The other day Braves manager Fredi Gonzalez handed reporters a printout of this New York Times article, "Don't Let Statistics Ruin Baseball," and drolly suggested the hacks look up from their computers every once in a while and actually watch the games.
It’s not what you think. Gonzalez was busting chops but he’s not some old-school baseball guy railing against the advanced statistics that have become a big part of the game in the 14 years since Michael Lewis published “Moneyball.” In fact, Gonzalez said he likes a lot of the advanced stats and enjoys reading and hearing statheads argue their positions. He’s even attended a couple of “Sabermetrics” conventions out of curiosity rather than professional obligation.
But Gonzalez’s admiration for and use of advanced stats only goes so far. Some things can’t be measured, Gonzalez says, and the attempt to quantify every aspect of the game inevitably misses some factors that contribute to winning (and losing).
To illustrate his point, Gonzalez cited a handful of plays in his team's 5-3 victory over the Mets on Friday that appear benign in the official scoring but that inarguably made an impact on the results.
In the eighth inning with the score tied, Braves pinch runner Jace Peterson broke from second to third when David Wright took a few steps in to field Andrelton Simmons’ grounder. Wright saw Peterson out of the corner of his eye and decided to try and tag him but it was too late: Peterson sidestepped Wright’s tag attempt and reached base.
Meanwhile Simmons noticed the Mets weren’t covering second and took an extra base. Two batters later Phil Gosselin’s two-out single scored Simmons and Gosselin.
The official scoring on Simmons’ ground ball was a two-base fielder’s choice. The unofficial reasons he ended up on second and Peterson went to third were instincts, speed and hustle.
“Try to quantify that,” Gonzalez said. “Try to quantify guys being head’s up.”
The truth is that even many dedicated proponents of advanced statistics understand that the worthy goal developing better numbers can go too far. Celebrated numbers guy Nate Silver wrote in his book, "The Signal and the Noise," that among statheads' biases is their tendency to "assume that if something cannot be easily quantified, it does not matter."
That mentality also can crush the joy of it all. The author of the New York Times article cited by Gonzalez, Steve Kettmann, thinks the proliferation of “arcane” stats comes with “a risk that numbers become an end in themselves” rather than a way to enhance enjoyment of the game.
“Thanks to “Moneyball” and stats-driven fantasy leagues, advanced statistics have changed how fans think about the game,” Kettmann writes. “On the whole that’s a positive trend — but not when the numbers begin to eclipse a more nuanced appreciation of baseball.”
