Reason why numbers and stats matter more in baseball than football

[chrispw1]

I was thinking that one of the reasons numbers in baseball matter more than football is because baseball stats are probably considred more of a measurement of a player's individual ability than football in the sense that with baseball it's mano y mano pitcher vs. hitter where football is more of a system type game with numbers helped out by guys around you such as recievers, line, qb. For example, this past year Brett Favre had a type of season that no 38 year old qb had had before yet the reason is believed to be Mike McCarthy having a good system and having better skill position players surrounding him. This year Tom Brady threw 50 touchdown passes after a previous career high of 28 yet the main reasons are considered to be the adition of Randy Moss and D'ante Stallworth and the coaches having him be more of a passer. Also, Rich Gannon in his mid 30s went from being a mediocre journeyman bouncing from team to team to a superstar pro bowler yet it is considered to be bccause of Jon Gruden having him in the right system with good recivers and linemen. So I think that even if a star position player in the NFL were to have strong links to steroid use I think one reason fans wouldn't be as upset is bcause they'd still consider their numbers a product of their system and guys around them more so than any steroid use.

[SamtheBravesFan]

I see your point, but I think you have your title backwards. ;)

[digglahhh]

In football, the skill positions rack up the fancy numbers, but the game is won and lost on the line(s).

With the exception of a handful of truly special players, the skill positions are really a mass of interchangeable parts.

I mean, just look at Denver's running game throughout their most recent period of success. Terrell Davis was damn good, so he was clearly the best performer they had over that group of seasons. But, they continually brought in mediocre-ish backs who put up 1,000 yard seasons. It's not rocket science.

Look at Edgerin James, his departure was thought to be a huge blow to Indy - I'm still paying credit card bills with money from his fantasy owners during first season in 'Zona. Meanwhile, Addai is heralded as one of the top backs in the league.

There's nothing analogous in baseball. The closest we can come is changing ballparks, but that's not even a "system." Perhaps the best example I can conjure is Eric Byrnes swiping 50 bags last year after leaving Oakland, a team that openly eschews basestealing.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

I've gone ahead and changed the title, switching 'football' and 'baseball'. I have a feeling it's now what chrispw meant to say initially.

[Old Sweater]

Perhaps the best example I can conjure is Eric Byrnes swiping 50 bags last year after leaving Oakland, a team that openly eschews basestealing.


eschews:to avoid habitually especially on moral or practical grounds.


Are you saying that Oakland don't run as much as the D Backs?

[digglahhh]

eschews:to avoid habitually especially on moral or practical grounds.


Are you saying that Oakland don't run as much as the D Backs?

Yes. Oakland is on record as being opposed to the stolen base. They generally don't bunt either. This is all discussed in Moneyball.

It's the practical grounds on which the object, not the on the immorality of stealing... :dance

Edit: They've been last or second to last in the AL in SBs every season since the departure of Rickey Henderson except one (in which they ranked 10th in the AL).

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

The A's were dead last last season. And despite having guys like Vernon Wells, Alex Rios and Reed Johnson (who could probably all swipe 30 bags) the Jays were next-to-last, with Billy Beane disciple JP Riccardi at the helm.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Baseball as a game is very different than basketball and football in that players take turns at bat and the defense controls the ball first. Baseball is a sequential game, a game played as a series on individual action by players. A player at the plate gets no help from his teammates. He is alone facing the pitcher alone. In football and basketball the offense work together to advance the ball. Everyone on offense works together as one entity. Baseball is not like this in this respect. I think that's way baseball records are more cherished. Baseball records are seen as being more accurate barometer of a player's skill. In football the running back requires quality linemen to block for him. A QB requires quality linemen and quality receives to put up great passing numbers.

[Sean Casey]

Add to it all the fact that there is no legitimate statistical way to measure the individual performance of linemen. In baseball, any player, regardless of position, will have many statistics to indicate the quality of his performance. Linemen, on the other hand, almost never collect figures in official NFL statistical categories except for the occasional fumble recovery.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

I have to agree, as I think anyone does, that this is the case.

At the same time, there are some statistics in baseball that heavily rely on the performance of your teammates. It seems that they are moreso the 'traditional' statistics: Wins & losses, ERA, RBI, even a catcher's success rate at throwing out runners depends heavily on the pitcher getting the ball to the plate quickly.

[digglahhh]

Add to it all the fact that there is no legitimate statistical way to measure the individual performance of linemen. In baseball, any player, regardless of position, will have many statistics to indicate the quality of his performance. Linemen, on the other hand, almost never collect figures in official NFL statistical categories except for the occasional fumble recovery.

It's really a shame, and the fact that there is no thumbnail way to for the casual fan to determine who best players at the game's pivotal positions are is a big reason why most casual football fans have no idea how the game really works, and hence no idea what they are talking about.

Oddly enough, most casual baseball fans (and many professional baseball analysts) have no idea what they are talking about either. They don't have the same excuse...

[Jose Reyes]

baseball players still benefit statistically with better talent around them. with a base stealer batting in front of him or a good hitter protecting him in the lineup, a hitter is probably going to put up better numbers. however, i agree with what everyone else has said about football being much more of a team game where players depend on the talent around them more.

[Mattingly]

I see your point, but I think you have your title backwards. ;)
I'd agree. People say that the SF 49ers Dan Marino was a great QB, and I'd think that after 4 Super Bowls, he'd certainly be a great one, just as Pittsburgh Steelers' Terry Bradshaw would be considered one of the best with his 4 SB wins.

However, would Marino have had those 4 SB wins without Jerry Rice out there? There was another big name QB who also worked with Rice and credited him highly (he was a Mormon, last name "Young" I think).

If you believe in my philosophy that a QB = Starting Pitcher in baseball, then which fielder has greatly contributed to a pitcher's success? Besides, a QB is purely offense, whereas a pitcher is defense against the opponent scoring any runs.

For the runners in NFL, they can only get their yards if they're passed the ball. No guarantee who'll get those yards, and unlike the gridiron, you can have an "interference" and catch your opponent's ball then score the touchdown the opposite way.

I'm not too sure what the difference between a nose tackle, tailback and a halfback, but I do know that they all move around a lot more on the field than our guys in the hot corner, SS and 2B. It would also be kind of interesting (very interesting, might I add) to see a fielder get blitzed every now and then if he had the ball. Then again, my imagination does wander from time to time! :D

[Mattingly]

It's really a shame, and the fact that there is no thumbnail way to for the casual fan to determine who best players at the game's pivotal positions are is a big reason why most casual football fans have no idea how the game really works, and hence no idea what they are talking about.

Oddly enough, most casual baseball fans (and many professional baseball analysts) have no idea what they are talking about either. They don't have the same excuse...
Professor Diggs, please educate us upon how the games of football and baseball work, so that the average fan here can better understand both games.

Classes have begun, sir! :D

[Mattingly]

I have to agree, as I think anyone does, that this is the case.

At the same time, there are some statistics in baseball that heavily rely on the performance of your teammates. It seems that they are moreso the 'traditional' statistics: Wins & losses, ERA, RBI, even a catcher's success rate at throwing out runners depends heavily on the pitcher getting the ball to the plate quickly.
I'd say that if a QB keeps passing the ball primarily to one player, that guy will get the most running yards. Everyone else gets far less.

In baseball, like when you had with Boston, Ortiz drove in Damon many times, you had a slugger who could hit doubles and a speedy guy who could score easily, sometimes from 1B. That was tailor made.

I'd say that it's team driven if you have a singles hitter (a Tony Gwynn type), but nobody can advance him to 2B or he can't steal. If nobody behind him can hit, then he'll never get any runs scored. If you have a guy who hits doubles, if nobody in front of him, then very few RBI despite the power to get the game-winning hits.

Unlike in football, I think that everyone on their team has an opportunity to get those stats (scoring or RBI). However, in football, the QB decides people's stats, based upon how successful guys are in advancing the play once they get the ball.

[NickU]

I'd agree. People say that the SF 49ers Dan Marino was a great QB, and I'd think that after 4 Super Bowls, he'd certainly be a great one...



I think you mean Joe Montana

[Brian McKenna]

The basic reason is that very few care about football prior to the upcoming week. It's all about the next game. The field has relatively few researchers and historians. Instead it's full of know-it-all reporters, hucksters and others that proport to know how to best work the odds. Fans are more concerned with placing their bets and attaining a win for the home team. Intellectual research and historical contemplation are predominately reserved for baseball. Football's history and nuances don't attrack men like Bill James.

[digglahhh]

Professor Diggs, please educate us upon how the games of football and baseball work, so that the average fan here can better understand both games.

Classes have begun, sir! :D

Perhaps I sound arrogant, but the fact is that many of the members here agree with that statement.

I have a good amount of pretty savvy friends, but trying to have a conversation about baseball with a stranger at a bar is difficult to say the least. Painful is probably a better way to describe it. I think that is a sentiment shared by many of us here.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

Perhaps I sound arrogant, but the fact is that many of the members here agree with that statement.

I have a good amount of pretty savvy friends, but trying to have a conversation about baseball with a stranger at a bar is difficult to say the least. Painful is probably a better way to describe it. I think that is a sentiment shared by many of us here.I heard a couple guys talking on the subway last weekend, about how the Jays should go out and get Barry Bonds.

I wanted to rip into them, but I decided it would be best not to.

[Barry(US)Bonds]

I heard a couple guys talking on the subway last weekend, about how the Jays should go out and get Barry Bonds.

I wanted to rip into them, but I decided it would be best not to.

This type of conversation doesn't support digglah's point...though I agree with him whole-heartedly

[Mattingly]

I think you mean Joe Montana
Further proof that I'm semi-clueless re the NFL. I guess watching the Giants in the 1986 & 1990 Super Bowl years didn't help me out as much as I'd thought.

Yes, Marino was the Miami Dolphins QB who wore #13, the same #13 that Alex Rodriguez wore because of him. Joe Montana was the one who tossed in 4 SB victories. :(

[Mattingly]

Perhaps I sound arrogant, but the fact is that many of the members here agree with that statement.

I have a good amount of pretty savvy friends, but trying to have a conversation about baseball with a stranger at a bar is difficult to say the least. Painful is probably a better way to describe it. I think that is a sentiment shared by many of us here.
In that case, please explain to the more savvy forumers here what stats are important in baseball and football, and how do they benefit the various players.

Please feel free to discuss offense, defense, stolen bases, interceptions, home runs, touchdowns, whatever. You pick the topic, but please explain how you feel about this matter. I think it would be an interesting read. :)

[Mattingly]

I heard a couple guys talking on the subway last weekend, about how the Jays should go out and get Barry Bonds.

I wanted to rip into them, but I decided it would be best not to.
There are people in the thread about whether or not Bonds should quit that have said he should be a Yankee, if not for Giambi's contract in this, his final season.

If someone says that the Yanks should get Barry Bonds, I just give a pleasant faux smile, which disarms people who'd expected a combative stance, then I just shrug my shoulders. I can't think logically if someone wants us to get him, since getting him doesn't make any sense to me. He is the absolute last person I want to see wearing a Yankee uniform right now.

[digglahhh]

In that case, please explain to the more savvy forumers here what stats are important in baseball and football, and how do they benefit the various players.

Please feel free to discuss offense, defense, stolen bases, interceptions, home runs, touchdowns, whatever. You pick the topic, but please explain how you feel about this matter. I think it would be an interesting read. :)

I'm not going to pen a manifesto. Anybody who is already here can spend their time reading and learning from many knowledgeable voices. If you want to learn about a specific aspect of the game, there are a lot more qualified voices on here than mine.

The advice I give people is the same advice I give people seeking to study anything. Deconstruct what you have been told. Scrutinize the most sacred and fundamental assumptions of the dominant voice. You have to destroy and rebuild. If you've never broken down your opinions to their components and scrutinized them at their most basic level, those opinions aren't really yours. That's the philosophical side of learning about anything, in depth.

The more nuts and bolts advice is to read. Baseballreference.com is a wonderful site, but fiddling around it is not research, for the most part. Read biographies, seek primary source material. Stats are extremely important, and extremely interesting, but you should be "consuming" WAY more letters than numbers in your pursuit - even when you are trying to learn about the statistical aspects of the game.

[philkid3]

The basic reason is that very few care about football prior to the upcoming week. It's all about the next game. The field has relatively few researchers and historians. Instead it's full of know-it-all reporters, hucksters and others that proport to know how to best work the odds. Fans are more concerned with placing their bets and attaining a win for the home team. Intellectual research and historical contemplation are predominately reserved for baseball. Football's history and nuances don't attrack men like Bill James.

I don't see how that's the basic reason at all. A part of it, sure, but it's not the basic reason.

And there are men like Bill James in football. (http://thefootballscientist.com/)

And like Baseball Prospectus. (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/)


The reason there's less research in to statistical analysis is because it's less telling. Every single action on the football field has to do with what happens with 21 other people, play calls and situations. The fact that the sport is timed also makes a difference. It's next to impossible to quantify what most positions contribute, where as that's very possible in baseball.

I wrote a column once when I was covering the WSU women's tennis team where I pointed out that, when you get down to it, collegiate tennis is almost as much of a team sport as baseball. Every player does the exact same job when he bats, has the exact same purpose and rules, and they do so one at a time. And their results can be completely recorded for future reference.


The closest you can get with that in football is game charting. Now, it's somewhat realistic since teams only play 16 games, but it's still excrutiating and not nearly as objective a measure as what happens on a baseball diamond. Even the most basic-yet-telling of football stats, like yards-per-attempt and completion percentage, can be greatly skewed by supporting cast.



What's weird is that, at the same time, the football community seems to MORE embrace analysis and forward-thinking than the baseball community. There is a larger base of stat-heads in baseball than there is in football, but the majority of baseball fans take any sort of advanced statistic almost as offensive and insane. QB Rating is a flawed stat, but it's become an accepted and normal part of the basic world of football stats. A metric like that in baseball is widely shunned because it's not traditional. No matter if it's credible or not. So, there are more stat-heads in baseball, but the lay fan in football is more accepting of advanced stat research.

I bring up VORP in a baseball group and people get pissed just at the mention, if they even know what I'm talking about. I bring up DVOA in a football group and it's mostly accepted and even gains some interest from those who don't know what it aims to measure. If they disagree with the findings they don't generally get pissed at the mention.

I find this wholly strange. Additionally, there are whole franchises in MLB that seem to cling to the past and shun any sort of advancing towards more efficient ways to win. NFL franchises are in a constant pursuit to be better, smarter, more thorough and more efficient. Traditionalism is the way of the weak for NFL franchises.

Slightly off topic, just something I find strange as a difference. In the NFL, Ned Colletti probably wouldn't keep his job more than two weeks unless he owned the team and got to call his own shots. Meanwhile, if Billy Beane and Theo Epstein were GMs in the NFL, every single team would have copied them by now. The copy-cat stuff seems to happen very slowly in baseball.

[philkid3]

In that case, please explain to the more savvy forumers here what stats are important in baseball and football, and how do they benefit the various players.

Please feel free to discuss offense, defense, stolen bases, interceptions, home runs, touchdowns, whatever. You pick the topic, but please explain how you feel about this matter. I think it would be an interesting read. :)

I linked to Football Outsiders above. It's the closest thing there is to a Baseball Prospectus for football fans. I also linked to the page of K.C. Joyner, who charts every game to create an objective stat analysis of the league. Both are great, but even less perfect than the stats you'll find on a guy's baseball reference page for analysis.

If a player has a .400 OBP, you know he gets on base 2 out of 5 times. Playing 162 games, things mostly average out, so strength of competition doesn't make a huge difference on that number. Teammates make very little difference at all on that number.

YPA is probably the most telling and usefull basic stat in football, but even that is almost as consistent and usefull as RBI/AB in baseball. It can be skewed by strength of opposing defenses, skill of recievers, offensive scheme, o-line ability, even what your backfield is capable of.

If a hitter has four home runs in a game, you know he had a good game. Case closed. If a runningback got 100 yards on 20 carries it looks like he had a good game, but if 80 of those yards came on one carry, he did not. And that doesn't, again, even begin to get in to support and opposing talent.

[digglahhh]

Football Outsiders is very good, but there is still way less research of that sort going on in football than there is in baseball, regardless of how the common fan feels about that type of research.

A couple of hypotheses why the common fan may accept such research in football more than baseball (independent of the role of numbers in the lore and culture of the game):

1. Common baseball fans think current stat systems do a very good job of attributing credit already. This is not true in football. Football fans know statistical analysis is lacking, so they are more willing to explore other avenues.

2. What Football Outsiders does is actually pretty similar to what coaching staffs do. The explore individual match-ups, analyze situationally, etc. Their overall view of the game isn't as much at odds with the general perception.

3. One of the forces that drives sabermetric research, or rather that acts as a big part of the audience is the fantasy crowd who are always looking for a valuable piece of info that they don't know. I don't get mad when somebody dismisses BABIP, because without those guys I'd be paying my own credit card bills. The fantasy component of football is the largest of all sports, I'd guess that a majority of people who know what Football Outsiders is learned about them from Rotoworld.

[philkid3]

No. 3 is a very interesting explination I didn't think of. I don't get in to fantasy baseball or put much effort in to fantasy football, so that escaped me.

[dl4060]

The Joe Montana/Jerry Rice relationship was a very symbiotic one. Both made each other better. Jerry Rice was one of the best of all-time at turning an 8 yard slant into a 50 yard gain. Joe Montana was one of the most accurate passers of all time. Montana's numbers look better because of Rice's ability to run after the catch, but Rice's RAC is dependent on Montana delivering the ball on time. If he has to break stride, the db catches him and it is an 8 yard gain. It is more difficult, in football to separate the contributions of players, as I said before it is very symbiotic. In baseball the actions are much more individual. Among those who judge players by runs scored and RBI that is not the case, but for most of us here, it is.

[sturg1dj]

the amount of emphasis baseball fans put on stats does a disservice to the game. On the surface the stats look pretty universal, but unless you put them in perspective then they can seem to say things that they do not.

People hate steroids for the most part because they ruined their stats, which is crazy. Babe Ruth ruined stats. Hank Aaron moving to Atlanta ruined stats. Mell Ott playing at the Polo Grounds ruined stats. Putting in rules to increase hitting ruined stats.

Even without steroids, is 60 homeruns in 1927 the same as in 2000? nope, Babe Ruth played in bigger stadiums with substandard equipment if compared to today's.

You cannot judge players only on stats. If you did then Cy Young would be the best pitcher and Pete Rose would be the best hitter. But we know better.

[philkid3]

the amount of emphasis baseball fans put on stats does a disservice to the game. On the surface the stats look pretty universal, but unless you put them in perspective then they can seem to say things that they do not.
That's why a large portion of statistical research is an attempt to adjust stats for context. You know that most "stat-heads" strive for things like park and era adjustmens, right? They're not just looking at on-base percentage and calling it a day.

What is the disservice to the game, anyway?


You cannot judge players only on stats. If you did then Cy Young would be the best pitcher and Pete Rose would be the best hitter. But we know better.
I don't think anyone would look at stats and call Cy Young the best pitcher or Pete Rose the best hitter. Anyone who would use career wins and career base hits to make such a judgement is someone who doesn't look at stats period.

I don't think there's anyone who does any sort of statistical research who looks at wins.

[sturg1dj]

That's why a large portion of statistical research is an attempt to adjust stats for context. You know that most "stat-heads" strive for things like park and era adjustmens, right? They're not just looking at on-base percentage and calling it a day.

What is the disservice to the game, anyway?



I don't think anyone would look at stats and call Cy Young the best pitcher or Pete Rose the best hitter. Anyone who would use career wins and career base hits to make such a judgement is someone who doesn't look at stats period.

I don't think there's anyone who does any sort of statistical research who looks at wins.

with all of the adjusted stats there still is much emphasis put on the state of the home run. In the end the stats, even adjusted stats, cannot accurately show what Babe Ruth would do today or what Barry Bonds would do in the 1920's. The game has evolved and the science of baseball (mainstream or otherwise) has changed as well, but then hordes of people cry about 73 and 756 (which I know neither was held by Babe Ruth) like it means something negative to the other players.

[philkid3]

I agree that people get too upset about records being broken by changes in the game, questionable or not.

So what if there's a 162 games? So what if there's better training? For the purposes of this point, so what if he used steroids? It's just a number, it's not a championship or anything.