Billy Traber

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Stats are worthless

By Billy Traber

Aug 26, 2001, 11:44

 

Email this article

Printer friendly page

 

As it happens every year the season is rapidly coming to a close. Now is the time for reflection upon all the hard work that you have put forth in making that year possible. For myself, this year was all about surviving the ups and downs that the season puts on your dinner plate every night. But instead of citing each of those occasions bit by bit I'm going to take a different approach. Yah, I've decided to tell you (the reader) how I myself evaluate the season, and why I choose to evaluate the way I do.

 

The first thing (as a pitcher or a position player) always looks for is the statistics. Everyone feels that this is the backbone to a good season. Personally, I throw those numbers away as hard as I can because I know that they don't mean a thing. Yah, that's right WORTHLESS! Everyone is so caught up in this ESPN statistical jargon that they feel this is the bottom line to all of baseball. Its not. There are so many things players do everyday which will never be shown on paper to be positive unless they're batting .300 or have less than a 1.00 ERA. Many things go unseen throughout the course of a season because people aren't watching that carefully. They're too wrapped up in their power numbers, or some other irrelevant numbers. Statistics get me a bit fired up because it allows anyone to judge you without even seeing you.

 

Alright, the ranting and raving will stop now I promise. Some of the things I judge myself on are pretty simple. One thing I always check is whether or not I consistently made good pitches. I do this after every time I pitch, and it's important because it leads into my next goal: whether or not I kept my team in the ball. This is easily the most important goal. You should always base your performance on whether you gave your team a chance to win, or if you were detrimental to the loss. That's something only you yourself can answer. No one can tell you about those except yourself which is why they are so important. If you can answer those two goals positively almost every time then you can leave the field knowing you did everything you could to win.

 

 

 

? Copyright 2000-2003 by Star Struck's ATTHEYARD.COM

 

http://www.attheyard.com/artman/publish/article_45.shtml

I read the title. That's enough.

 

This man is an idiot.

this guy is dumb- a 1.00 era haha.

 

what a crock of s*** :thumbdown

i think the article make valid points dood..

I wouldn't say that stats are "worthless", but I do believe that they are somewhat overrated.

pass the crack my way

just looking at stats, and not knowing a player's name, or anything else about him, i can build a team guarenteed to go the playoffs. just looking at intangibles, i can't do crap.

just looking at stats, and not knowing a player's name, or anything else about him, i can build a team guarenteed to go the playoffs. just looking at intangibles, i can't do crap.

Maybe on the Yankees' budget. Home field advantage, injury risk, lefty-right mix are all intangibles (and respected by the sabermetric orthodoxy) that play a big role over the course of 162 games.

just looking at stats, and not knowing a player's name, or anything else about him, i can build a team guarenteed to go the playoffs. just looking at intangibles, i can't do crap.

Maybe on the Yankees' budget. Home field advantage, injury risk, lefty-right mix are all intangibles (and respected by the sabermetric orthodoxy) that play a big role over the course of 162 games. Not true, we are so inefficient, we still consider stats, so a stat-less team can't even survive on an absurd payroll.

 

 

However, the minnesota twins are built around contact, defense, and untangibles...they are in a weak division though.

and the Twins weak, out of division record (esp against NY, TOR, BOS, OAK, SEA, ANA) shows that they're lacking. one of their major problems is Jacque Jones leading off. right there you're massivly hindering your run production. i'd rather have LeCroy, Stewart, or Mientkiewicz leading off. Jones is a prototype 5 or 6 hole hitter.

 

i like aspects of the Twins philopsohy, but i think they need to work more on their plate discipline at a lower level. they have some guys there right now with amazing discipline, but it's just a natural ability, they weren't sought out for that, so it's kinda flukey.

plate discipline can be learned. Look at sammy sosa.

 

However, i never understood why high average relatively low on base guys were amde to hit lead off. You need that high average to move ahead runners, not get runners on base. Tony gwynn was wasted for years leading off.

plate discipline can be learned. Look at sammy sosa.

 

However, i never understood why high average relatively low on base guys were amde to hit lead off. You need that high average to move ahead runners, not get runners on base. Tony gwynn was wasted for years leading off.

exactly. but other than Sammy, can you name 10 hitters since 1993 who have developed plate discipline when they started out with none? it's one of those things that's nearly impossible to learn. personally, i see and IsoD improvement of 030 being a significant improvement, so that's your guideline if you feel like looking for more people who developled discipline. and another thing to consider is, how many of those who developed the discipline have monster power? something to consider then would be how much of that discipline is pitcher's pitching around a hitter. that happens to Sammy, but i've been watching him for 13 years, and he's a lot more than pitcher's just being careful.

 

Tony Gwynn to me was the ideal 2 or 3 hole hitter.

Gwynn is a great 3 hitter if you had a good on base guy behind him, because Gwynn was a contact hitter, and that man behind him forces the pitcher to throw strikes. Imagine 2002 Barry Bonds batting fourth and 1994 Tony Gwynn batting third! Gwynn would probably bat .450! He would be a good two hitter too because he had speed in his legs earlier in his career.

 

 

Anyhow, I cannot think of anyone who developed discipline besides sammy. Soriano's OBP increased even though his avearge went down 10 points and he still hit 38 homers. He also cut down on Ks. However, will that continue? Probably not, but there is a small chance.

Anyhow, I cannot think of anyone who developed discipline besides sammy. Soriano's OBP increased even though his avearge went down 10 points and he still hit 38 homers. He also cut down on Ks. However, will that continue? Probably not, but there is a small chance.

and that's exactly my point. i think there's about a 1 in 200 chance of a player learning plate discipline. i believe that it is more of a natural ability.

 

 

 

about Tony Gwyn with Bonds, i think he would have cleared 400, but i don't think it would have been quite 450...he probably would have scored about 160 runs though.

Oh, definitely .400. But remember, who was hitting behind gwynn that season? I know, probably not .450, but look how Kent was helped by batting ahead of Bonds.

behind Gwyn was Phil Plantier and David Bell.

phil batted .220 and david bell did not start playing until 1995.

Not true, we are so inefficient, we still consider stats, so a stat-less team can't even survive on an absurd payroll.

I should have known that was going to garner a response from you. I meant if you had no payroll constraints, and were starting from scratch. If had to try his experiment over the course of a few seasons he'd have to evaluate injury risk, playing to the home park's strengths, and a player's ambition in contract years.

phil batted .220 and david bell did not start playing until 1995.

my mistake. i saw D Bell and just put David there. it's Derek Bell. who in 94 hit 311/354/454/808.

ur all wrong.

 

jacque jones is a prototype 3rd or 6th hitter and u could make a case fer leadof.

 

2nd tony gwin use to be skinny and run fast and thas why he was leadoff. and taht was teh right decision. u dont bat a a .350 hitter that hit 5-10 hrs that can steal base newhere else dood. latre on his career he became a 3 hitter but he not a 2 hitter.

"it's Derek Bell. who in 94 hit 311/354/454/808."

 

That's not really good protection if you ask me!

 

And no pubes for brains, gwynn with speed should of not been leading off because his ability to move ahead runners was too important.

 

2nd would of been fine.

2nd tony gwin use to be skinny and run fast and thas why he was leadoff. and taht was teh right decision. u dont bat a a .350 hitter that hit 5-10 hrs that can steal base newhere else dood. latre on his career he became a 3 hitter but he not a 2 hitter.

don't the Marlins do that with Castillo?

2nd tony gwin use to be skinny and run fast and thas why he was leadoff.? and taht was teh right decision.? u dont bat a a .350 hitter that hit 5-10 hrs that can steal base newhere else dood. latre on his career he became a 3 hitter but he not a 2 hitter.

don't the Marlins do that with Castillo? Yeah, but remember Castillo started out the year leading off.

 

There have been studies that suggest you should put your best batter in 2-hole (and not limit him to moving the runner on sacrifices)

i've always thought that extremely stupid...bunting with your #2 hitter. sac bunts should be reserved for 8th and 9th, or really crappy 7th hole hitters.