OK, you know how Mark Twain popularized the phrase, “There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies and statistics?”*
*The quote, apparently, was first spoken by the famed British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, but nobody would have ever heard of it unless Twain mentioned it. Here’s a tip I think I have mentioned before: Anytime you want to make one of your quotes a little more popular, you should attribute it to:
[print_this]
1. Mark Twain.
2. Abraham Lincoln.
3. The Bible.
4. Satchel Paige or Dizzy Dean.
5. A Bob Dylan song.
That should cover any and every situation.
I can’t stand that quote. Well, that’s not exactly true, it’s a good quote. I can’t stand the way people use it every time they come across a statistic they don’t like or one that casts a little doubt on their own assured view. People tend to use that quote because they are unable to find giant ball-peen hammers.
Person 1: It’s a shame Tony Pena Jr. isn’t hititng because, I swear, this year he has gotten to like every ball. He must have made a million plays. He just has incredible range.
Person 2: Actually he has not made a million plays; he has the second lowest range factor in baseball.
Person 1: What does that mean?
Person 2: It means for whatever reason he has gotten to fewer balls than any regular shortstop except Julio Lugo.
Person 1: Well, you know what they say about lies and statistics.
Person 2: Yeah, but its not a lie … Pena really is averaging only 3.86 putouts and assists per nine innings. Now, this could be because the Royals have a fly ball staff — Pena’s zone rating is good. But no, purely speaking about made plays, Pena ranks really low — actually, Mike Aviles in limited time has a higher range factor …
Person 1: (Pulls out ball-peen hammer and whacks Person 2 in the head).
No, it isn’t statistics that people consider lies — I’ve mentioned here pretty often that anti-statitics baseball people will often bring up a players batting average or RBI total to prove their point. No, it’s the WAY people use statistics that people will consider lies.
For instance, last night I heard what might be the single stupidest statistic ever. This guy from Michigan was trying to explain just how important his state is for the Democrats this upcoming Presidential election. And Michigan IS important, no doubt, it is a true swing state (voted five times for Republicans, five times for Dems the last 10 elections), and it has 17 electoral votes, and it is important. But the guy wasn’t satisfied with that.
So here’s what he said: “No Democrat has won the White House without winning Michigan since 1952, with the exception of Jimmy Carter in 1976 when he lost to Michigan’s favored son Gerald Ford.”
Wow, no Democrat in 56 years, which the exception of Jimmy Carter when he lost to Michigan favored son Gerald Ford, has taken the White House without Michigan. Wow. Now, right off the top, you can see how stupid the statistic is — generally speaking when you have to throw in an exception that is longer than the actual premise, you have yourself a stupid stat. But this is one of those great stupid stats that just keep getting dumber the more you think about it.
Let’s start with the basics: How many times has a Democrat actually WON the White House since 1952. The answer — five.
1960: John Kennedy.
1964: Lyndon Johnson
1976: Jimmy Carter
1992: Bill Clinton
1996: Bill Clinton.
So, even though the guy’s trying to make it sound semi-impressive — No Democrat since 1952 — we’re really only talking about five guys. And the guy tells you right up front that Michigan only voted for four of them. So now we’re already down to a pretty useless statistic.
Then you can point out that at no point has Michigan made the actual difference in the election. Michigan definitely played a role in 1960, the close race between Kennedy and Nixon, but if Kennedy had lost Michigan and everything else remained the same he still wins the Presidency. In 1964, LBJ crushed Barry Goldwater by 434 electoral votes, one of the more underrated butt kickings in the history of American elections.* So Michigan didn’t really play any role in that election. Clinton won his two election by more than 200 electoral votes.
*It’s stunning to me that Lyndon Johnson got more than 61% of the popular vote. Think about that. I realize the country was still recovering from the Kennedy Assassination — but 61.1% is the highest percentage since 1820. Now THAT’S a statistic.
Then, finally, you take it to the next level: How many times did Michigan vote Democrat and the guy STILL LOST. Well, Michigan voted for John Kerry in 2004. Michigan went for Al Gore in 2000. Michigan went for Hubert Humphrey in 1968. Of course, all three of those guys lost. That means of the seven times Michigan has voted Donkey since 1952, four have won, and three have lost. What kind of record is that?
It’s like Mark Twain always said. Nobody has ever won the White House without winning Michigan and a bunch of other states — or just the bunch of other states. Actually, maybe that was Dizzy Dean.
Loading ...
46 Comments, Comment or Ping
paul
“Well, Michigan voted for John Kerry in 2005.”
Hmm, maybe that was Kerry’s problem - had they voted for him in 2004, maybe he’d have won.
Okay, just quibbling. The post raises a good point. I actually think presidential elections create some of the most insane uses of statistics. For one, we’ve still only had like 50 elections or so, so sample size is kind of an issue regardless. But then consider that it’s hard to group more than 2 or 3 elections under the same, or roughly the same, societal circumstances* and it’s almost impossible to use stats reliably.
* No election prior to women getting the vote can be compared with any after. Sort of like integration in baseball. Speaking of integration, the same can be said of before and after 1965. And those are just the huge changes.
Jun 30th, 2008
Oddibe Kerfeld
Here is the best site I’ve found thus far for presidential election maps and stats. I could spend hours pouring over this site, and have.
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/
For years now Macomb County in Michigan has been seen as the bellweather county for the nation. Somehow its voting trends and demographics have been pretty consistent with the nation as a whole. It was considered the home of the Reagan Democrats in 1980 and 1984. Over the last few elections it has somewhat lost its bellweather status though.
Jun 30th, 2008
rpa
i think attributing quotes to oscar wilde has proven popular over the years as well.
“it is a dull man indeed who can not invent an oscar wilde quote appropriate to his situation.” ~ oscar wilde
Jun 30th, 2008
McKingford
Anytime you want to make one of your quotes a little more popular, you should attribute it to:
…
4. Satchel Paige or Dizzy Dean.
or Yogi Berra…
Jun 30th, 2008
Cairo
I love that Missouri has voted for the winning party every year since 1900 except for 1956. Of all of the elections, they chose to back the loser in 1956? For reference, that was Eisenhower’s election for a second term in office. Missouri backed Eisenhower in 1952 over Adlai Stevenson, then switched their mind in 1956 when 58% of the nation went for Eisenhower. They ended up voting for the same Adlai Stevenson they voted against 4 years earlier.
Jun 30th, 2008
Rodney
Maybe if the democrats understood electoral politics as well as Joe does, the primary would have turned out differently.
Well done, as always, Joe!
Jun 30th, 2008
Aaron B.
Stats don’t lie. People lie. and manipulate and misinterpret and misuse, etc.
btw, Tony Pena is +1 in John Dewan’s +/- system (+4 on grounders, -3 on flyballs/popups), ranking 11th overall while the Hardball Times’ Revised Zone Rating has him at .817 (middle of the pack for qualified short stops) but at #3 overall in plays made outside of the zone (with 25).
Jun 30th, 2008
Damon Rutherford
I nominate Confucius.
Jun 30th, 2008
Jason M.
Einstein is another favorite.
Jun 30th, 2008
bryan
I recently found Nate Silver’s (from BP) new project, and this seems like an appropriate place to mention it here for those of you who missed it. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
Not suprisingly, some incredible stuff in there.
Jun 30th, 2008
Chris
Wait…you’re telling me that a statement was made that had little context, and used flawed statistics not relevant to the discussion? That this person acted smarter than they were, jumped to unrealistic conclusions, and had no basis to support their calim?? And this person was a Democrat?!?!?! Nooooooooooo……..
And props to Oddibe for bringing back the term “bellweather.” Nice.
Jun 30th, 2008
GWO
If with the literate I am,
Compelled to try an epigram,
I never seek to take the credit,
We all assume that Oscar said it.
– Dorothy Parker (who is somewhat quotable herself)
Jun 30th, 2008
G Young
I just wanted to second what Bryan said about the new Nate Silver blog.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com is the best utilization of political “stats” I’ve ever read.
Jun 30th, 2008
Mikey
538 has quickly devolved into a site for Obama homers.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m pro-Obama and they still post some interesting stuff but I enjoyed the site more when Nate was playing it a little more down the middle. And the new guy he’s added is awful.
Jun 30th, 2008
Darin
I really thought this would be about saves when I read the title. But I think you did find one dumber than that stat.
Jun 30th, 2008
Decision 2008
Only four more months to go … maybe then the cable news outlets will talk about something else.
Jun 30th, 2008
Josh in DC
Speaking of quotes, many people attribute “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time” to P.T. Barnum. Yet, Abraham Lincoln said it. Totally changes the meaning.
Barnum also never said, “There’s a sucker born every minute.”
Also: Barnum never would have argued that Pumpsie Green would have played for the 1959 Boston Red Sox if not for Jackie Robinson, which may just be the most fascinating … uh … fallacy I’ve ever read on this site.
if not for Jackie Robinson, baseball might have integrated sometime after Brown v. Board of Education, probably at about the same deliberate speed that we’ve seen elsewhere. I’m not sure Reggie Smith would have played for the Red Sox if not for Jackie Robinson.
The NBA didn’t sign its first black played until 1950, four years after Jackie Robinson signed a contract to play for Montreal. And if you think THAT would have happened without Jackie Robinson …
Sheesh, I’ve got work to do.
Unbelievable.
yeah, and Montgomery Buses would have been intergrated without Rosa.
Jun 30th, 2008
Kent
“Only four more months to go … maybe then the cable news outlets will talk about something else.”
No… then they just start talking about 2012. Sigh…
Jun 30th, 2008
Dave
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I have to go spend some quality time in the restroom, and this looks like a prime column to kill while there. Pretty please, a print entry option?
Jun 30th, 2008
Damon Rutherford
You should be able to copy the text you wish to read, paste it to WordPad, and print. Easy enough, eh?
Jun 30th, 2008
Damon Rutherford
“Not to put too fine a point on it”
Also, upon reading this, I immediately started singing, “Say I’m the only bee in your bonnet, make a little birdhouse in your soul.”
Jun 30th, 2008
McKingford
if not for Jackie Robinson, baseball might have integrated sometime after Brown v. Board of Education, probably at about the same deliberate speed that we’ve seen elsewhere.
I’ll take this chance to respond, since it was my point you are referring to, and it probably gives me the opportunity to better phrase what I meant.
Segregated baseball was a political issue, not a talent issue. It’s not as if teams were waiting for a real good black ball player to come along. And so, it wasn’t because Jackie Robinson was such a great player (although he was a great player) that he *forced* baseball to allow him to break the colour barrier. Rather, it was because Branch Rickey decided to integrate that Jackie Robinson got a chance - a chance he made the most of. Without the political will from a guy like Branch Rickey, Jackie Robinson wouldn’t have broken the colour barrier. So my meaning is that without Branch Rickey - or if no Branch Rickey, someone like him, baseball would have remained segregated. Jackie Robinson was his vehicle, not the cause.
But in a sense, you are also right. Without someone with the political courage of Branch Rickey, it may well have taken a lawsuit to integrate baseball - because baseball wasn’t segregated because of a dearth of talented black players, but because nobody wanted to integrate them. Until Branch Rickey.
Jun 30th, 2008
bigcatasroma
Joe,
What thy have written about is what I like to call the “Tim McCarver Special” . . .
Jun 30th, 2008
Bellweather Johnson
Wasn’t I the name of the second Hootie and the Blowfish album??
Jun 30th, 2008
Creston
Hey look, another state tries to make itself look important through blatantly skewing statistics. What’s really sad isn’t that they’re doing it, but that people will listen to it and BELIEVE IT.
And that problem persists in baseball today.
“Juan Pierre is a better outfielder than Adam Dunn. Why? Well, Dunn strikes out 170 times on average, and Pierre only like 40 times!”
On the surface of it, that does sound reasonable. It completely ignores that Juan Pierre typically leads - or is second - in outs made every year.
Speaking of really really dumb statistics, what does the educated assembly here is a more dumb statistic? The Win or the Save?
Personally I’ll say the Win, but it’s a close call.
Jun 30th, 2008
Josh in DC
McKingford, thanks for a level-headed response.
When I credit Jackie Robinson, I think of how he easily could have crumbled under the weight of (a) expectations and (b) relentless racism from some opposing players and (c) relentless racism from some opposing fans.
Last year’s American League Rookie of the Year batted .182 in the month of April. Now imagine if Jackie Robinson had done the same. What would have been said? “Let’s give another one a shot”? Do you imagine Larry Doby, who made his debut on July 5, 1947, still would have?
Let’s imagine that day, April 22, 1947, when the godawful Philadelphia Phillies — lead by their racist manager — screamed at Robinson, telling him to get back to the cotton fields. Robinson was playing first base that year, so he probably came face-to-face with a good number of players who were calling him “nigger.” Now imagine if Jackie Robinson had thrown a punch, as he must have wanted to. Do you imagine Larry Doby, who made his debut on July 5, 1947, still would have?
Branch Rickey deserves all the credit in the world. He’s a hero, too. But it never would have happened with Jackie Robinson. He was not merely a man who was in the right place at the right time. He the right man.
Jun 30th, 2008
Marco
“Only four more months to go … maybe then the cable news outlets will talk about something else.”
Yeah, I’m really looking forward to getting back to ‘Random Blonde White Girl Abduction: Day 68′
Jun 30th, 2008
grammar lady
I think is the word you are looking for. Bellweather is not a word.
You guys are all such self-satisfied smart-alecky know-it-alls I couldn’t resist.
Jun 30th, 2008
Perry
So, according to the rules of the real HOF, our first class would have exactly one inductee, no? (Which I suppose was Joe’s point for this exercise.)
Jun 30th, 2008
will
Hey Joe, have you seen this?
http://yeproc.com/artist_info.php?artistId=12539# A bunch of rockers you may know recording an entire album of baseball songs. No word on if there’s a bonus track about Duane Kuiper
Jun 30th, 2008
Proofreader
You omitted your correction, Grammar Lady:
Bellwether
Jun 30th, 2008
Steve
Will:
The Baseball Project is a great album. I got an advance copy of it a little while back at the radio station I work for, and the writing is excellent.
Jun 30th, 2008
Wade
Easy fellas, always remember:
60% of the time, it works every time.
Jun 30th, 2008
GRAPHITE
Joe, kindly change the quote in your opening sentence to “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
As it currently stands it makes no sense.
Jun 30th, 2008
TimB
Regarding dumb stats in baseball, I understand the intended purpose of the hold. I don’t understand why a pitcher can earn one in spite of not recording an out.
But now that I’ve brought it up, who holds the Major League record for holds in a season? A career?
Jun 30th, 2008
Jeff
“Also, upon reading this, I immediately started singing, “Say I’m the only bee in your bonnet, make a little birdhouse in your soul.””
+1 cocktail of your choice, fine sir.
Jul 1st, 2008
Owen
Yesterday a friend of mine had a quote by his gchat name that I could have sworn was from me. Actually I wasn’t sure, but I began searching through old stuff to try and find it. After I opened up the search to the internet at large, I found out that it was not me, but Bob Dylan. Ego is a funny thing.
Jul 1st, 2008
Brett
Creston,
I’d have to vote for the win (and the loss) as a worse statistic than the save. The fact you can blow a save (come in to the game and fail to do your job) and get credit for the win is sort of rediculous. And the fact you can not allow any hits, but get the loss because of a run scoring on an error and your team being unable to score even one run, is even worse. I also think the “difference” between an earned run and and unearned run is stupid. (The home run Bannister allowed a couple starts ago was an unearned run because it was after the third out should have been recorded — how does the opposing team not earn it if they take you yard?) But even though sometimes unearned runs are the pitcher’s fault, it almost seems that there should be a rule that if you don’t give up any earned runs, you can’t be charged for the loss. Also, if I give up 10 runs in five innings, but my team scores 11, I can get the win. But if I give up 10 runs in five innings, but my team doesn’t score their 11th run until the 7th inning, I don’t get the win, even though I didn’t do anything different. Okay, this comment is now WAY too long, but I think I’ve made my point that the win has many flaws as a stat.
Jul 1st, 2008
Greg
“If there’s anything more important than my ego around, I want it caught and shot now.”
– Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
Jul 1st, 2008
JYarnell
This just goes to show that many people will continue to believe what they want to, regardless of the evidence that is put in front of them.
Jul 1st, 2008
Chris
The Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb
It is the best book I’ve read regarding the use (misuse) of statistics.
Jul 1st, 2008
Buchholz Surfer
Range Factor is a terrible stat IMO, mostly because it’s misleading. It doesn’t measure range, it just counts the total chances a player makes per 9 innings, which might well have a lot more to do with the team’s pitchers and/or luck than it does with his own range.
It wouldn’t be so bad if it weren’t called Range Factor– its title claims to measure something that it doesn’t. It’s like if you called a pitcher’s winning percentage his Pitching Effectiveness Factor.
Jul 1st, 2008
Chipmaker
Years ago, I heard some activist for whatever cause or phenomenon or product — really wasn’t important — state (to uproarious applause) that women were the fastest-growing segment of whatever the market or demographic was. It fit the general “you go, girls” theme that the show was promoting.
Well, okay — but (a) “growth” as a statistic is always problematic and (b) if “women” is one segment, doesn’t that mean that there’s only one other segment, being “men”? And this area, whatever it was, was well-established among men; at saturation, really.
So — we have men, call it a population of one million, gaining maybe ten a day. Growth rate == 0.001%. Women population, call it ten, gaining ten a day, growth rate == 100% (for that first day).
Same gain, +10, vastly different rates. And that’s what the activist used as her applause point, conveniently side-stepping past that growth rates are ALWAYS larger in the early going.
sigh. I’m almost glad I don’t remember more details.
Jul 1st, 2008
Dusty
the stupidest statistic ever is the cycle.
Jul 1st, 2008
Dave
Damon — I could cut and paste, but I would prefer a print button that does some very nice formatting for me.
Jul 3rd, 2008
JeffSol
I know the Jackie Robinson thing gets sensitive, but I’d like to agree that while Jackie was clearly the right man, to say it would not have happened without him is spurious at best. Branch Rickey, on the other hand, or someone like him? If Jackie had turned down Rickey, do we think Branch woudl have closed up the idea and gone home? No, he would have moved on to another candidate. he chose Jackie, and against the accepted wisdon of the time, but I think the hostory is pretty clear that while he chose wisely, even without Jackie, Branch Rickey was going to break the barrier with someone.
Jul 3rd, 2008
Reply to “Stupidest Statistic Ever”