I think this is the biggest mistake/misrepresentation of stats. I don't think any are predictive in nature. I think they are all reactionary based on history. They are only predictive to the extent that history repeats itself in the same form that it has already happened.

 

So, they are not evaluation tools, but things we can use as old men to argue about who was better when we were young.

FanGraphs had an interesting article up the other day about the Astros apparently pitching "away" from a shift. It showed a infield shifted very far to the left (no 2B) with the pitcher working away from Jose Bautista. The theory behind it is Bautista is a rather extreme pull hitter, especially with offspeed stuff, so he's more likely to pull into that shift no matter where you're throwing the breaking balls.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/why-would-a...inst-the-shift/

 

Shifting is really quite interesting to think and read about.

Considering all the information you ever needed has been there for ages and you are also paying scouts to follow opponents, it is really surprising shifts haven't been used all that much at this point. There usually has been something in the OF, but the infield rarely moved much at all. It also is a very effect way to help an infield without much range. Detroit the past couple of years for example.

Considering all the information you ever needed has been there for ages and you are also paying scouts to follow opponents, it is really surprising shifts haven't been used all that much at this point. There usually has been something in the OF, but the infield rarely moved much at all. It also is a very effect way to help an infield without much range. Detroit the past couple of years for example.

 

I think that's what the Yankees are doing this year. With Jeter, Roberts, Johnson all old men in the infield, they are suddenly #1 or #2 in infield shifts after ignoring it for so long. They realize their defenders have very little range and are trying to compensate for them.

So, they are not evaluation tools, but things we can use as old men to argue about who was better when we were young.

 

They are evaluation tools in my eyes, but not predictive tools.

They are evaluation tools in my eyes, but not predictive tools.

 

Right. They hold some bearing on predicting the future, but are relatively unassailable when it comes to determining what has already happened.

 

This doesn't mean they're useless. If I had stats showing you how much better Player X has played than Player Y this year, I would go ahead and not trade for Player Y. That is, unless Player Y was always better before this season, in which case we have a new level of subjectivity involved.