have been used,wrongly, to determine what players are run producers. But what it actually determines is the quality level of the players who hit in front of said batter. You can't drive in runs if nobody is on in front of you and having runs on in front of you isn't a skill that can be attributed to you! it's more symbolic of the TEAM'S offensive ability.
Example: 2 players each have an OPS of .900
Player A plays for the Mariners and has 82 RBI's
Player B plays for the Yankees and has 120 RBI's. Is Player B better? no he just had more chances to drive in runs than Player A.
This season Mark Texiera had an OPS of .835 and close to career lows in avg/OBP and SLg yet he had 111 RBI's! Compare this with Ryan Braun who had an OPS of .994 and career highs in all 3 and also had 111 RBI's! I don't think it's a stretch to say Braun was much better than Tex this year. But to some , the RBI total would say they were equally productive! Not true.
There really is no saber stat to use instead of RBI's, just don't use it. Focus on the stats I listed under Batting avg instead!
3) Wins- The RBI stat for pitchers!
Wins for pitchers has been used forever as a symbol of their season. If a guy won 20 games he must've been good eh? Well the answer is generally yes a pitcher must've been good to win 20 games. However, it doesn't mean he was better than a guy who won 15 games ... or 12 games!
Wins are contingent on some very specific parameters. Pitcher must go at least 5 innings and leave with the lead. The problem with this is even if he leaves the game in the 8th with a 9-0 lead and the Bullpen blows it, yet the team comes back to win.. He gets a no decision, though he just went 8 scoreless innings! Whereas a crummy pitcher can go 5 1/3 giving up 6 runs and because his offense is a monster, he wins 9-6!! One got the win but he is obviously not a better pitcher!
The best pitchers are determined by park adjusted ERA(ERA+) and fielding independent pitching(park adjusted) xFIP. These stats measure the things that pitchers have control of. In fact if you look at a pitcher and see his ERA is say 3.20 in July but his FIP is 4.30 you can expect him to regress a bit so those two numbers end up closer together. of course the larger the sample size the more accurate (as an example, Maddux career ERA 3.16 career FIP 3.10) Now I know these look kinda weird, but trust me , they are a better way to see who was the best pitcher this year. Verlander ha an FIP of 2.99 this year yet even though everyone thinks he could win the MVP and the cy young, he's only the 11th lowest in the category in MLB and the 4th highest in the AL! Yet he won 24 games and had an ERA of 2.40. I think CC Sabathia actually deserves the Cy Young as he was lower in almost everything but wins and ERA... (and Verlanders bABIP shows he was very lucky)
But anyway, ignore win totals, they mean very little about how good a pitcher was! Brandon Macarthy was amazing for the A's yet his record was 9-9 why? His team stinks at scoring runs!
4)SAVES!
We all love saves. We all like seeing the fireballer come out in the 9th and shut it down. But I'm going to tell you how worthless the save stat is and why. But first let's determine how a save is awarded !
A pitcher is credited with a save when he finishes a game won by his club, is not the winning pitcher, and either (a) enters the game with a lead of no more than three runs and pitches for at least one inning, (b) enters the game with the potential tying run either on base, or at bat, or on deck, or (c) pitches effectively for at least three innings.
Well, (A) seems to be awfully broad. How much stress is there really with a 3 run lead and no one on base? Not much i wouldn't think yet the avg closer will encounter this scenario 20-25 times a year and be rewarded for it by making 10 times more than another reliever! Hardly seems fair
(B) Now that's a stressfull save, success at this would of course dictate greater pay and hype
(C) hardly ever happens and though silly in a way, doesn't occur often enough to make a difference stats wise.
Now if they had some sort of TRUE SAVES stat like Jim Caple and others have suggested that would only award a save with a one run lead in the 9th or entering the game with the tying runs on base THEN Saves would be worth a darn! But it's hard to say that this closer is best cus he had 52 saves, when 28 of em were with 3 run leads!
So how to determine who was the best closer? There is a lot of debate about this. But ERA and FIP really don't work due to the small sample size of innings and that often relievers come in with other pitchers baserunners on. If those guys score, well it doesn't hurt their ERA!
I am of the opinion that the most important thing a closer can do is not allow baserunners. You do this by striking guys out and not walking them. They can't score if they never touch first right?
I would suggest looking at 3 different things:
1) a K/9 ration of 7.5 or higher (the higher the better)
2) a BB/9 of 3.50 or lower (lower the better)
3) the lowest % of inherited runners scoring (this is more important for non closers guys like setup men and such) you could also look at K/BB ratio... same thing
4)finally look at the total innings pitched versus the above stats, the more innings a guy goes and maintains close to the above numbers the better he is.
Kimbrel had a k/9 of 14.84 (wow!!!) he had a BB/9 of 3.74 over 77 innings and 46 saves (K/BB ratio of 3.97
Valverde had 49 saves a K/9 of 8.59 and a BB/9 of 4.23 over 72 innings (obviously Kimbrel was better) K/BB ratio of 2.03
JJ Putz had 45 saves a K/9 of 9.47 a BB/9 of 1.86 over 58 innings K/BB ratio of 5.1
Now Putz had a great year. but I'm not 100% he would have maintained his K/BB ratio over an additional 19 innings. I'm not saying Kimbrel's year was better, but I think they are close.
Okey Dokey! I hope this helped you understand a little bit how some of the old baseball card stats have been made a bit , well... obsolete and I hope that i've opened you up to some new and better ways of observing and measuring the game we all love!
Make sure and comment at the bottom if you read this feedback is always appreciated!
Total Comments 4
Comments
-
As I mentioned in another thread, AVG is not a tell-all stat, but it is important, since it provides the majority of your OBP and SLG%.
As far as the AL Cy Young, Verlander deserves it. The award was for the best pitcher, not the expected best pitcher. The 2 are virtually tied in FIP WAR, but Verlander was 1.7 RA WAR ahead of Sabathia. The only time I use FIP WAR in Cy Young balloting is when their RA WAR are nearly identical. Basically, I treat it like the Most Valuable Pitcher Award. If a pitcher has a really low BABIP, he won't sustain it for next year, but he was quite valuable this season.
As far as relievers go, Fangraphs has shutdowns and meltdowns. If a reliever's WPA is higher than .06, he gets a shutdown. If it's lower than -.06, he gets a meltdown. Venters led the majors with 47 shutdowns, with only 6 meltdowns. Kimbrel had a 35/10 ratio. I don't believe it shows true talent level, but it is a better way of showing how effective a reliever was.Posted 11-01-2011 at 05:30 PM by LeeTro 
-
good point on verlander
Posted 11-01-2011 at 09:11 PM by bravos4evr
-
BTW, my point, which I fell you inferred, was the use of these baseball card stats as the be all and end all was foolish and not accurate. Not that they hold no merit. If I had to choose between 2 players with a .380 OBP , one has a .300 batting avg and one has a .280 I would choose the .300 guy. He creates more runs, but batting avg on it's own is , well...useless
Posted 11-02-2011 at 01:34 AM by bravos4evr
-
"If on-base percentage is so important, then why don't they put it up on the scoreboard?"
-Jeff Francoeur
Smart guy
To add to the worst stats...fielding percentage, errors, runs scored, and boogers picked.
Bobby Cox led the league in that latter category, but was it really something that had any impact on the game itself?
/might have boogers picked and ejections mixed up...Posted 11-02-2011 at 11:10 AM by Dreamscape
