Lies, damned lies, and baseball statistics
On the off chance that there is someone who can teach me something about baseball I don’t already know, I am reading Moneyball by Michael Lewis. It is a book that challenges almost everything that is sacred in baseball. Like the idea that those tobacco-spitting, cliché-spouting scouts for the major league teams have any idea what the game is about.
Lewis is a true believer in the new baseball paradigm that posits statistics, certain specific statistics, can be used to produce winning teams in the face of all that is hallowed. He bases his argument on the Oakland Athletics who have, admittedly, generated some pretty good ball clubs on the most parsimonious budget in baseball.
Briefly, Lewis makes the argument that selecting players based on on-base percentage and slugging percentage produces winning teams. There’s more to it than that, but you’ll have to read the book if you want more. He reveals that the success experienced by the Oakland club is based more on a couple of number crunchers with laptops than it is by all those steely-eyed scouts.
Lewis makes a persuasive case, but I’m not totally convinced. Baseball is a funny game that does not lend itself to being deconstructed by actuaries. If there is anything that convinced me that Lewis is out of the strike zone, it’s his offhand remark that relief pitchers gain their distinction by not being good enough to be starters. That, as the logicians would say, is a broad generalization based on insufficient evidence.
If you take a look at the most successful teams in baseball, you will quickly come to realize that the clubs at the top of the standings have the best bullpens. There was a day when relief pitchers were, indeed, the castoffs. That was in a long-forgotten era when the starters went nine innings unless they were carried off toes up.
In this day and age, relief pitching is a very distinct specialty. Most starters wouldn’t stand a chance at relieving because they are expected to go at least six innings. Six innings? Whitey Ford and Warren Spahn wouldn’t even have gotten warmed up by then. Nonetheless, there seems to be some formula passed down from on high that decrees 100 pitches as the limit for those precious starters.
That being the case, relief pitchers have become stars in their own right. They may not have to pitch long, but they have to pitch hard and they have to pitch smart. The good ones command salaries that rival their starting colleagues. Rightly so. They are the crisis managers of corporate baseball.
Despite Lewis’ casual dismissal, many of today’s relievers could probably start. But given the specialization of the modern game, that would be a waste of their talents. By writing off relief pitchers, some of whom have an ERA of under 1.00, Lewis reveals a fundamental ignorance of the game.
There is one baseball truism that no number crunchers will ever defeat: good pitching will beat good hitting every time. Hitting a baseball has been described as the most difficult feat in any sport. There is no evidence whatsoever to contradict that contention.
You can’t argue with the fact that the Oakland team has been remarkably successful given its miniscule budget. They’ve recruited some outstanding players by relying on statistics rather than the instincts of their scouts. Since they instituted this system, they’ve finished second in the AL West to the Angels last year and are currently six games back of my beloved Mariners, who, incidentally, have the best bullpen in baseball.
It would be interesting to see if Lewis’ statistical theories hold up when backed up by the buying power of a richer team. It’s a good read, regardless of whether or not you agree with Lewis’ conclusions. It challenges a lot of baseball traditions and who’s to say if that is good or bad.
I hear that it has pissed off baseball commissioner Bud Selig mightily. That’s as good a recommendation as I can think of. Pissing off rich losers is a worthy endeavor.
12:23:07 AM 
|
