Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Tabe

His ERA was over 2 full runs higher in 1998 before the trade compared to 1997 but, sure, his stats were right in line.

This is the type of nonsense I'm talking about. The fact that he posted an ERA of 2 runs higher than he did the year before in Seattle at the trade deadline literally means absolutely nothing. It tells you nothing about how well he was pitching without also looking at his other stats like FIP, BABIP, K/9 and BB/9. The data clearly shows that he simply got unlucky over the course of the first 2/3s of the season but was still every bit as dominant with the factors that were within his control.

[mrreality68]

Beware of Stats.

1. that do not always mean anything
2. Different people value different stats differently
3. Some people use the Same Stats and read it differently to make their points

[cjedmonton]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

Beware of Stats.

1. that do not always mean anything
2. Different people value different stats differently
3. Some people use the Same Stats and read it differently to make their points

Or more colloquially…

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/statistics

[Peter_Spaeth]

I thought a pitcher's BABIP could be indicative of his ability to induce weak contact and therefore having a higher one than typical could indicate he was not pitching as well as before and not just random bad luck.

Anyhow I guess his bad luck just disappeared the day he was sent to Houston and his BIP then dropped by over .3 for the rest of the season. Just regression to the mean, inconsequential.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I thought a pitcher's BABIP could be indicative of his ability to induce weak contact and therefore having a higher one than typical could indicate he was not pitching as well as before and not just random bad luck.

Anyhow I guess his bad luck just disappeared the day he was sent to Houston and his BIP then dropped by over .3 for the rest of the season. Just regression to the mean, inconsequential.

Yeah Peter, I vaguely seem to remember someone on here posting about how they used that same statistic to declare that Spahn was just lucky and not so great a pitcher. Good thing his luck didn't last for more than 363 wins or 20 or so successful winning seasons. Otherwise, people might actually begin to question the infallibility of such a statistical measure and the thoroughly conclusive answer that can be gleaned and ultimately drawn from it in regards to something as readily and objectively measurable as the level of Spahn's luck. But of course, we all know that a loss of faith in statistical infallibility would never happen, especially when such a conclusive and non-arguable determination of Spahn's luck is drawn from such totally unbiased and all-inclusive statistical and intangible data by qualified data scientists in their unrivaled capacity and knowledge, the results of which they so unselfishly bestow upon and honor us with. For without them, we, the unknowing minions, would truly be in the dark. But fortunately for us, we have our beloved statisticians and data scientists to instead smile down upon us with their sage and benevolent wisdom, and lead us unto the light! Amen.

(Shoot! Did I just cross a line and post something religious? If so, my apologies, no offense meant to anyone............well, almost! )

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I thought a pitcher's BABIP could be indicative of his ability to induce weak contact and therefore having a higher one than typical could indicate he was not pitching as well as before and not just random bad luck.

Anyhow I guess his bad luck just disappeared the day he was sent to Houston and his BIP then dropped by over .3 for the rest of the season. Just regression to the mean, inconsequential.

Yes, it did. This happens all the time. He even got lucky in Houston. His HR% was half of what it normally is for him during those 10 starts. Anything can happen in 11 starts. It's just way too small of a sample size. Hell, nearly anything can happen even over the course of a full season too, let alone 11 games.

A pitcher's BABIP is almost entirely outside of his control. There are some who suggest that they may be able to exercise some minuscule amount of control over it, to the tune of a few points, but that's not an easy sell even at that. Either way, large fluctuations above and below the league average BABIP is indicative of a pitcher having gotten either lucky or unlucky that season. Just go look up your favorite 10 pitchers and look at their best and worst seasons with respect to their ERAs and WHIPs. You'll usually find that those were usually just seasons where every bounce or wind gust went their way (or failed to when their numbers were "bad"). Especially when there is a discrepancy between their ERA and their FIP.

If I want to know how well a pitcher performed, I look at the stats that are within their control.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Your logic would mean there's no such thing as a great pitcher who pitches to contact, or who isn't a dominant strikeout pitcher, because once a batter puts a ball in play it's all just dumb luck. That just does not square with experience. Did you ever watch Greg Maddux pitch?

Put another way, putting a ball in play on a pitch that was a hanging curve or a fastball with no movement down the middle is just not the same as doing so on a wicked slider two inches off the plate. A great pitcher can throw more pitches that are difficult to make solid contact with and thus your chances of getting a hit off him on a ball you put into play is not just random or some stat that will eventually hit the mean.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Your logic would mean there's no such thing as a great pitcher who pitches to contact, or who isn't a dominant strikeout pitcher, because once a batter puts a ball in play it's all just dumb luck. That just does not square with experience. Did you ever watch Greg Maddux pitch?

Put another way, putting a ball in play on a pitch that was a hanging curve or a fastball with no movement down the middle is just not the same as doing so on a wicked slider two inches off the plate. A great pitcher can throw more pitches that are difficult to make solid contact with and thus your chances of getting a hit off him on a ball you put into play is not just random or some stat that will eventually hit the mean.

Isn't that the whole idea behind good knuckleball (or sinkerball) pitchers? Don't let batters get good contact on balls so they hit mostly pop us, weak grounders, or foul balls. But that isn't really cool anymore so no one really tries mastering it. Nowadays seems like everyone wants the studs throwing 100 MPH that strike everyone out, so are more and more the kinds of pitchers you see coming up.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Your logic would mean there's no such thing as a great pitcher who pitches to contact, or who isn't a dominant strikeout pitcher, because once a batter puts a ball in play it's all just dumb luck. That just does not square with experience. Did you ever watch Greg Maddux pitch?

I realize people think that, but the fact of the matter is that yes, it is dumb luck. The idea that Greg Maddux was better able to control the fate of the ball after contact than his peers is not supported by the data, though often claimed. His BABIP numbers across the course of his career are precisely in line with league average BABIP numbers during that era. If you don't believe me, I can plot it for you.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by cjedmonton

Or more colloquially…

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/statistics

Those quotes are hilarious..............and at the same time, pretty much spot on!

So true, so true.

[cjedmonton]

Originally Posted by BobC

Those quotes are hilarious..............and at the same time, pretty much spot on!

So true, so true.

One more famous one that didn’t make the first page cut:

“Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital”

Aaron Levenstein, economist, November 1951

[BobC]

Originally Posted by cjedmonton

One more famous one that didn’t make the first page cut:

“Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital”

Aaron Levenstein, economist, November 1951

Oooooo, I like that one.

Trying to keep it in a baseball vein, here's one I think would have been a classic Yogiism:

Statistics can always tell you everything you want to know.........about half the time!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Those quotes are hilarious..............and at the same time, pretty much spot on!

So true, so true.

As this thread shows all too well, raw data may be objective, but how one presents and interprets it is anything but.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As this thread shows all too well, raw data may be objective, but how one presents and interprets it is anything but.

Again, so true.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Again, so true.

Which is fine, as long as the interpretative part isn't presented as infallible objective truth. PS if you ever want to see people spin data (one could in some cases say manipulate), look at some clinical trial results sometime, including for some of our favorite drugs.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

Beware of Stats.

1. that do not always mean anything
2. Different people value different stats differently
3. Some people use the Same Stats and read it differently to make their points

63% of all statistics are fake.