The Power of History
March 22, 2013 at 10:00 am by Mark Smith under Atlanta Braves
One of the questions students used to ask me was, “What’s so important about history? It’s all in the past, and it doesn’t matter if I remember certain dates and people.” It’s actually a really good question. If you can’t answer the essential question of “Why?”, then it’s probably not something worth doing, and “Because that’s the way we’ve always done it” is the worst answer – it doesn’t explain anything. My response to the students was always that you don’t know who you are until you know where you’ve been. Each one of us has led a certain life and experienced certain events that have had an impact on who we are. We can argue nature vs. nurture all day, but to ignore nurture would be idiotic.
More generally, we can’t truly understand who we are as a society until we know where we’ve been and what we’ve experienced societally. Why is Santa Claus the way he is? The original St. Nicholas didn’t always wear red, probably wasn’t fat, and definitely didn’t have reindeer. Odin (where “Yule” comes from) traditionally had a long beard and rode on horseback, but there was no red and no sleigh. Sinterklaas wrote in a book about who was naughty and nice, had a long beard, and wore some red, but he wasn’t particularly nice and rode a white horse. Father Christmas was a nice man, but he wore green. It actually wasn’t until the mid-1800s that the modern image of Santa Claus came to be, and it wasn’t really until Coca-Cola popularized the image in the early 1900s that it became a national image.
Over the years, we’ve changed, adopted, and twisted the image to fit our needs. Santa’s a fat, jolly man with a beard because we don’t want kids to be afraid of him, but he’s still got that book with everyone’s name in it because he can’t give gifts to everyone! We need some way to make our kids behave! The point is that Santa doesn’t really have to the be fat, jolly old man with a long, white beard who wears red and sits on a sleigh. It’s not an objectively correct image. It’s just the one we have. Understanding history and where we come from helps us understand that the society/government/ideology/etc. we have aren’t necessarily “correct”. In most cases, they came into existence and gained acceptance for certain reasons pertinent/important/available at the time, but knowing why and where they came from help us understand how “correct” they may be. This theme holds true for more important ideas, but we’re not here to talk about those. We’re here to talk baseball, which has its own form of historical influence.
I doubt many of you know who Henry Chadwick is. For those who don’t, Chadwick is one of the Fathers of Baseball. As one of the first national baseball writers and a member of the rules committee, Chadwick had an undeniable influence on the game. He was even one of the first statisticians in the game, having worked on Beadle’s Dime Base-Ball Player (one of the first guides to baseball) and creating the modern box score. He played a significant role in the early tabulation of statistics and the keeping of records. It was during this time – the mid and later 1800s – that many of the traditional stats we know came into existence. Though they weren’t necessarily the creation of Chadwick, he probably had a say in whether or not they remained in the lexicon.
Whether or not Chadwick is responsible really isn’t the point. The point is that a select group of men created and popularized these statistics, and the public came to accept them. This includes such statistics as batting average, RBI, pitcher wins, and ERA. There was nothing really wrong with what they did. The game was new, and keeping track of these events was pertinent and important. They did what they could with what they had, and these came into existence.
Over the next century, the public came to accept them and use them. Box scores repeatedly flashed them across newspaper pages, then radio waves, and eventually TV and computer screens. They even shifted in meaning and usage. The original intent of most statistics was simply to tally them as a record or to help tell the game story. Over time, these statistics came to be used in analysis. Baseball fans spent 100 years talking about and evaluating players with them, thus reinforcing their place in society.
This is, of course, where we come to the crux of the issue. In the 1960s a man named Earnshaw Cook began looking at statistics in a different way, and in the 1970s Bill James took that to another level. Over the next 30-40 years, “sabermetrics” and advanced statistics have pushed their way into the baseball lexicon because they asked the “Why?” question. It wasn’t meant in an intentionally antagonistic manner, but when a strategy or idea didn’t jive with someone’s hypothesis, someone did some digging and came to several discoveries, which we don’t really have to get into now.
Going back to the beginning of the post, the most important question one can ask is “Why?”. It gets to the very purpose of an idea or action. Why does batting average have to be how we measure a hitter? Why do we use pitcher win-loss records? If your answer is “Because that’s what we’ve always done”, you need a new answer. Yes, there may have been a reason for them. Yes, people did accept them for a time and for a reason. But new ideas arise. New technologies are invented. If they surpass their ancestors in might or right, they replace them.
The only constant through history is change.
This doesn’t mean the old ways or those who led them should be forgotten. Chadwick should be revered as one of the Fathers of Baseball. And the journalists who followed in his footsteps should be lauded for their efforts to inform the public and popularize the game to the best of their abilities. But that doesn’t mean everything they did was exactly right, and that one cannot improve upon what they did. How could they have known or done any different?
But now we know … or at least we’re closer to knowing … we think. Improvements in statistical research made possible by the improvements in technology have changed what is possible. Armed with new weapons, we can ask why and come to answers closer to the truth than our predecessors. While they may need further advancement and better technology to further uncover the truth, the advancements really are advancements. “Why?” depends on the metric or model, and any of us would be happy to point you toward an article with an explanation.
All of this doesn’t mean we are better than our ancestors. To use some sabermetric terminology, our replacement level has simply shifted up. To borrow some relevant clichés, “To whom much is given, much is expected,” and “With great power comes great responsibility.” We have more to work with now, so we should do more. It’s not a question of better or worse, and it shouldn’t be about power. It should be about knowledge and the ability to critically think for ourselves. It should be about evaluating new ideas and accepting the good ones while discarding the bad. It’s those skills I hope history teaches its students.
Newer metrics aren’t the final say, and they’re simply a step on the road to enlightenment. This isn’t the “end of history”.
Because the only constant throughout history is change.
Loading ...
I am not sure what prompted you to write this Mark, but i hope people outside of the regulars on this site read this because it takes the logical approach to the argument with “old school” people in baseball who refuse to use sabermetrics and attempt to put down the ones that use them.
great piece
To be honest, I’m not really sure what prompted it, but I’m glad you liked it.
As a history buff, I generally agree with you about the importance of historical context in the development of ideas. Something that was “liberal” in one period is “conservative” in another, based on context.
With respect to baseball, I don’t disagree with the need to look at the game in new ways. I like the new stats and they add a lot to what has always been a very analytical-at least for some fans-game. However, I do dislike the idea that at least some sabermetricians have that, because we have new, more advanced, probably more accurate statistics, we should therefore discard the traditional stats. While tradition in anything can become hidebound and regressive, there is something to be said for it. I know, for example, that wins is not a good way to evaluate pitchers, but I am still intrigued by the though of someone winning 30 games in a season or 300 in a career. Same with RBIs; it would be exciting to see someone get 192 RBIs in a season even though we know that the stat is largely a function of the team and the hitter’s position in the order.
The other thing that bothers me is the complexity of the new statistics. Frankly, I often glaze over at the methodological discussions that you read on many sabermetric sites. The old stats at least have the virtue of being accessible to people that aren’t hardcore fans. It’s easy to identify what a .300 batting average means or a 1.12 ERA. It’s much less clear what WAR, for example, represents. The sabermetric discussions seem to often become a form of scholasticism that really is not accessible to those without a statistics background.
This, of course, is not to say that I agree with those that condemn sabermetrics-often using ad hominem attacks- and ignore the advances in analysis.
I get what you’re saying, but the reason batting average and pitcher wins are more “accessible” are because we’ve been taught their meaning at an earlier age, not because they are actually easier to understand conceptually.
For example, it’s far easier to explain on-base percentage to a complete baseball neophyte than batting average.
That’s a good point that I did not think about. But I still think that a lot of the more advanced stats are difficult to understand.
Yes, in my opinion, the methodology behind some of the modern stats is not accessible to those without a statistics or mathematical background (War, wRC, and almost anything defensive-related comes to mind).
But, in those cases, I trust that those developing and perfecting the stat have performed their methods appropriately (since, you know, they’re the ones with teh background), and I use those stats merely for comparison purposes.
And, as was discussed on a recent podcast and as pointed out by K26, there are several older stats that are much more complex than the stats used in more advanced analysis. K/BB ratio is probably the simplest stat there is, whereas saves and wins require several paragraphs of explanation.
OBP is a simple stat. All data imputed into the formula are from that players totals. In that way it is no different than a lot of the old school stats. My problem with the new data analysis is that their are too many unexplained inputs to the equation, the names can be misleading (RF), and that I’m supposed to buy into it cause it’s all relative with out a truly defining the two points of comparison.
RF is a pet peeve of mine (I am more open to UZR but it still has flaws). At no point is their a measurement of the players range actually used in the equation. Further more it can be inflated by your surrounding team due to assists. It also doesn’t take into account pitching style. If you’ve got a bunch of pitch to contact on your staff our more likely to have a higher amount of PO and assists.
WAR is useless to me. First off thier is no standard formula. Second I have yet to see some one tell how they came up with specific adj values (why they are thier I understand. Why a C is worth 5 points adj over a SS I do not understand). Nobody has ever published to data they compiled to define a replacement player (something Sean smith never went into depth about).
What I dislike the most is league avg is this so in comparison he’s around this. That barely coherent statement can be copied from about any article I’ve read that uses complex mathematics to analyze a players performance. You can alter and weight any formula you like to make a player look better than he is. So how do I know your comparison is legit with out a complete understanding of the stats your trying to use?
Enlightenment comes from experience and understanding. Understanding is one thing I’ve yet to gain from the modern complex statistic
For comparing purposes, as long as the data being used is the same between the things you are attempting to compare, it doesn’t matter what the numbers are. If you don’t trust a certain metric or number or weight, that’s fine. But as long as you are consistent with how you use them, especially when comparing, then it makes no difference.
The people that create these formulas and metrics are much better at it than we are, and FAR better than your everyday slash line fan. They are not perfect, nor do they claim to be. Whenever subjectivity has a chance to be involved (as it does with weights) things will NEVER be perfect. But they are much closer than we could have hoped before we had them. The imperfect numbers become the baseline to create a more perfect number. While still imperfect, it’s closer than the last one. The process is then renewed.
The fact is, sabermetricians will tell you that the numbers aren’t perfect, because they are trained in probabilistic thinking. People see them present something as a “non-zero” correlation and think they’re saying it’s 100%. History helps us move closer and closer to perfect, while perfect is never attainable. There’s no reason to toil in zero’s if it’s possible to achieve even tiny amounts above zero.
My job requires the use of formulas that are just as or more complex than than the stats provided to day. Am I as smrt as the guys who came up with them? Only in my dreams.
The reason I can apply these though is that I have published evidence on every single aspect of data that goes into them. I understand the flaws. I understand the inconsistency due to probability (of course mine are measured ove several million interactions instead of a small batch of a 1,000 baseball players). If you do not understand the ref angle at witch everything is being compared you have no idea if you are consistent or not.
Yes the mathematician that creates these stats are correct in saying that no calculation is perfect. That’s only a half truth though. To other half is that you cannot do a proper analysis of this data till you have a solid understanding of these imperfections.
Saber metrics are not a step to perfection. At best they are a deviation, getting no closer just side stepping around till it comes back full circle.
Most of the new stats (at least for hitters) are fairly easy to grasp with just a minute or two of research. That’s one of the reasons I really like “plus” stats. wRC+, for example, is scaled so that 100 is league average (generally). So if I see a guy with a wRC+ of 93, I know he’s a below-average hitter who doesn’t provide nearly the value of a guy with a 145 wRC+. wOBA is set to the same scale as OBP; if you can tell what’s a good OBP, you can tell what’s a good wOBA. Both of these are much more useful in an analytical way than batting average, and they’re no more complicated to read and understand. (The math that goes into them is more complicated, but you don’t really have to delve into that if you get the basic idea of what they measure and how to read them).
Batting average is complicated. What does and doesn’t count as an at-bat requires some pretty deep understanding. wOBA, on the other hand, takes into account every way a person can get on base, and it weights them according to their value, plus it’s scaled look like OBP. ESPN or MLB Network could explain those concepts in two minutes. A lot of saber blogs (not CAC, thankfully) make the stats sound way more complicated than they need to by really delving into the math or by using some much more complicated stats. However, wOBA, wRC+, ISO, BABIP, all are easy to read and grasp with just a few minutes of reading at Fangraphs, and all are valuable to gauging a hitter’s value.
You can’t know where you’re going unless you know where you’ve been.
Great article, Mark. Thanks for taking the time to write it.
This is a pointless article. Those of us who believe in the new numbers will nod our head in agreement, and those who don’t will look at it as a slick attempt to rationalize them while dismissing the past.
No offense, but I’ve tried this very argument on the AJC blog and been flamed into the stone age.
They are old, unbending and ignorant, they don’t want change.
Remember, new ways of thinking don’t go global overnight, those who hold to the status quo grow old and die, and a new generation, raised on the new ways of thinking, take over, carrying progress with them.
You make some good point, Nick but careful … unwillingness to embrace change is not purely generational or attached to an age. I’m 50 and don’t understand nearly enough about advanced stats – but I do agree wholeheartedly with the idea that they offer a much better way of quantifying the overall contribution a player makes.
1) The AJC blog is not the place for logic and reason.
2) Chadwick likely had a tough time explaining to people why things did and did not matter that he was publishing. He, of course, had ignorance on his side at the time, and could probably convince people of anything he wanted about the game, but I doubt it was an overnight procedure to get people paying attention to stats. I don’t think that’s the aim here. Improvement, no matter how small, is improvement. I’m sure things as simple as OBP and things as complicated as the save rule took time to win people over. We’ve seen small attempts. Some broadcasts will talk about OPS (take it for what it’s worth) and I’m sure WAR, as popular as it’s become, is soon to follow. There will always be people who reject it. But I don’t think anyone’s attempting to change the world overnight. The stat environment is MUCH better than it used to be, even just 10 years ago.
I might agree with you Nick, but I get about 3-5 emails per week stating how the reader used to follow the DOBs and Joe Morgans of the world, but slowly had their eyes opened up. It’s easy to think that it’s all ‘us v. them’ and that everybody has made up their mind on the issue, but there are quite a large number of people who, with exposure to the right sorts of articles, might understand ‘our’ side more clearly.
Listening to Boog Sciambi is when I started learning and getting interested in SABRs.
I was one of those people. I’m 39 and have only been into this saber stuff from around age 30-31 somewhere in there. But,my first major in college was physics and I have a very logical way of looking at things. Most people don’t. Most people judge things in a more emotional manner. “what feels right” Most people are a walking billboard for confirmation bias in other words.
I DO realize that people can and will change their minds. But, in my experiences, the majority of the casual fans will continue to reject the modern numbers until they are embraced by the writers/TV guys and ESPN.
Cuz let’s be honest, SOMEBODY is nodding their head and agreeing with Joe Simpson when he promotes his “small ball” approach to hitting right? lol
I was just talking the other day about how much I miss Boog being a Braves announcer because I learned more in the 3 years of listening to him than I did in all my life before that time.
I used to really like Joe Simpson but seems like the last couple of years Joe has let too much of Chip rub off on him. It’s like listening to Dumb and Dumber in the booth. I actually feel dumber listening to them. The part that really grinds my gears when listening to them is how when they don’t know and understand how something works than that means it must be wrong.
I also think that taking the approach that people will never change is a poor one to take. People do change. some are more willing than others, but they usually need a certain argument/point to be made in order to see the logic more clearly.
And this wasn’t posted on AJC. This was posted on a site that people expect analysis from, but as I’ve read the comments over the past few months, many of the readers are still wondering how and why we use these statistics. There’s not a whole lot else going on at the moment, so I thought I’d take the opportunity to elaborate on my perspective.
I’ll be honest, I was only introduced to advanced stats about 2.5 years ago after I gave up playing the game. Before that, OPS was probably the most advanced stat I had in my tool bag. For me, it was just that I was never exposed to the “saber world”. Once I found it, I wanted to discover what all the commotion was about because I knew these new stats were here for a reason… if I wanted to intelligently discuss baseball, I would have to change and learn. After that it was just taking the time to educate myself.
Just look how far we have come in the past 10 years… with the growing exposure and national shows like Clubhouse Confidential, there is no reason not to expect an even more dramatic progression in the next 10 years. Dramatic shifts in thinking take time, no one realistically expects it to happen over night.
Mark – I appreciated this post very much. I work in an industry with a very proud tradition and a collection of pioneers, innovators and true visionaries who helped us get to where we are today. I do history presentations to companies within the industry and I’ve struggled to transmit the message that those of us who are here today may not have the opportunity to “create” something from scratch as they did, but we do have an opportunity to leave things in a little better shape than what we found them.
I think this post has given me a new way to think about approaching this. So thanks for that.
So, wait, are you saying there is or is not a Santa Claus?
(Great piece. thanks for writing it.)
As an uncle with young nephews, there is a Santa, and he’s just slowly evolved over the years into what he is now.
I was teasing. I have kids in the full on Santa phase.
I think there is still stuff to be taken from the old school way of thinking. However, there is no doubt that the saber guys have a more complete picture of what a player can be.
I love having a phone, but it makes no sense to only use the rotary type when technology allows me to do so much more. That may not even be close to the same thing, but I’m just a firm believer in using up to date ways while appreciating old school techniques.
How many games will we have to sit through with Brian Jordan in the booth? I’m really getting tired of hearing him talk about Schafer like he’s the most talented guy on the team. Every broadcast its the same thing. And as much as I like Freeman, from just listening to those guys you would think we had Ted Williams playing first base. Our television announcers are the antithesis to forward thinking in baseball.
It was really nice listening to Brian today talk about how Spring Training numbers really didn’t matter because pitchers don’t want to show too much of their “stuff” off to hitters and that is why Medlin got knocked around the other day…Only to hear him 5 minutes later say there is some worry about Medlin being an ace because he has been knocked around a little this spring…There really is a problem when I would rather hear Chip……. and I hate Chip.
Brian is awful to listen to.
One of the dumbest things about traditional stats is that “at-bats” doesn’t count all at-bats, only certain ones that fit specific rules. That’s why “plate appearances” was created (to include all at-bats), but PA should just be called at-bats.
I assume its because walks and sacrifices don’t count towards your batting average.
I appreciate the article and I appreciate the new stats. I certainly don’t buy into the Joe Morgan (“he just knows how to win”approach. And I really wish that more baseball announcers would have at least some familiarity with the advanced stats rather than simply dismissing them out of hand. (I would they would learn as a professional matter if nothing else in the way that doctors keep up with advancements in medicine. But I guess comparing Chip Carey to a medical professional is a stretch.)
My point, though, is that you can appreciate advanced statistical analysis without completely dismisssing the traditions of the game-batting average, pitcher W-L record, RBIs. I still like reading about Ted Williams hitting .406 and Denny McClain winning 30 games. They are part of the game’s tradition, even though those numbers are not the best measure of their performance. But, my sense is that a lot of sabermetric types simply cannot understand why anyone would care about anything else but the new stats.