I think it's time I admitted to something that a few of you already know: Miguel Batista is my least favourite player in all of baseball. I can't stand watching him.
Then why am I always defending his performance? Because he never stinks as bad as I expect him to, so I'm quite often pleasantly surprised.
That doesn't really make sense - I admit it's a complete blind spot on my part. My dislike of Batista goes back to his days as an Expo. He was possibly the most inconsistent pitcher I've ever seen in a Montreal uniform. Some games, he'd look like Cy Young reincarnate. Other games, I don't think he could get me out. And I stink. This assessment is probably unfair - Craig B has pointed out that Felipe Alou was continually jerking Batista around from starting to short relief to long relief. It's possible that Batista would have found consistency if he had been left in a role for longer than a month. But he never was and after a couple painful years he was traded to the Royals for the immortal Brad Rigby.
I think we all have these blind spots, even us objective seamhead types. In fact, there's a number of really bad statistical arguments many of us have given in the past. I thought I'd illustrate a few of them. I've probably committed all of these in the past, so if you think I'm taking shots at you, I'm not. Honest! :) (If I wanted to make fun of the BBox crew, I'd mock their politics).
Anyhow, on to the bad arguments!
Using OPS when there are far better metrics available
It's pretty common knowledge that OPS puts far too much weight on slugging and not nearly enough on on base percentage. Yet it's constantly used, when far better metrics are available on Baseball Prospectus and The Hardball Times.The one place where I think using OPS is defensible is when discussing splits, such as "Close and Late" or "vs. left", since Prospectus doesn't offer a VORP vs. Lefties stat. Even then, it's probably more helpful to offer the entire AVG/OBP/SLG line.
Using Rate Stats to Show the Value over an Often Injured Player
I have to admit, this one drives me right up the wall. You often see things like:
Player A: .300/.400/.520
Player B: .280/.375/.490
With the conclusion that Player A is obviously better. But he's not necessarily. I'd rather have 160 games from B than 70 from A, all else being equal. You see this argument a lot from fans of guys like Nick Johnson and Corey Koskie.
The only really fair comparison between an everyday player and an often injured one is achieved through a counting stat, such as VORP or Win Shares. It may be that 120 games of Nick Johnson is more valuable than 160 games from almost anyone else. VORP will tell you that - you don't need to resort to an apples vs. oranges comparison.
Of course, maybe you're using the rate stats to say "If oft injured Player X played a full season, look how valuable he'd be!", which is valid. Then again, imagine how valuable David Bush would be if he had another 5 mph on his fastball!
Using a Single Component Stat to Argue the Value of a Player
You see this most often with pitchers, though occasionally you'll get it with hitters too. Sure, John-Ford Griffin's 60 walks are impressive. But his 138 strikeouts and .252 batting average have to count against him - you need to know more than how many times he's walked.The most common argument is "such and such a pitcher is great because of his high K/IP ratio". Strikeouts are possibly the most important stat for a pitcher, but you need to consider other ones, such as walks and homeruns allowed. You can be a Hall of Fame level talent and still be less than spectacular in any one component. Nolan Ryan walked everyone and their brother. Bert Blyleven had years where he couldn't keep the ball in any park. Including Yellowstone. Jim Palmer *never* struck out more than 200 guys in a season.
If you want to judge the value of a pitcher in a single stat, you need to use something that takes into all kinds of different factors. DIPS is a minimum, something like VORP is probably a lot more valuable.
Discounting Performance Due to Park
This is something I'm often guilty of. Yes, park effects are important. But at the same time, there is no park in the major leagues that will turn in a scrub into a superstar. If you hit .330 in Coors, then chances are you're going to hit for a high average somewhere else. If you play a full year in Comerica and only hit 3 homeruns, it's not all the park's fault.By using a rate or counting stat that takes into account park effects, you won't end up mentally overcompensating for parks, like I so often do.
