Bob Costas' take on Analytics in Baseball

[mytreds]

Great take by HoF broadcaster Bob Costas on the effect of analytics in modern baseball.

Video here

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by mytreds

Great take by HoF broadcaster Bob Costas on the effect of analytics in modern baseball.

Video here

He said some things that were true, but what was the point of anything he said?

Any team is allowed to leave their starting pitcher in as long as they want so they can wipe their brow in in the 8th inning. They don't because it makes them less likely to win

He says that confidence can't be measured, but is using that argument to say that Snell should have been left in because he was more confident than Anderson. Well, if confidence can't be measured, then how can he say that someone had *more* of it?

Blake Snell "dealing"?
There's no evidence that means anything

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

Another study

https://twitter.com/ckurcon/status/1...141205506?s=19

Finds that pitchers who were dealing through 5 innings (0.62 ERA) had a 3.86 ERA in the 6th inning.

Then, the non-thinking argument against "scripting" pitcher usage. The Dodgers also, certainly, scripted their pitcher usage - and they won!



He's right about pace of play. Baseball should take steps to have pitchers pitch with less time between pitches, and should find some way to incentivize putting the ball in play.




So, how is this a "great take"?
He doesn't say anything that hasn't been said a million times. There was nothing relolutinary or novel about his comments. He just said things that people will like, and they will think that's "great".

[Westheim]

Bob Costas has more Emmys than the Yankees have rings??

[mytreds]

Originally Posted by Westheim

Bob Costas has more Emmys than the Yankees have rings??

Apparently, to some, his experience means nothing.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by mytreds

Apparently, to some, his experience means nothing.

Argumentum ab auctoritate is a logical fallacy

Also, why does the experience of a person who has talked about sports trump the experience of a front office that has lead their team to a World Series.

It's not like Cash, Silverman, Neander et al don't also have experience.

[mytreds]

It's sad that some fail to see past their noses.

He said analytics is a good thing, but should not be relied upon 100% of the time; that to a fault, overuse of it can be detrimental.

He also makes the case, and I agree, that the human element of the game, no matter what people may believe, cannot be quantified through statistics. And the "gut feelings" and decisions are just as worthy as the "script" handed to managers before a game. People can't continue to make the claim that analytics is gospel and the only way forward. Obviously, it requires both the tangible and intangible (which is what Costas said).

I don't agree with everything Costas says, but that man is spot on in this analysis. Of course, that is my opinion and you are more than free not to share it. It also my opinion that the beauty of the game is slowly being destroyed by the overuse of analytics(and judging by the number of other posters here, I'm not alone in thinking that).

[mytreds]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

Argumentum ab auctoritate is a logical fallacy

Also, why does the experience of a person who has talked about sports trump the experience of a front office that has lead their team to a World Series.

It's not like Cash, Silverman, Neander et al don't also have experience.

So is strawmanning.

Nowhere did I state that his experience supersedes another's.

They both have experience- yet some people believe one person's is valid and the other's is not, based simply on what they believe. But this belief is understandable given the corner they have painted themselves into.

People are free to believe and opine what they want to be provided they allow others the same privilege.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by mytreds

He also makes the case, and I agree, that the human element of the game, no matter what people may believe, cannot be quantified through statistics. And the "gut feelings" and decisions are just as worthy as the "script" handed to managers before a game.

Started to type that "this is a stunning contradiction" but there's nothing stunning about it. It's very predictable.

First, arguing that people's beliefs regarding the human element should be discounted
Then, one sentence later, arguing that "gut feelings" are "just as worthy"

So which is it?
Do beliefs and gut feelings have merit? Or do they not?
Or only the ones that you happen to agree with do?

And, again, why is Costas' experience relevant, but the experience of the Rays' front office not?


And, just to be clear, there is nothing in analytics that says that a staring pitcher must be removed after they face 18 hitters. There is only a mountain of evidence that they perform more poorly after doing so. Yet, teams have completed no-hitters, even in the analytics age. So, obviously it is known that pitchers can be effective after facing 18 hitters and that they don't turn into garbage when the 19th batter comes to the plate.

So this whole analytics vs traditional (or whatever) argument really misses the mark. There were valid reasons for taking Snell out of the game, there were valid reasons to leave him in the game. Neither decision would have guaranteed success and neither decision would have 100% right or wrong.


As for "destroying the beauty of the game". It's nearly unanimous, even in analytics circles, that the game is more enjoyable when there are more balls in play. It's up to baseball to figure out how to do that. If some team's, for their fans, want to pitch worse pitches that the hitters can more easily hit, and want to send hitters up to bunt and hit ground balls to second, they are free to do so. Then we'll see if the fans prefer the beauty of the game to losing

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by mytreds

So is strawmanning.

Nowhere did I state that his experience supersedes another's.

They both have experience- yet some people believe one person's is valid and the other's is not, based simply on what they believe. But this belief is understandable given the corner they have painted themselves into.

People are free to believe and opine what they want to be provided they allow others the same privilege.

Come on
Be honest

The clear implication of your statement is that Costas' experience makes him "right"

While totally ignoring the experience of the Rays' decision makers who were "wrong"

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by mytreds

Apparently, to some, his experience means nothing.

Sure! I was just surprised by the amount, but then found out there's dozens of categories for sports-related Emmys. However -

He is the only person in television history to have won Emmys for Sports, News (Sandusky interview), and Entertainment (Later). (Wikipedia)

Bob Costas was also one of the first guys I encountered when getting into baseball, stumbling across the "25 Greatest Games" series from MLB Network (?), by Game 6 in '86, which was #3 on the list; even then the series was a few years old. Not sure there was a game in there that was newer than the Red Sox comeback 3-0 down against the Yankees. It's no longer available on the internet as far as I know. He did that with Tom Verducci, but Costas was the one that impressed me more, because he has a talent to create a scene, a feeling just by changing the tone of his voice like few people can.

...which probably helped him to a couple o' dozen of those Emmys, too.

And how many people have delivered eulogies to a Yankees *and* a Cardinals Hall of Famer?

Everybody knows taking Snell out was stupid to the n-th degree. What I took away from the segment were definitely the 28 Emmys.

[CBeisbol]

Costas is good at what he does

Costas does not manage a baseball team. He does he run a baseball team in any way shape or form. He does not do analytics.