An autism spectrum disorder gave her this special gift. Jones, a journalist and author who works with CBC Sports, among others, drew some inspiration from Charley to produce his most recent book, baseball-for-nationally-televised-games/” title=”Mets suggesting coach Eric Chavez suggests MLB use a different baseball for nationally televised games”>The Eye Test: A Case for Human Creativity in the Age of Analytics (Twelve Books), which aims to be a plea for human expertise in a world where numbers are taking up more and more space.
Far from being l’anti-Moneyball
, the book simply suggests that nothing is black or white in our use of numbers – or in life in general.
My other son, Sam, is very athletic, very popular, says Jones. Everything is easy for him. But he is absolutely unable to find a four-leaf clover. So if we want to rebalance the dynamic between my two boys, we send them on a clover hunt. It’s always Charley who will win this competition.
Being his father taught me that there are many points of view that are sometimes – not always, but sometimes – just as valid as each other.
The book discusses the use of numbers in the fields of entertainment, weather and medicine, among others. Sport, of course, occupies an entire chapter and invites itself into those dealing with politics, crime and finance. The author spoke with Radio-Canada Sports.
Q. When did you feel like using Advanced Stats had gone too far?
A. Like a lot of people, I believe it was when the Tampa Bay Rays replaced Blake Snell during the World Series. [les Rays ont aussitôt accordé les points égalisateur et gagnant avec le releveur Nick Anderson au monticule, NDLR]. Manager Kevin Cash hammered home it was a scientifically legitimate solution, but Snell was on fire. I understand his thinking, but the whole context of that moment was telling him to keep faith in his pitcher.
This is where, even among the followers of advanced statistics in baseball, we wondered if we had not pushed the cork to the point of evacuating the notion of discretion or human decision. As if we had no choice, as if the numbers gave us orders. But we invented the numbers, and we can choose to obey them or not.
That said, I came to this thinking over a longer period of time than that. When the book Moneyball appeared, in 2003, I had written a favorable review in Esquire. It’s a good book, an interesting book. The film is also remarkable. But over time, I’ve seen smart people get ignored, even ridiculed, for opinions that might contradict advanced statistics.
For example, why does [l’ancien lanceur] Barry Zito collapsed from 2007? I know Barry Zito, and I think a lot of that is because he signed a huge contract that went to his head. But statisticians would tell you otherwise. They may be right. But maybe I’m right, or maybe it’s a mix of both? I had the impression that the shade no longer had its place. And the book wonders why. Couldn’t we study these issues both ways?
Q. Advanced statistics enthusiasts might tell you that their opinions have been ignored for too long. Could a feeling of having to make up for lost time have made us want to go too fast?
A. History shows us that when a correction occurs, there is a risk of overcorrection. Then you find a certain balance. I hope the book will challenge those who, at the moment, believe there has been overcorrection – to the point where some things just aren’t fun anymore. Major League Baseball hired Theo Epstein to try to fix what advanced stats broke in the fan experience. It tells me that even stats enthusiasts think they’ve gone a little far.
It’s the same with algorithms or artificial intelligence: this may be our last opportunity to stop and ask ourselves if this is the path we want to take. It is our choice. And it comes back to Kevin Cash’s decision, which felt like he had no choice – and he did, a choice. We created the technology. Algorithms don’t grow on trees. We can choose to use these tools or not.
There is a lot of talk about the harmful effects of Facebook on society. Facebook doesn’t have to exist in its current form. We can change it. What statistics and algorithms suggest can be good. But it can also be harmful, so let’s try to optimize their use to get the best of both worlds. The book doesn’t say we do everything the wrong way. On the contrary, I say that we are doing a lot of good things. But they can be even better.
Q. The book says a lot about human nature and our need to be in control of any situation. The statistics, precisely, are quantifiable…
Chris Jones is an author, journalist and screenwriter.
Photo : Courtoisie/Chris Jones
A. Yes, but it is an illusion. It is an illusory certainty. I understand why people love it. For me, the pandemic is difficult to live with, in particular because we don’t know what next week will look like. We like to have our destiny in our hands. The opposite scares us. Advanced statistics make us feel like we are more in control of our lives than we really are, and people take statistical projections for certainties. Am I 98% sure? Okay. But 2% is a lot.
We are told, for example, that only 1% of COVID cases lead to hospitalizations. But 1% of millions of people is a ton of people.
Q. For a long time, media access in baseball was such that you could spend hours in the locker room or the coaches office just talking about baseball, technique – two humans talking about a game, basically . There is a certain irony here since the statistical revolution in sport is very much associated with baseball…
A. I started covering baseball regularly in the late 1990s, and I learned a lot from baseball veterans who would sit down and talk to me for hours. People like Ron Washington or Jim Fregosi, who was the manager of the Blue Jays.
Then Moneyball happened, and we just started to ignore guys like Fregosi. Yes, we realized that they were wrong on certain points, and we had to correct that. But their knowledge was still ultra-precious. However, in this debate, it was quickly necessary to say for or against. Either we believed it or we didn’t. But both are possible. I can accept that, from a statistical point of view, a hitter who can always be counted on in crucial moments does not exist. But I also have the right to listen to Jim Fregosi talk to me about the gear change. Both views are valid.
One of my favorite quotes in the book comes from former Winnipeg Jets coach Paul Maurice, who said advanced stats say anything about what five players do on the ice. Because we are talking about five players here, plus five other players, plus two goalkeepers, plus four referees… In soccer, how can we quantify what makes a defensive midfielder really good? It is very difficult to put figures on this position.
It’s interesting when the statistics don’t support what we observed. We can wonder what we missed. But we can also tell ourselves that there are things to note outside the statistical framework, with our observations. You can also assess a player’s contribution by looking at him, talking to him, asking him how he feels or what he is thinking.
