Dumb Stats That Shouldn't Be Used (Sports Edition)

I'm no statistician.

In fact, I've taken 2 Stats classes at UMass and went to like 11 of those classes combined. I don't like to show off and get the A. I'll settle for the C sometimes. Anyway, even though I'm not a statistician, I do recognize how dumb some stats are that mainstream sports analysts/casters use. And after this lesson from Pat the Intern, you can too.

Dumb Stat #1: Win-Loss Record

You may think I'm a bitter Jets fan and think I'm only saying this to take a shot at Tom Brady. However, I'm actually a huge New England Patriots fan, and I believe that he is one of the best QBs to ever play the game. However, he is not a great QB because he "wins games." Using a statistic that measures team performance for a person is dumb. There are way too many variables in a football game to give only one person credit. Granted, Tom Brady has more to do with a win for the Patriots than probably anybody else on the team, but he is still on the field less than half the time possession wise when you account for special teams and defense. In baseball, it's even more ridiculous. Pitchers have even less control of the variables involved in a baseball game than QBs do in football. Win-loss records in baseball might as well be called "Lucky Points" since pitchers are completely reliant upon hitting and fielding from other players. Basically they rely on luck and teammates to generate a statistic that measures their individual performance. I remember Kevin Millwood had a sick season: like 2.40 ERA, lots of K's, but he went 8-13 or something because he played for the shitty Indians. I feel bad because he led the league in these pitching categories, but he was not considered for a Cy Young and didn't get a ton of money on the free agent market either. And also I'm too lazy to go look up his numbers from that year.

Dumb Stat #2: Batting Average

Batting Average is dumb for the simple reason that it does not account for walks or hit by pitches. It's as if those at-bats didn't happen. Obviously, OBP [Editor's note - that's On-Base Percentage for our less-informed readers] is the superior stat as it measures the amount of times you didn't make an out. Baseball is a simple binomial experiment. Get on base = success. Get out = failure. Also, there is a lot of luck involved. The difference between a .275 hitter and a .300 hitter is like one hit every 10 days throughout the season. So those 10-12 lucky bloopers some guy randomly got one year make it seem like he had an awesome year hitting. Why don't we just use OBP instead of AVG? It makes way more sense. Because baseball is the worst sport in America.

Dumb Stat #3: Clutch Hitting

The reason why Clutch Hitting is a dumb stat is because it's not even a stat because it can't be quantified. Therefore, there is no such thing as a clutch hitter. There is no agreeable "clutch moment." Seriously, someone tell me what a clutch hit is. I feel like getting a home run in the 3rd inning can be just as clutch as one hit in the 8th. They both count for the same amount. Even if there were a quantified way to determine what clutch is, the sample size would be so small that it would be pointless.

-Pat the Intern