Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
February 01, 2004
Schilling on Neyer

Dominic Rivers points me to this Sons of Sam Horn thread in which Curt Schilling is answering real baseball questions. In it, he makes disparaging comments about Rob Neyer. (If you follow the link, go to page 3 and search for Neyer to see the quote.

(Edward Cossette points to another part of this post to try to bolster his team chemistry theory). Schilling makes a very good point; that what statistical analysis yields is trends and probabilities. The question is, how good are those trends and probabilities? In Neyer's case, I'd say they are pretty good. I'm tempted to go through Rob's archives and see how many of his predictions were really ludicrous, and how many were right on the mark. One thing is for sure, Rob would not make such a statement about Schilling without having done the research to back it up. And remember, for every Rob Neyer, there are many more sports writers who comment on the game without any idea what the stats mean. I guess players look at Rob Neyer the way Democrats look at Fox News. :-)

As for booing based on stats, I find that hard to believe. Schilling seems to see the Sons of Sam Horn as typical Red Sox fans. My experience is that most hard-core fans still just look at batting average and RBI. They boo when a guy strikes out in crucial situations. They boo when a pitcher gives up a game winning HR. They boo when they see performance on the field that hurts their team, not because someone has a .340 OBA when they expected him to have a .360 OBA.

But for you hard core stat-head Red Sox fans out there, I would boo Curt Schilling if:


  • He strikes out less than 7 per 9 innings.

  • If he walks more than 3 per 9 innings.

  • If he gives up more than 40% of his HR with men on base.

  • If his winning percentage is below his pythagorean projection, unless it's the fault of the bullpen. (Exception: If Schilling actually blames the bullpen, he's destroying chemistry, and should be booed heartily. :-) )


My statistical analysis tells me Schilling will be pretty good. For the sake of Curt's sensitive nature, I hope I'm not ludicrously wrong.

Update: I have been accused of being unethical in using a quote from Schilling that Schilling had declared to be off the record. (See comments below). For the record, the off the record comment was at the beginning of the thread, and I didn't see it. I have removed the quote at the request of Eric of SoSH.

However, I do not buy Eric's argument that what Schilling says is off the record. It's a publicly viewable web site. Schilling does nothing to hide his identity. What Curt has is a forum in which he can criticize and not be criticized. That seems a bit unfair to me.


Posted by David Pinto at 09:34 AM | News Media • | Statistics | TrackBack (3)
Comments

I was wondering when you'd bite on Schilling's SoSH comments re Neyer and stats. :)

You're points about hard-core fans not looking at stats beyond BA and RBI are correct IMO. I think not just Red Sox fans posting at SoSH, but also baseball fans who are web regulars are more skewed towards either an outright SABER fascination or at the very least a totally open mind toward statistical analysis and all it brings to the enjoyment of the game.

Posted by: Edw. at February 1, 2004 10:01 AM

Just wanted to throw in my two cents (although this may be a fairly obvious take). While I think Schilling is being less than objective about Neyer, I think it's great that he's willing to take time to interact with the fans like this.

He's a very opinionated guy, and sometimes he thinks things through. But I don't think he's quite thought this one through.

Words like "maybe" and "probably" are absolutely necessary when predicting sporting events. There's uncertainty about everything. It isn't 100% certain that the Devil Rays won't make the playoffs this year. It's extremely unlikely. But if everything goes right for them, and everything goes wrong for the other teams in their division - even if it's a 100-to-1 shot - it's possible.

There's always a Miracle on Ice waiting to happen.

Posted by: Dominic Rivers at February 1, 2004 11:37 AM

Great post. Schilling is an extraordinary person for a ballplayer in that he does think through many issues (very very rare) and then speaks these aloud on the record (rare).

While not yielding an inch on the indispensible importance of stats and statistical analysis, I think Schilling has a point. We analyze what is analyzable through numbers, and while that is the lion's share of what sets up a team to win or lose, it is not all that determines a game won or lost, a season finishing successfully. Because random chance plays a part in every single game played, because Livan Hernandez or Bucky Dent can pitch or hit like Babe Ruth in a key series, because Vince Coleman can be chowed down on by a tarp-winder, projection/outcomes are very tricky.

In Schilling's defense, his criticism was focused on *individual* projections/predictions, which truly is the area where our analysis is least definitively useful so far. And he knows that a lot of statheads and roto freaks come to view players as Strato cards and means-of-production, respectively. And that this feels de-humanizing to Schilling on his own behalf and in behalf of players who get booed.

For a multi-millionaire, he's awfully smart, and is capable of showing empathy w/his peers (if not as much with us).

He seems like a pretty straight-up guy to me.

Posted by: jeff angus at February 1, 2004 12:06 PM

So wait a minute SG: if I like to look at concrete analysis and I'm a Democrat that's why I'll hate Fox News? So they're some great bastion of statistical analysis?

Weird, 'cause I was pretty sure they were the network that blindly supported the President with the $1 trillion deficit who wants to cut taxes and go to Mars. And you know, I'm pretty positive that doesn't hold up to statistical analysis.

Not to make this a political thing, but if you can joke at my expense, I can joke at yours, right? :P

Posted by: Jeff at February 1, 2004 12:15 PM

I generally like Schilling, but I think he's got a little bit of Joe-Morgan-tunnel-vision going on. He concedes that statistics can be used to effectively analyze past performance, but maintains that the analysis of past performance cannot fortell the future.

He's working off his own definition of "future," however. Schilling seems to think that sabermetricians (he uses Neyer for shorthand) believe that past numbers can show what a player is going to do in a particular at bat, game, week, or some other short period of time. I know of no "stat-heads" who would claim such a thing. These projections (note: not predictions) show what is likely to happen over the course of one or more seasons.

I think he's misrepresenting Neyer's work somewhat. Neyer spends a lot of time describing how a player plays - how he gets the results he gets. He does, of course, believe in measuring those results. I agree with him that it's vital when doing so, and vital when trying to figure out how a player will contribute in the future, not to ignore the numbers.

I feel obligated to remind that I generally like Curt before I continue...

Call me a grammar/spelling nazi, but it makes my neck-hair stand up to see an intelligent person using the non-word "alot" over and over again.

And I love the statistical reasons to boo Curt Schilling. That put a smile on my face.

Posted by: Scott at February 1, 2004 12:32 PM

Fox News = Phil Rogers, over and over again.

Had to balance things out. ;)

Posted by: Floyd Thursby at February 1, 2004 12:47 PM

Scott,

As a former college English instructor, I point you to this quote from an interview with Joseph Pickett is Vice President and Executive Editor in the Dictionary Department at Houghton Mifflin Company:

The fused spelling "alot" is an interesting case and it shows how the judgment of dictionary editors comes into sway. There is no linguistic reason to keep "alot" out of the dictionary. It is a very common spelling (as any composition teacher will tell you), and there are many similar words already (there's one right there) in the dictionary, like "awhile."

http://www.wordsmith.org/chat/pickett.html

Probably only a matter of time before "alot" is accepted as correct.

Posted by: Edw. at February 1, 2004 01:54 PM

Except in the case of Fox News Democrats have a salient point, because Neyer isn't lying about the stats.

Posted by: Outstrike at February 1, 2004 04:25 PM

Hey Edw,
" from an interview with Joseph Pickett is Vice President and "
alot of people might think there is a ", who" missing from that post ! :P

Posted by: Lobster Larry at February 1, 2004 05:17 PM

Yeah Jeff you are entitled to make a joke. So where is it?

Posted by: Paul at February 1, 2004 08:43 PM

I know it goes against the bloggers mentality, but I can't help thinking that Schilling is right, at least when talking about stats. Stats are a measure of what has happened in the past, not what will happen in one particular at bat in the future. I appreciate Schilling saying that there is so much more that happens in a baseball game and in a clubhouse than the stats will ever tell us.
I think stats are great. I think that they should be used before a game trying to find advantages throughout the game. But I don't think that game time decisions can be completely based on stats. A manager can use such stats and use them with other knowledge of a situation to determine what to do.
Also, stats can be used when making personel decisions such as trades or offseason free agent decisions.
As Billy Beane said in Moneyball, that thinking is meant to win over 162 games. Even he acknowledges that it won't work all the time, or in small sample sizes like the playoffs. That's why, in individual situations (the smallest possible sample), more needs to go into that decision.

Posted by: Seth Stohs at February 1, 2004 10:44 PM

There seems an arrogance from many stat heads that they have the power of prediction, and when it does not come to pass, they have chance and luck to excuse their inaccuracies.

I see ALOT of ego in stat-head posts. they are no different in substance from drunk-n-rowdy messageboard trolls saying "your team sux", but the stat heads have the pretension of being statistical analysts and not just ordinary fans.

Posted by: halofan at February 2, 2004 02:30 AM
And remember, for every Rob Neyer, there are many more sports writers who comment on the game without any idea what the stats mean. I guess players look at Rob Neyer the way Democrats look at Fox News. :-)

That's just uncalled for, Dave... Neyer at least backs up his theories with the relevant stats and facts. Fox News, on the other hand, is full of you know what more often than not. Bill O'Reilly and Hannity at a minimum lie all the damn time. Sit on the Internet while watching O'Reilly or Hannity... finding the lies or deceptive "facts" is pretty easy when you have google in front of you (strategic misquotes, exaggerations, and made up facts).

Let's not turn this into a political blog or it may get tuned out on my aggregator.

Posted by: s. shah at February 2, 2004 07:07 AM

tally another Dem/Neyer admirer who thinks you went over the line. I'll take Neyer and give the points in an IQ battle between Neyer and O'Reily.

Posted by: Phil at February 2, 2004 12:44 PM

Since three people now have taken my analogy the wrong way, let me clarify. I did not mean to compare the accuracy of Fox News with the accuracy of Rob Neyer. What I meant to compare was the uniqueness of Rob Neyer and Fox News, and how they are disliked because of that uniqueness.

Posted by: David Pinto at February 2, 2004 01:36 PM

Fox News is unique? how? I don't dislike Fox News because they're unique... I dislike them because their leading personalities dissemble worse than Bill Clinton.

I also would disagree with the previous commenter (who identified himself as dem/neyer admirer)... this isn't about dem or repub.. it's about accuracy and honesty. neyer pulls all of his stats and puts it out there. You can go look them up. They are also easily verifiable... he doesn't add .035 to someone's OBP to make a point.

It was an unnecessary dig at Neyer (saying players believe he fabricates) or a silly comment.

Fox News is hardly unique when you consider the proliferation of Republican leaning papers (NY Post, Wash Times), various talking head shows on Sunday, books, etc. The fact that they lie brazenly is the only unique property of FN...

Posted by: s. shah at February 2, 2004 02:39 PM

no comment on the topic, but gleaning quotes from SoSH deemed off-the-record is a poor display of ethics. if there was no disclaimer in that thread then i would have no issue with it.

this is yet another reason why SoSH has toyed with the idea of closing public viewing.

feel free to link/discuss the material, but please remove the direct quotes from the site or you may jeopardize further candid commentaries from a major leaguer on a topic that -- i think we all agree -- is quite engaging.

feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

best regards,
Eric/LJ
SoSH founder

Posted by: Lanternjaw at February 2, 2004 08:20 PM

Personally, if you want to close SOSH from public viewing, then you could call the quote "off the record." But when it's published on a public web page for all to see, in no way can that be construed as an off the record comment.

It's obviously up to David if he wants to pull the quote from the post, but he wasn't quoting something he overhurt Curt saying to a friend. The closer equivalent would be calling a press conference and then declaring that your statements are off the record.

Posted by: John Y. at February 3, 2004 11:17 AM

"Overhurt"? I meant overheard, obviously.

Posted by: John Y. at February 3, 2004 12:03 PM

I'm with David.

How can an "off the record" quote appear (and be discussed) on one blog -- but not on another?

that said, having Schilling post online is a great thing, and we be accomodating. And I'd register and maybe pay for SOSH/Schilling if I had to.

Posted by: Andrew at February 4, 2004 12:22 PM

It would be surprising to me to discover that SABR-friendly types could be pro-Fox News (I suppose pro-Repub is a different matter, though maybe not all that different.) Baseball performance analysts seem to be so reasonable and fact- or data-driven. It seems (from the short response) like Dave doesn't want to turn this discussion political, and I'd say that's probably a good thing. I read baseball blogs to get away from politics and to talk about something constructive. At least here we can all talk about the non-performance analysis reactionaries with the appropriate amount of disdain and all feel superior and rational. Politics just gets petty. It's almost like a sports rivalry. Except people always think they're on a moral high-ground when talking about it (which doesn't usually happen in sports, unless of course you're trashing the Yankees.)

Posted by: Ameer at February 4, 2004 05:40 PM

Re. Schilling's comments about Kevin Jordan and a few other issues:

1. Bill James, writing about Enos Cabell years and years ago, said that someone told him that Cabell was worth "ten games a year to the Tigers" because of his influence on young players. James said that it might be true--he just had no way of knowing it. Now, clearly, saber types can't qualify every trashing of replacement-level talent with that type pf disclaimer--it would be silly and impractical. But I thought Schilling's point, while obviously biased because Jordan is his buddy, was valid, in the sense that stuff goes on on a baseball team that can't be quantified and may show up in the won-loss column. The stats can *measure* almost everything, but the *causes*--eg a guy like Jordan telling Abreu something that helps Abreu get a hit--may be beyond their reach. BP tends to assume that what they measure can then be tied to the cause--they regularly trash coaches, minor league coordinators, marketing departments, and now training staffs, based on what their stats tell them. I think the reality is more complex than that, and Schilling's comments on Jordan illustrate that.
2. That said, I wish someone had asked Schilling "why not just make Jordan a coach, to maximize his strengths and eliminate his weaknesees?" Schilling likely would have answered that it's different coming from a player, I assume, but I still think it's a valid question.
3. I understand Schilling's wanting ground rules--he's not just a regular poster on some level--but I think it's funny that the guy moderating the board said he'd *ban* people who posted before Schilling did when there was a question up that Schilling hadn't answered, and I think it's funny that Schilling wants this to be "off-the-record."
4. Many celebs are blogging now--supposedly Wil Wheaton, the guy from "Stand By Me" and "Star Trek: the Next Generation" has the "best" one. I saw Michael Douglas on TV say that he liked it as a way to talk to the fans. I think celebs and politicians are only beginning to see the net's PR possibilities. How much harder will the SOSH guys and all their brethren pull for Schilling NOW?

Posted by: srar at February 5, 2004 01:10 AM

Srar, about your point numer 2, regarding making Jordan a coach: my feeling after reading Schilling's post (which I thought was well done) is that Jordan was so useful not really because of his advice to players, but because he served as such a great example. He was supposedly a paragon of professionalism, preparation and dedication. It's easy for a coach to tell you to pay attention and prepare, and just as easy to ignore that coach. But when you see a guy like Jordan busting his butt every day, especially as a pinch hitter who doesn't get a lot of playing time, it probably means a lot more.
Go A'S!

Posted by: Ameer at February 5, 2004 08:58 AM

Dave,
I asked the question of how the Schilling quote that made the rounds on the blog's yesterday could effect baseball blog's in general.

Schilling going onto SoSH and posting and chatting enough to make a decision on coming to Boston is unprecedented. Now Schilling is still visiting the public site to chat or whatever. The publicity of baseball blogs has to be good! Right?

I pose the question, do you think those players posting and reading blog's is a good thing or bad thing? Some player's could benefit from it others might not. Depends on the players. Personally, I'd lurk in the better blogs to get a feel for the public's perception of my play.

Now, I cannot agree that you need to take down the quotes. Schilling knows that he's posting on the web. Hell even e-mails are public domain after you send them. As long as you reference from where the information came from then there really should be an issue.

If SoSH wishes to make it a money site. It's their right, but don't expect to cash-in on Schilling's participation. You close the doors to the site for pay then Schilling could ask to be compensated for visiting there.

Keep Baseball blogging pure, by the fan for the fans of baseball.

As for numbers and statistics. Trends do continue and there is never a good formula to predict how a player will play. The outliers of statistics will always keep the stats from being 100% correct. No one could've perdicted the Sosa explosion of '98. It was a correction to the stats. It's similar to the Dow Jones really.

Posted by: Scott G. F. at February 5, 2004 01:35 PM

Scott,

I think everyone should blog. For baseball players, it would be a way to connect with fans without the filter of the media. Some would be good at it. I think Schilling would, in fact, be very good at it. But they have to accept that they are going to be criticizied. The nice thing is, since it's a public forum, they can answer the criticism directly, rather than wait for the 6 PM news to run a short clip from a press conference.

So I think players reading blogs is a very good thing. I would love it if a player or manager or GM left a comment on this blog. I would like to learn more about the game, and good constructive comments from those people would help quite a bit. So I'm all for it. Baseball blog are for everyone!

Posted by: David Pinto at February 5, 2004 01:43 PM

Boy, this was really confusing this morning, when I got the first of about 20 emails from fellow baseball bloggers on a subject that was completely unknown. I think I'm up to speed now. A few points:

1) Schilling and SoSH have no leg to stand on asking you not to refer to quotes they requested to be "off the record". They most certainly are on the record, since I just went tot he public website and read them. The record is right there, in ones and zeroes, or whatever. He might as well call Mike & the MadDog and ask that his on-air comments be considered off the record.

2) Alot, while not a real word, probably should be. Consider that while the following sentence technically is proper grammar, it just doesn't sound right:

"A lot of people goes there."

Eew. Someone should really see about admitting alot into the dictionary, if people are going to use it as an adjective.

3) Schilling's contention that Kevin Jordan's (or anyone else's) value cannot be measured by stats alone is accurate, but almost completely irrelevant. In the long run, the Phillies, Diamondbacks, RedSox, or whomever are trying to win games. The smart people who run teams know that, while "past production is no guarantee of future performance," you've got to use something, start somewhere. Maybe if you've got two guys on the roster who can't hit worth a damn, and one of them is KJ and one is a jerk, you cut the jerk, obviously. However, if KJ is keeping the next Mickey Mantle down in AAA because he's "a professional hitter" or a "good clubhouse guy" or "bakes good brownies", then it seems pretty obvious to me that he's hurting the team, in the long run. Neyer would never say that KJ is a bad guy because he's hitting .160, or that coaching younger players isn't useful, just that if KJ can't do his primary job, the job of hitting, and there's someone else who can and is available, then you need to get that someone else up there to the ML club.

And that's why Schilling doesn't get to make those decisions. Epstein, or Wade or Colangelo or Cashman does. Schilling gets to make the fastball/splitter/slider decisions, because that's how he's able to help the team win games. The GM makes the decisions about the roster because he can measure results and project future performance from a slightly more objective vantage point.

Posted by: Travis M. Nelson at February 6, 2004 01:38 PM

hmmmpf...

is this really a big deal? schilling asks in his posts that they not be republished or quoted elsewhere. someone points out to me that excerpts are being published elsewhere, so i ask the person republishing them to take them down... for the benefit of everyone. i figured that was common sense -- here's a pro ballplayer speaking candidly to fans about some fascinating topics; why would anyone want to lose that due to a lack of common courtesy? i asked baseballmusings.com to take down the quotes; i explained why and i didn't make any demands.

sosh remains open to public viewing so anybody can read these postings or link to them. unlike the majority of websites out there, sosh has zero interest in "hits." i would actually prefer that we had less traffic, which is something i've said hundreds of times over the past two years.

now i've caught wind that will carroll of baseball prospectus is trying to rally all the bloggers over this non-issue. pretty savvy... rally a bunch of non-profit sites... well... feel free to draw your own conclusions.

if any of you think my intentions for asking pinto to remove those quotes were anything other than 'keeping a good thing going' then you're mistaken. i think it's great that schilling chats with red sox fans and don't understand the eagerness to risk it's continuation.

i've got nothing else to say... it really isn't that important to me. quote away if your heart desires. just remember that i'm not the one whose wishes you're ignoring, and the end result may very well suck for everyone.

Posted by: eric/LJ at February 6, 2004 09:07 PM

hmmmpf...

is this really a big deal? schilling asks in his posts that they not be republished or quoted elsewhere. someone points out to me that excerpts are being published elsewhere, so i ask the person republishing them to take them down... for the benefit of everyone. i figured that was common sense -- here's a pro ballplayer speaking candidly to fans about some fascinating topics; why would anyone want to lose that due to a lack of common courtesy? i asked baseballmusings.com to take down the quotes; i explained why and i didn't make any demands.

sosh remains open to public viewing so anybody can read these postings or link to them. unlike the majority of websites out there, sosh has zero interest in "hits." i would actually prefer that we had less traffic, which is something i've said hundreds of times over the past two years.

now i've caught wind that will carroll of baseball prospectus is trying to rally all the bloggers over this non-issue. pretty savvy... rally a bunch of non-profit sites... well... feel free to draw your own conclusions.

if any of you think my intentions for asking pinto to remove those quotes were anything other than 'keeping a good thing going' then you're mistaken. i think it's great that schilling chats with red sox fans and don't understand the eagerness to risk it's continuation.

i've got nothing else to say... it really isn't that important to me. quote away if your heart desires. just remember that i'm not the one whose wishes you're ignoring, and the end result may very well suck for everyone.

Posted by: eric/LJ at February 6, 2004 09:07 PM

eric/LJ
I don't have a problem with you making a request that someone not directly quote with proper sourcing. Any such request is, of course, valid. However, I'd like to hear your response to the central question of this debate: How can something be "off the record" when there is a record publicly available to anyone who can get on the internet? Would a rational person really have that expectation?

I don't want to engender hostility. I don't want Curt to stop interacting with fans. I don't want the SOSH board to go entirely private.

I would think, however, that it's in your interest to encourage such (limited) quoting - with proper sourcing, of course, in the form of a link. Is more traffic to your website a bad thing? I would think not.

Posted by: Scott at February 6, 2004 11:05 PM

1. I realize it was probably an off-the-cuff remark, but I think the least you could do is apologize for using the word unethical - or if not at least try to explain the accusation. The internet is permanent.

2. By using this public message board for your request (rather than contacting David directly), someone might get the impression that you were trying to embarass moreso than get the quote removed.

3. LJ- You've made repeated references to the disclaimer, but this refers only to members of the media. He could have easily said "nothing leaves this site", but conscienciously chose to exclude only the media. In all seriousness, if CS intends for this disclaimer to include bloggers and message board posters or conversations with friends (and that's his perogative) then he would be wise to change the disclaimer. It would be an easy way to avoid confusion.

Posted by: Brent at February 7, 2004 12:57 PM

I do apologize for questioning anyone's ethics... in hindsight it was foolish to respond so quickly to a request without thinking it through and emailing Pinto beforehand.

In re-reading the "Real Baseball" thread, I see that Schilling didn't use his typical 'the following is off the record and intended for sosh readers only' disclaimer... so yeah -- I rushed to judgement and said something I now regret.

Won't be the last time.

Ever get into a debate and realize you've overlooked the obvious and have no legs to stand on? but still try to remain firm in your resolve? That's me -- in my haste I goofed and I apologize.

One point I'd like to make, however, is that anyone who thinks I made this request for selfish reasons is completely off the mark. At the time I thought I was doing my part to protect something for everyone. Let the record show that SoSH is not interested in "hits" or traffic. I can't stress that enough.

Again -- my apologies to David Pinto for hasty comments that were unwarranted.

I'll send you a note later on, David... no email here at work.

Posted by: LJ/Eric at February 7, 2004 06:57 PM

Thanks very much, Eric.

Posted by: David Pinto at February 7, 2004 07:00 PM

Thanks to both David and LJ/Eric for handling this issue so well. David for removing the quotes even though he felt he didn't have to, and Eric for offering a "mea culpa" about his original request.

Perhaps it's time to all move on with our lives. :)

Posted by: Smiling Joe Hesketh at February 7, 2004 11:17 PM

As somebody who reacted with anger to David's treatment and took his own hits for doing so, I am glad to see that Eric/Lanternjaw has apologized. I don't necessarily agree with everything he's said in his many posts above, but I respect a man for admitting when he's made a mistake. Our long national nightmare is over :)

On that front, I offer my own apology for suggesting in my defense of David that I'd rather see SoSH shut down or closed off, and see the Schilling experiment end. I hope that he continues to patronize SoSH, that the results remain in public view, and that some kind of balance between respecting his wishes and remaining true to the spirit of the medium can be struck.

Posted by: Jay Jaffe at February 8, 2004 04:31 PM