This is great work, and work that I wish more writers would undertake with respect to the increasing use of statistical black boxes that you reference. I have a rule that writers and other members of sports media should not be allowed to use a statistic unless they can explain, at least at a rudimentary level, not "how" it works ("then you divide by 11.1...") but "why" it works ("and this makes sense because..."). Oh, and just saying that "everybody agrees this works" isn't sufficient.
Our society is increasingly and alarmingly a "plug and chug" one where supposed black box "truths" are proliferating while the number of people who understand why their numerical outputs are actually meaningful or predictive grows increasingly extinct. This piece reflects an elegant effort to take the road not taken and answer the "why" question. I so appreciate that.
Beyond that, a few observations. One of the more annoying and self-defeating aspects of sabermetrics and in part why it is held in such low regard with the baseball public is its elitist rejection of traditional counting stats. Counting stats are not only a crucial link to baseball's past, but they also highly relate to what a fan experiences at a game and the outcomes they are trying to understand. It's why they were created first because they were so logical.
A fan knows that a runner crossing the plate is an important event to the outcome, as is a player's hit driving other players across the plate. Counting them up makes sense. Fans also understand that home runs are inaccurately counted twice - both for a run scored and a run driven in despite producing only a single run - and that efficiency on a per plate appearance basis matters too. Counting stats have created a huge amount of understanding and fan interest.
It's ironic to me that in the rare instance when we need to show our work at the board and demonstrate how some complex baseball calculation works - we revert to counting stats because they are so fundamental to not only history but also of how we experience the game. They have organic credibility. Nobody sits in a seat at a game and thinks about WAR - they think about a HR, a strikeout, or an RBI. WAR is something that is created after the game by those who not only did not experience the game but are not even required to.
It's that linkage between fan experience and understanding that the sabermetric community seems to not fully appreciate. Unfortunately, it's not just baseball. As I watch the tragic Boeing 737 MAX saga unfold, I'm struck by how Boeing repeatedly ignored and rejected so many aeronautical engineering "counting stats" and, instead, looked to a black box solution that so few at the company or at the Regulatory bodies understood or could explain. It's why asking questions and figuring out our black boxes is so crucial instead of simply taking them at face value.
I come not to bury sabermetrics but to praise it and make it more responsive to fans. 45 year ago, Bill James did not reject counting stats - he embraced them. However, he used them in new, novel, and entertaining ways to reveal new truths to a wholly resistant baseball fan base. James was nothing if not a master politician seeking a revolution. He knew that publishing a book alone would not result in that revolution, which could only come through the logical, compelling, and persuasive words and ideas he articulated within its pages.
To that end, James understood his audience and that using the credibility of counting stats would help win over the public in ways that overly complex and counterintuitive formulae would not. It's why when he introduced his revised - and more accurate - Runs Created Formula, he noted that he rarely used it because its increased accuracy wasn't worth the added complexity. He connected with fans and explained to them - in their terms - why a revolution was necessary to advance understanding.
Today, unlike James, I often feel as if the sabermetric community is dismissive and at war (no pun intended) with average baseball fans. No longer in the business of convincing anyone of anything, they occasionally answer the "how" question when pressed while completely ignoring the "why." Your efforts here succeed on many levels. Like James, you understand the need to win the public over - not bludgeon them - and use their language and understanding to convince them of the case.
You're on the ball Grant. There are not even enough things out there explaining the 'why' question to an average fan. As far as the next level 'why,' there all too often ends up being almost nothing.
You do have a point with counting stats, because they're something that people can see happening. You can see somebody driving in a run, hitting a Home Run, etc.. They're very easy to understand, to the point of not even really requiring any explanation. When I went to my first baseball game, I had no conception of the meaning of the term RBI, but it didn't take very long to figure it out. There's the issue of there being no way to measure defence with counting stats (not well anyway), but that's neither here nor there.
On the other hand, I've now been watching baseball for years, and I'm still not 100% sure of what the term WAR means. I understand how I'm supposed to conceptualize it. The Angels have ten more wins with Mike Trout than they'd have with some AAA CF, but what does that mean? That's not something I can see. In fact, it's entirely hypothetical. There's nothing wrong with basing a stat off a hypothetical (EPA in football does the same thing, and it's a perfectly adequate statistic), but when it's so complicated as WAR already is, it only muddies things up even further.
The whole reason why numbers nerds like myself felt the need to move on from counting stats is that they simply don't explain season level performance very well, with the exception of ones like OBP and SLG, which is why they got to stay when all the other traditional numbers got kicked out of the smart baseball club. That's why new numbers had to come in, but you're right that somewhere along the line the traditional baseball fan got left behind and left out of the loop. The sad part is that it wouldn't take that long to get them back in the loop either, but baseball as an industry continuously elects not to do so.
In sum, even as a dyed in the wool numbers guy that finds the 'how' much easier to understand than the 'why' behind statistical stuff, the 'why' is leaps and bounds more important than the 'how' in terms of allowing people to actually understand what's happening, which should be your goal when creating (or even using) any statistic for any purpose.
No problem. I've been looking for an excuse to chat with you, or at least interact with you.
I've seen your comments around a few times. They all seem very insightful. Honestly, they make me wonder why you're not doing this Substack grift yourself. A lot of your comments I've seen are (at least) halfway to publishable pieces themselves. Regardless, most of them are rather definitive, and well proven statements, and are therefore difficult to respond to. Surely you don't get too many responses for that reason.
Thank you for your comments Grant (although please don't comment on anything I've ever written. You'll make me feel inadequate).
Gosh Robbie, I’m speechless…so, I will simply say a heartfelt “thank you” for those incredibly gracious comments.
Candidly, I am in awe of those who publish on Substack. To deliver terrific content virtually daily - and respond to the offbeat comments of people like me - is beyond impressive. As a retiree, I don’t think I have the drive any longer to do that sort of thing sufficiently well. It seems like a younger person’s game.
Alas, I think I will stay in my “Comments” lane for now. Having said that, your words of encouragement mean more than you know. It’s good to hear that others are at least reading the comments even if they don’t always agree. Thanks so much again and please feel free to reach out at any time.
This is great work, and work that I wish more writers would undertake with respect to the increasing use of statistical black boxes that you reference. I have a rule that writers and other members of sports media should not be allowed to use a statistic unless they can explain, at least at a rudimentary level, not "how" it works ("then you divide by 11.1...") but "why" it works ("and this makes sense because..."). Oh, and just saying that "everybody agrees this works" isn't sufficient.
Our society is increasingly and alarmingly a "plug and chug" one where supposed black box "truths" are proliferating while the number of people who understand why their numerical outputs are actually meaningful or predictive grows increasingly extinct. This piece reflects an elegant effort to take the road not taken and answer the "why" question. I so appreciate that.
Beyond that, a few observations. One of the more annoying and self-defeating aspects of sabermetrics and in part why it is held in such low regard with the baseball public is its elitist rejection of traditional counting stats. Counting stats are not only a crucial link to baseball's past, but they also highly relate to what a fan experiences at a game and the outcomes they are trying to understand. It's why they were created first because they were so logical.
A fan knows that a runner crossing the plate is an important event to the outcome, as is a player's hit driving other players across the plate. Counting them up makes sense. Fans also understand that home runs are inaccurately counted twice - both for a run scored and a run driven in despite producing only a single run - and that efficiency on a per plate appearance basis matters too. Counting stats have created a huge amount of understanding and fan interest.
It's ironic to me that in the rare instance when we need to show our work at the board and demonstrate how some complex baseball calculation works - we revert to counting stats because they are so fundamental to not only history but also of how we experience the game. They have organic credibility. Nobody sits in a seat at a game and thinks about WAR - they think about a HR, a strikeout, or an RBI. WAR is something that is created after the game by those who not only did not experience the game but are not even required to.
It's that linkage between fan experience and understanding that the sabermetric community seems to not fully appreciate. Unfortunately, it's not just baseball. As I watch the tragic Boeing 737 MAX saga unfold, I'm struck by how Boeing repeatedly ignored and rejected so many aeronautical engineering "counting stats" and, instead, looked to a black box solution that so few at the company or at the Regulatory bodies understood or could explain. It's why asking questions and figuring out our black boxes is so crucial instead of simply taking them at face value.
I come not to bury sabermetrics but to praise it and make it more responsive to fans. 45 year ago, Bill James did not reject counting stats - he embraced them. However, he used them in new, novel, and entertaining ways to reveal new truths to a wholly resistant baseball fan base. James was nothing if not a master politician seeking a revolution. He knew that publishing a book alone would not result in that revolution, which could only come through the logical, compelling, and persuasive words and ideas he articulated within its pages.
To that end, James understood his audience and that using the credibility of counting stats would help win over the public in ways that overly complex and counterintuitive formulae would not. It's why when he introduced his revised - and more accurate - Runs Created Formula, he noted that he rarely used it because its increased accuracy wasn't worth the added complexity. He connected with fans and explained to them - in their terms - why a revolution was necessary to advance understanding.
Today, unlike James, I often feel as if the sabermetric community is dismissive and at war (no pun intended) with average baseball fans. No longer in the business of convincing anyone of anything, they occasionally answer the "how" question when pressed while completely ignoring the "why." Your efforts here succeed on many levels. Like James, you understand the need to win the public over - not bludgeon them - and use their language and understanding to convince them of the case.
Thanks again for a great piece.
You're on the ball Grant. There are not even enough things out there explaining the 'why' question to an average fan. As far as the next level 'why,' there all too often ends up being almost nothing.
You do have a point with counting stats, because they're something that people can see happening. You can see somebody driving in a run, hitting a Home Run, etc.. They're very easy to understand, to the point of not even really requiring any explanation. When I went to my first baseball game, I had no conception of the meaning of the term RBI, but it didn't take very long to figure it out. There's the issue of there being no way to measure defence with counting stats (not well anyway), but that's neither here nor there.
On the other hand, I've now been watching baseball for years, and I'm still not 100% sure of what the term WAR means. I understand how I'm supposed to conceptualize it. The Angels have ten more wins with Mike Trout than they'd have with some AAA CF, but what does that mean? That's not something I can see. In fact, it's entirely hypothetical. There's nothing wrong with basing a stat off a hypothetical (EPA in football does the same thing, and it's a perfectly adequate statistic), but when it's so complicated as WAR already is, it only muddies things up even further.
The whole reason why numbers nerds like myself felt the need to move on from counting stats is that they simply don't explain season level performance very well, with the exception of ones like OBP and SLG, which is why they got to stay when all the other traditional numbers got kicked out of the smart baseball club. That's why new numbers had to come in, but you're right that somewhere along the line the traditional baseball fan got left behind and left out of the loop. The sad part is that it wouldn't take that long to get them back in the loop either, but baseball as an industry continuously elects not to do so.
In sum, even as a dyed in the wool numbers guy that finds the 'how' much easier to understand than the 'why' behind statistical stuff, the 'why' is leaps and bounds more important than the 'how' in terms of allowing people to actually understand what's happening, which should be your goal when creating (or even using) any statistic for any purpose.
Thanks so much for taking the time to read my comments and offer your gracious and generous comments.
No problem. I've been looking for an excuse to chat with you, or at least interact with you.
I've seen your comments around a few times. They all seem very insightful. Honestly, they make me wonder why you're not doing this Substack grift yourself. A lot of your comments I've seen are (at least) halfway to publishable pieces themselves. Regardless, most of them are rather definitive, and well proven statements, and are therefore difficult to respond to. Surely you don't get too many responses for that reason.
Thank you for your comments Grant (although please don't comment on anything I've ever written. You'll make me feel inadequate).
Gosh Robbie, I’m speechless…so, I will simply say a heartfelt “thank you” for those incredibly gracious comments.
Candidly, I am in awe of those who publish on Substack. To deliver terrific content virtually daily - and respond to the offbeat comments of people like me - is beyond impressive. As a retiree, I don’t think I have the drive any longer to do that sort of thing sufficiently well. It seems like a younger person’s game.
Alas, I think I will stay in my “Comments” lane for now. Having said that, your words of encouragement mean more than you know. It’s good to hear that others are at least reading the comments even if they don’t always agree. Thanks so much again and please feel free to reach out at any time.