I also have mixed feelings on the stats being so detailed.
As many have said, on the face of it stats like that are beyond silly.
But..........
When I went to the SABR conference in Boston a few years back someone from the Red Sox gave a talk about the system that generates those stats. At the time there were only a few teams using the same system, and they all exchanged video of all at bats with notes on the details. The system could sort by any combination of details. So stats like the ones quoted were possible.
On of the things that struck me was that they weighted the value of a particular but of information based on age. His example was a particular pitch that Manny Ramirez had a hard time hitting. The number of times he'd seen that pitch while at a count that was more risky for him -like 2-2 or 3-2 wasn't a big sample. Maybe 10-12 at bats. And they extended into the previous season. (No secrets divulged, the "new" data he showed was a year or two old.) The 6 or so at bats the year before were all strike outs, but the ones that were newer were mostly strikeouts but included a hit and home run. What he said was that the older data showed that Manny had a serious weakness, the new data showed that He knew and had been working on it.
They used the data for selecting pitches, and matchups, and for finding places where their own players needed work. The story behind the data was that Manny was told he was vulnerable to a certain pitch and he scoffed until he was shown the at bats. That afternoon he insisted on seeing just that pitch for almost all of BP. And continued asking to see it a lot more.
It's not perfect, but can help spot tendencies and areas where some extra practice might make a player a bit better.
Steve B
|