A ray of sunshine has recently appeared, brightening the
dismal season that is Dodger
baseball, 2013. His name is Yasiel Puig,
a 22 year-old Cuban defector, brought up from the Dodgers’ Double-A affiliate Chattanooga
Lookouts, where after a monster Spring Training in which Puig batted .517,
he was sent down for further seasoning.
Wow! I felt almost
like a sportswriter doing that. Of
course, I rewrote it four times, and sports writers just type it and ship
it. But, you know, they’re professionals and I’m not.
I bet they’d have trouble
writing episodes of Taxi. Although, looking back, I had trouble writing episodes of Taxi myself.
Anyway…
This is an objectively small point about statistics, though
I think it’s important, which, to me at least, makes it a big point. I only said it was a small point in case you
thought I was making a huge deal about nothing, which you may ultimately still
believe, but I don’t. Though I readily
acknowledge that there are a myriad of issues that are considerably more important. Like, for example, getting out of this
paragraph before I die.
Needing a shot in the arm – meaning somebody who can hit –
the Dodgers elevated Yasiel Puig from
the minors. This decision was immediately
rewarded by Puig’s phenomenal subsequent performance.
In his first five games ever in the Major Leagues, Yasiel Puig
hit four home runs. Also in those first
five games, Puig accumulated ten RBI’s (Runs Batted In.) If you don’t know baseball, that’s a lot of
RBI’s. It’s a lot of RBI’s even if you do know baseball. Whatever you know, it’s a lot of RBI’s.
As a point of comparison, Barry Bonds – albeit “juiced up” –
holds the single-season all-time home run record with 82. If he kept up his current pace for a full
season, Yasiel Puig would have – according to my calculator, and rounding up – a
hundred and thirty home runs.
That exemplifies my point right there before I even thought
I was making it. My point was apparently
in a hurry, and it started making itself before
I got there.
That point is this:
In any sport you can mention, the fans of that sport are,
often encyclopedically, enthralled by that sport’s statistics. They steep themselves in statistical comparisons,
using those numbers to debate who was the greatest (Place Name of Your Preferred Sport Here) practitioner
of that sport of all time.
Fans seem to never get enough of these statistical
comparisons. So the sports announcers
keep dredging up new ones. This could
also be a way for the announcers to fill time between the action, especially in
baseball where, for the greater part of the game, nothing at all is happening. (If you don’t count players spitting out
sunflower seed shells and readjusting their groinal protectoration.)
Invariably – a word I use frequently in blog posts, but,
interestingly, almost never in real life – these comparative statistics – my
point in a nutshell – are of no value whatsoever.
One example of “Statistical Protectionism”, out of
thousands.
I recall during the last Olympics,
there was a kerfuffle about the type of bathing attire some of the competitors
were wearing, because they were of a construction or fabric material allowing the
participants inside them to swim faster.
Besides the competitive advantage they provided, there was
also a concern that this advanced super-swimwear would play havoc with the
event’s historical records, inevitably diminishing the achievements of the athletes
of the past, required to swim in floppy bloomers and water-absorbent swim
trunks. (Prurient Proposal: To provide competitive equality – and for no
other reason, I mean it – let them all swim naked. All I’ll leave it at that.)
In any sport I can imagine, though announcers and fans
engage enthusiastically in the practice, it makes absolutely no sense in to
compare statistical performances between eras.
Why? Different equipment. Advanced fitness techniques. Increased Nutritional awareness. Improvements in physical therapy and injury
treatment. Better equipment. Upgraded playing, travel and accommodational
conditions. “Mental Training”
professionals. Astronomically greater
financial incentives.
What I’m saying here is, though modern athletes continue to
break the records of their predecessors – Hooray! Hooray! – their surpassing excellence is in
no way due exclusively to the superior abilities of the participants
themselves.
To borrow an appropriate metaphor, it’s an uneven playing
field.
(A Notable Exception:
Joe Dimaggio’s 1941 56 consecutive-game hitting streak, which has never
been equaled or even come close to. That guy was just a freak!)
The other issue related to statistics, especially for rookies,
is that “Newbie’s” statistics are notoriously non-predictive.
I checked the statistics.
The Elias Sports
Bureau, which provides historical research and statistical services in the
field of professional sports, informs me that Yasiel Puig’s prodigious record
of four home runs in his first five games in the Majors was equaled by one
other player – Mike Jacobs (2005.)
Jacobs then went on to an undistinguished eight-year career, playing
intermittently, and generally unimpressively, for five different teams.
Puig’s ten RBI’s in his first five games tied him
in the record books with two other players – Jack Merson (1951), who thereafter
played only one full season in the Majors, and Danny Espinosa (2010). Espinosa has an anemic lifetime batting
average of .230 (Puig’s is currently
.464.)
The message here is:
The message here is:
Wait.
And think twice about those statistics.
Next football season?
When they tell you something like, “The Forty-Niners have defeated the Vikings
for twenty-four years in a row”?
Think about how many of those Forty-Niners
and Vikings are still playing on
those teams. Upon further consideration,
you might well conclude,
“That statistic doesn’t
seem very important.”
Though experience suggests, if you’re a Forty-Niner’s fan, you’ll think,
“It’s a lock!”
And if you’re a Vikings fan, you’ll think,
“We are really, really due.”
Hope nobody tells Yasiel Puig he tied Danny Espinosa's impressive record.
ReplyDelete