This question has stayed with me. I've started thinking about it like this:
Outcomes (data) -- especially small sample size, certainly a single game but just as much a weekend tournament and arguably a 100-at-bat summer travel or high school season) can be biased as well. Seeing eye singles. Misplayed doubles. Home runs off of bad pitchers. Poor or inaccurate game score-keeping.
At the same time, process (not just outcomes) is something that can and should be tracked as well, ESPECIALLY in developing players, not MLBers playing for contracts -- and to some extent even 'data-fied'. How often and how well does a hitter start slow and early? Do they have and can they execute the mechanics to hit a change-up (or a rise ball or 65 mph fast ball)? Can they make a late decision on ball/strikes? When and for what reason do their hitting mechanics break-down, lowering their likelihood of a good outcome? What is their good-mechanics 'average'?
So when I look at a particular hitter in a particular situation, do I want the hitter that has had positive past outcomes (that could simply be enhanced by chance) or a hitter I know has a *measurably* better process (which should overcome bad luck in the long run)?
how to analyze process correctly and objectively? that's a good coach vs. not-good-coach issueI agree with this philosophy, the issue is how to quantify. most teams, especially at younger ages (say 12 and 14u) do not have the ability to analyze each at bat or defensive play and objectively grade it, noting process (ie good mechanics, effort, trying to make proper play) rather than outcome. figure out how to do this, and you will be a millionaire very quickly.
Stats can lie. I pitched on the weekend and my team won 5-3. I had 9 hits against me vs 5 for the other pitcher. I threw 4 more strike outs, but also 2 more walks (and annoyed at myself because one of those walks SHOULD have been a K but nerves got the better of me in a higher grade)
we both had 3 earned runs.
just because my team won doesn’t mean I pitched better