The stats that people hate...but shouldnt

[MilkSpiller22]

1. Quality Starts- this is one of my favorite stats in baseball, but it gets a bad rap... People look at this Stat and say how can a 4.5 ERA be better than a 4 ERA... But they dont understand that it is a separate stat totally... ERA and QS tell totally different stories and should be looked upon separately, its like how k/9 and k/BB tell 2 totally different stories even though they both include strikeouts...
Then people claim that 6 or more innings 3 or less runs are arbitrary parameters, but they are not...
An official game/start is 5 innings, to be quality you need to be better than 5 innings, so the logical minimum has to be 6...
as for runs, the league average in runs is 4+ in a game- to be quality you need to leave the game giving your team a chance to win. Less than 4 runs is going to do that.

The whole purpose of the stat is for a starter to leave the game giving his team the best chances to win.

Wins- people claim that this is a team stat, that is true, and that is the stats flaw, but every stat has its flaws... Even if this is true you can not discount the power of a winning pitcher, how many times when pitchers get big leads, give up the leads?? there are pitchers that just can not get wins, because when they are battling in close games, they will always give up that big hit... this happens all the time... So for every negative situation against the stat, there is a positive one... But it is an obvious stat- a stat where you can follow by watching the game easily

BA- this one puzzles me why people dont like this... it is such a simple statistic it is just HITS/at bats... how can that be bad?? people look at OBP and claim that it is a better stat... but they tell 2 different stories, OBP is how often you get on base,which predicts how often you have the potential to score a run. BA is just how often you get a hit...

Runs- another "team stat"... People claim that if a player is on a better offense then players should score more, this is true and that is this stats flaw. But just like every stat, there are flaws and then there are some good stuff... Runs shows good and smart baserunning skills(not necessary stolen bases). But it is an obvious stat- a stat where you can follow by watching the game easily

RBIs- another "team" stat... again, the flaw in this stat is that the better offense you are on the more RBIs you should get... But the positves of this stat are overwhelming, it shows that when it matters how productive you were... But it is an obvious stat- a stat where you can follow by watching the game easily

Stolen Bases- this stat ever since moneyball has been diminshing in importance, and i wonder why... successful stolen bases make you more likely to score a run, it intimidates and frusturates pitchers... It is a good way to get out of a double play situation. It gives power hitters better opportunities to get their HRs... It is losing popularity because you are giving the other team an out- But the benefits of having a good SB guy is too much to worry about the occasional giving up an out...


I will fight for any Stat- i find that the problem with stats now adays is that we have so many, and many that tell the same or similar stories a little better than others... We now take advanced stats for granted without understanding what they are telling us... Most advanced stats calculate theoretical runs and theoretical wins... that is great and all, and there is a lot of value in that, but they are more meant for predicting the future of players...

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

1. Quality Starts- this is one of my favorite stats in baseball, but it gets a bad rap... People look at this Stat and say how can a 4.5 ERA be better than a 4 ERA... But they dont understand that it is a separate stat totally... ERA and QS tell totally different stories and should be looked upon separately, its like how k/9 and k/BB tell 2 totally different stories even though they both include strikeouts...
Then people claim that 6 or more innings 3 or less runs are arbitrary parameters, but they are not...
An official game/start is 5 innings, to be quality you need to be better than 5 innings, so the logical minimum has to be 6...
as for runs, the league average in runs is 4+ in a game- to be quality you need to leave the game giving your team a chance to win. Less than 4 runs is going to do that.

The whole purpose of the stat is for a starter to leave the game giving his team the best chances to win.

Wins- people claim that this is a team stat, that is true, and that is the stats flaw, but every stat has its flaws... Even if this is true you can not discount the power of a winning pitcher, how many times when pitchers get big leads, give up the leads?? there are pitchers that just can not get wins, because when they are battling in close games, they will always give up that big hit... this happens all the time... So for every negative situation against the stat, there is a positive one... But it is an obvious stat- a stat where you can follow by watching the game easily

BA- this one puzzles me why people dont like this... it is such a simple statistic it is just HITS/at bats... how can that be bad?? people look at OBP and claim that it is a better stat... but they tell 2 different stories, OBP is how often you get on base,which predicts how often you have the potential to score a run. BA is just how often you get a hit...

Runs- another "team stat"... People claim that if a player is on a better offense then players should score more, this is true and that is this stats flaw. But just like every stat, there are flaws and then there are some good stuff... Runs shows good and smart baserunning skills(not necessary stolen bases). But it is an obvious stat- a stat where you can follow by watching the game easily

RBIs- another "team" stat... again, the flaw in this stat is that the better offense you are on the more RBIs you should get... But the positves of this stat are overwhelming, it shows that when it matters how productive you were... But it is an obvious stat- a stat where you can follow by watching the game easily

Stolen Bases- this stat ever since moneyball has been diminshing in importance, and i wonder why... successful stolen bases make you more likely to score a run, it intimidates and frusturates pitchers... It is a good way to get out of a double play situation. It gives power hitters better opportunities to get their HRs... It is losing popularity because you are giving the other team an out- But the benefits of having a good SB guy is too much to worry about the occasional giving up an out...


I will fight for any Stat- i find that the problem with stats now adays is that we have so many, and many that tell the same or similar stories a little better than others... We now take advanced stats for granted without understanding what they are telling us... Most advanced stats calculate theoretical runs and theoretical wins... that is great and all, and there is a lot of value in that, but they are more meant for predicting the future of players...

No one "hates" any of these stats, except maybe Quality Starts, which is an arbitrary, weak statistic. Some people just recognize the inherent flaws in some of them, and that they are traditionally overvalued by the casual fan.

Also, when in the history of ever has anyone said anything remotely negative about runs scored?

Your statement that advanced statistics are meant for predicting the future is absolutely baseless and unfounded and flat-out wrong. How is OPS+ about predicting the future? How does it NOT tell you about actual events?

 

[StanMarsh51]

An official game/start is 5 innings, to be quality you need to be better than 5 innings, so the logical minimum has to be 6...
as for runs, the league average in runs is 4+ in a game- to be quality you need to leave the game giving your team a chance to win. Less than 4 runs is going to do that.

5 2/3 innings is more than 5 innings, so why can't that be considered quality? It's one of the numerous flaws to the stat...

A pitcher can go 5.2 innings and give up 0 runs, then pitch for 1 more out and give up 3 runs in the process. Was he necessarily better off pitching that extra third of an inning to give up 3 runs? Quality starts say yes.


There have also been seasons where the league average scored 5+ runs/game, so in that case, shouldn't it be adjusted to 4 runs since 4 is less than 5 in those seasons? It's using the same logic that you're using to say 3 is less than 4.

 

[broncosmitty]

I hate a lot of stats. But the stats listed are not at the top of my hate list. You say you'll fight for almost any stat MilkSpiller, then please tell me why I should care what a players WAR is. Or his fielding percentage. Or his credit score.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

5 2/3 innings is more than 5 innings, so why can't that be considered quality? It's one of the numerous flaws to the stat...

A pitcher can go 5.2 innings and give up 0 runs, then pitch for 1 more out and give up 3 runs in the process. Was he necessarily better off pitching that extra third of an inning to give up 3 runs? Quality starts say yes.


There have also been seasons where the league average scored 5+ runs/game, so in that case, shouldn't it be adjusted to 4 runs since 4 is less than 5 in those seasons? It's using the same logic that you're using to say 3 is less than 4.

The stat would hold a little more water for me if the official scorer could exercise some judgment, like they can with wins, saves, and errors. I also think the parameters should be a bit more stringent. Again, I've cited it a thousand times, but a pitcher could make 30 quality starts in a season and have an ERA 15% worse than league average and pitch well under 200 innings. There's no quality in that.

 

[steveringo]

I'll agree that no one hates those stats. Stats are what they are.

Most people see QS, BA, Wins, etc. for what they are. they that there are much better analytical stats.

Hopefully no on discounts any stat, because they each tell a different story. (some stories are just more inclusive that others.)

 

[MilkSpiller22]

The stat would hold a little more water for me if the official scorer could exercise some judgment, like they can with wins, saves, and errors. I also think the parameters should be a bit more stringent. Again, I've cited it a thousand times, but a pitcher could make 30 quality starts in a season and have an ERA 15% worse than league average and pitch well under 200 innings. There's no quality in that.

Again, do you read at all?? do you notice that they are 2 different stats... Do you hate k/9 stat because a pitcher can have a terrible k/bb?? its the same thing... ERA and QS are totally different they just both used Earned runs!!!

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I'll agree that no one hates those stats. Stats are what they are.

Most people see QS, BA, Wins, etc. for what they are. they that there are much better analytical stats.

Hopefully no on discounts any stat, because they each tell a different story. (some stories are just more inclusive that others.)

But here is the thing, the "better" stats warrant much more research... and no 2 stats tell the exact same story... As long as you know what each stat means(nobody knows what all stats are intended for)...

 

[gunnarthor]

Stats are useful in context. I actually like QS and QS% quite a bit even though it has holes. It's one of the few stats where outlier performances won't wreak it.

The problem with stats (any stat) is when people use it out of context to make an argument. People do this all the time and it drives me nuts.

 

[Wazmankg]

Quality start is the only one you listed that I have a problem with. As you mentioned it does translate to a 4.50 ERA but more important to me is that it leaves 3 innings to your bullpen. That's a lot of the game. I'd have much less of a problem with it if a pitcher had to go 7 to get one. I don't care for saves. There must be a way they could clean that one up. Some saves are far more difficult to obtain than others but they all go down as a save. I don't hate any of the others listed, but I might question the relative value of some of them when assessing a player's value. I know many discount wins by a pitcher but W/L record is a very good indicator over time.... not wins alone, but W/L.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Again, do you read at all?? do you notice that they are 2 different stats... Do you hate k/9 stat because a pitcher can have a terrible k/bb?? its the same thing... ERA and QS are totally different they just both used Earned runs!!!

I read just fine. Your points are just empty and lack any semblance of logic or understanding of baseball. K/9 and K/BB evaluate different things. QS and ERA evaluate the same things (innings and earned runs). One's a rate stat and the other's a counting stat. They're intertwined for a reason.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

But here is the thing, the "better" stats warrant much more research... and no 2 stats tell the exact same story... As long as you know what each stat means(nobody knows what all stats are intended for)...

They say the translation was lost at sea ages ago...

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Quality start is the only one you listed that I have a problem with. As you mentioned it does translate to a 4.50 ERA but more important to me is that it leaves 3 innings to your bullpen. That's a lot of the game. I'd have much less of a problem with it if a pitcher had to go 7 to get one. I don't care for saves. There must be a way they could clean that one up. Some saves are far more difficult to obtain than others but they all go down as a save. I don't hate any of the others listed, but I might question the relative value of some of them when assessing a player's value. I know many discount wins by a pitcher but W/L record is a very good indicator over time.... not wins alone, but W/L.

I can agree that saves are even more meaningless than quality starts.

W-L is better than Wins alone, but it's still extremely team-dependent. Great pitchers often finish under .500 as a result of their team.

 

[Wazmankg]

I can agree that saves are even more meaningless than quality starts.

W-L is better than Wins alone, but it's still extremely team-dependent. Great pitchers often finish under .500 as a result of their team.

That's why I qualified it with "over time". Over a season it happens but rarely over several. King Felix is an exception..

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

That's why I qualified it with "over time". Over a season it happens but rarely over several. King Felix is an exception..

Yeah, because teams cyclically go through peaks and valleys. King Felix's career has happened to fall during a prolonged valley for the M's.

 

[broncosmitty]

Stats are useful in context. I actually like QS and QS% quite a bit even though it has holes. It's one of the few stats where outlier performances won't wreak it.

The problem with stats (any stat) is when people use it out of context to make an argument. People do this all the time and it drives me nuts.

That is a good point about outlier stats. I hate that when one bad outing destroys a guys ERA. Or four or five (or six) in my boy Rick Porcellos case.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Stats are useful in context. I actually like QS and QS% quite a bit even though it has holes. It's one of the few stats where outlier performances won't wreak it.

The problem with stats (any stat) is when people use it out of context to make an argument. People do this all the time and it drives me nuts.

Good to hear an actual intelligent and original thought on this thread... thank you... Unlike Imsmartherthanyou, you are actually willing to see that although a stat has same data it is not necessary used the same...

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Good to hear an actual intelligent and original thought on this thread... thank you... Unlike Imsmartherthanyou, you are actually willing to see that although a stat has same data it is not necessary used the same...

I have said multiple times that I look at all stats and that they're about context, which was the overriding message of wazman's post. Please don't act like you speak for me or understand my line of thinking. Clearly you don't.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I have said multiple times that I look at all stats and that they're about context, which was the overriding message of wazman's post. Please don't act like you speak for me or understand my line of thinking. Clearly you don't.

When you claim that QS is a crappy stat because of the 4.5 ERA BS, and talk about how ERA and QS use the same data means they are the same stat then yes i can make that statement... If you are too stubborn to understand a stat, then dont hate on the stat... just ignore it...

 

[steveringo]

When you claim that QS is a crappy stat because of the 4.5 ERA BS, and talk about how ERA and QS use the same data means they are the same stat then yes i can make that statement... If you are too stubborn to understand a stat, then dont hate on the stat... just ignore it...

Never get involved in a land war in Asia.