Quote:
Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave
It's also a logical fallacy to say it's useful because everyone looks at it now. It's an ad populum fallacy. The argument is MLB teams look at it now, so it must be useful. There's a reason why that fallacy is also called the bandwagon fallacy.
My original question was never answered: What does it tell us that we didn't already know?
This is from Hank Aaron's book "I Had A Hammer, p.119", writing about Spring Training 1954 before he made the Braves major league roster.
"I cracked one over a row of trailers that bordered the outfield fence-hit it so hard that Ted Williams came running out of the clubhouse wanting to know who it was that could make a bat sound that way when it struck a baseball."
So had we have known the exit velocity of that hit, the evaluation of Aaron in 1954 would have changed...how? For that matter had statcast been around during the time Aaron played it wouldn't have made a dime's worth of difference. No thinking person would have thought any less of him if someone else had a higher average exit velocity.
My issue with advanced metrics and statcast data is the blind acceptance by some adherents without any critical thinking about what it's saying. It's on FanGraphs so hey, it must be valid. I'm sure the math is valid, but that still doesn't mean the data is giving us any new insight. How many different ways are there to say Jacob deGrom was really good last year and Tyler Chatwood wasn't? (even with a reliance on analytics the Cubs still made a huge mistake on Chatwood) No matter how you crunch the numbers, the results will be the same.
Data mining is useful, but that's not advanced analytics. That's simply breaking data down into distributions. Before the Cubs played the Mets in the 2015 NLCS it was pointed out the Cubs had the worst batting average against fastballs 95+. Given that the Mets had hard throwers, that told me the series wouldn't end well for the Cubs and it didn't.
I'm a firm believer in data mining. I have a relative who is brilliant data miner, it's how she makes her living. She also played volleyball in college. Her average spike velocity wasn't that important to know if no one ever blocked them.
|
if someone argued that as a reason, yes, it is totally illogical, but irrelvant to what i said.
data mining is analytics, lol. they just use different buzz words now, if not familiar with that phrase. it's no different than a quality control system keeping track of data to reduce defects or improve efficiency. you need good data to make good decisions. it's not just an average and simple math. data mining is advanced analytics that go well beyond a simpl average or distribution curve.
all you have is misrepresenting real arguments and pointing out someone that doesn't really understand things, yet is taking a side -- which is a logical fallacy too. just because one person arguing for either side is abjectly wrong or illogical, means nothign else other than exactly that -- that person is wrong in how they are rationalizing a conclusion. it doesn't matter if the conlcusion is wrong or right at that point.
if there was just 1 valid argument against collecting this data, i'd admit i was wrong. there isn't. there is only anecdotal, ad hominem, tu quoque (touched on above) , etc etc logical fallacies... that's all your side has in this debate.
if anything it needs to be broken down further into it's components. swing speed and efficiency of transfwerring force to the ball -- well struck or not % etc... it's 2 components that need to be understood better to make better decisions with a lower percentage of error.
most of this you can sort of judge with your eye over time, yes. but, it is nowhere near as accurate or precise, and some will be abjectly horrible at it, even if well-experience professional coaches/players. it is infinitely better than the human eye's assessment (along with other required data)... that doesn't mean you ignore the human eye or other well-tested methods of talent evaluation... some things may be replaced, but that isn't the goal. the goal is better information for better decisions -- any way possible. sometimes that mean accepting tha twas done before is not as good.
whatever a human can do, we can build a machine to do it better... e.g. it's a shame we still have humans calling balls and strikes. they clearly have an inconsistent strike zone. that's just abjectly stupid. we have the tech to precisely and accurately do this... we just need somoene motivated to put it together. it's an "in" for corruption -- like influencing who goes to playoffs or gambling concerns... it's going to be tough fight to change this for these 2 reasons. people likely profit off of this obvious weak point.
a "right" conclusion with false logic is not a good conclusion to build anything upon. it will fall apart without real reason and cause.
i gave 2 good things it can help out with.
there are no 1 answer solutions to baseball. it is part of many other things that create a hitter's profile or a pitcher's profile.
a human eye cannot distinguish between a few percent differences over 600PA or ~200IP. it simply cannot... not even einstein could.
all current knowledge is built upon the back of previously gained knowledge. there's almost no truel new ideas except in sub atomic studies or astrophysics, and even that is just similar but different to what we already understand.
it's about detail and precision measurements. it is dumbfounding to say that these things cannot help understand baseball. clearly, for ~150 years it's been in the dark ages.
just look at old metrics... i can't even begin to say how stupid OPS is. an infant-like mentality created that one without recognizing all its faults and how it can easily confuse 2 vastly different types of players with the same resulting figure (i.e. ahigh BA vs lower BA with more XBH -- can look exactly the same but drastically different in results and value).
you just don't like it.. that's all... and that's fine. that's not an argument against it, though. if you only said you just don't like it, it's not an argument. it's an opinion. saying it is useless is just being purposely obstinate, because you clearly are not dumb. that's the confusing part for me when people with the ability to understand simply choose not to.
"rabble rabble rabble, i don't like change, rabble rabble rabble."
or, for others in a certain proportion
"rabble rabble rabble, i don't get it and feel insecure rabble rabble rabble."
then you got people who don't really get it, yet cheerlead it, nonetheless. they are equally detrimental, because they give the irrational side ammunition, albeit irrelevant ammunition. unfortunately, logic and facts are rarely relevant. it's all about feelings and long-held perceptions that would require some acceptance of being wrong, which nearly all struggle with no matter what side of any argument.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHpdgHTINik