Does Anyone Else Here Think Sabermetrics is a Sham?

[YankeeDespiser]

When you look at the teams that have won it all in recent years, it hasn't been Moneyball kind of baseball or teams with GMs who are big sabermaticians:

2000 Yankees: Bought themselves the WS.
2001 D'Backs: Only one above-average offensive player (Luis Gonzalez, 57 HR), but otherwise Tony Womack, Mark Grace, etc.
2002 Angels: Lowest in walks that year, contact hitting, take the extra base....
2003 Marlins: Pierre and Castillo running and stealing bases, not a lot of home runs....
2004 Red Sox: Big money team.
2005 White Sox: Ozzie-ball. Scott Podsednik for Carlos Lee.....

Now the Sabermetrics guys will say that each case was a fluke, or that the teams got lucky, or that good pitching stopped good hitting....

Where's Paul DePodesta's ring? Or Billy Beane's? Or J.P. Riccarddi's?

And if it's all about pitching, then chalk up the A's success to Hudson, Mulder, and Zito, not Matt Stairs and Jeremy Giambi!

This is not to say that Sabermetrics is useless. Of course OBP is more important than batting average. But when you go too crazy with the stats, you don't necessarily win.

[runningshoes]

I can't wait to the response to this one. :eek:

[SABR Matt]

It's absolutely astounding that Billy Beane makes the post-season every year given the limitations of his payroll. It's not just about the world series...you have to look at what they've accomplished given the resources they've had.

And for the record, Houston is a sabermetrically inclined team that just made the WS, Boston has four big name sabermetricians under payroll and won the WS in 2004, and Oakland is the winningest team in the AL since 2000.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Sabermetics, in terms of building teams, is simply a tool that used properly can help a team find players with skills that are unervalued. What is wrong with that? Bille Beane has had great success. The Red Sox use sabermetrics a lot. The Red Sox owner is sabermetrically inclined. It's not a guarantee for success, however. Baseball has so many variables to content with.

[Brian McKenna]

there is only one way to win a baseball game and that is scoring more runs than a particular team on a particular day -- sabrmetrics is about studing the numbers and finding overall averages for occurrences of x throughout the entire league, then the judgements go from there about what is significant above and below that mean -- the numbers are positive (a term meaning without any subjectivity) -- it is the evaluators who put normative (term meaning placing judgments on those numbers) values on the figures.

hence, the process now brings all the elements that humans bring to an argument (opinion, bias, an agenda, skewing of numbers, inaccuracy, lies, individual thought processes, interpretation, misinterpretation, etc.) therein lies the difficulties many have with sabrmetrics plus the fact that all these "numbers guys" come up with an endless array of formulas to rate the best or worst (by the way, best and worst are two extremely subjective terms). these two factors combined with the fact that americans, as a whole, abhor complicated mathematics have kept sabrmetrics out of the mainstream. in the end, people just see it as boring and that it actually creates more arguments than it solves.

to me this is disappointing because we are in the age of the computer and all the things we can do with them. i am certainly interested in noting whether an individual or team's stats fall above or below the mean in certain areas but from there it gets tougher to determine which factors are more important.

another problem that i see is the complete arrogance of those who just spit out numbers and think they mean something. what people want is the narrative sprinkled with numbers - not the other way around. this is what makes bill james interestiing he is equally good with the pen as the calculator, others not so.

[Twinskoop]

People really need to stop confusing "moneyball" with SABR. Moneyball is a business concept. SABR is a statistical concept. Big-money teams can be SABR-oriented teams. In fact, now that the word is out, SABR-oriented teams are probably going to have to be big money teams in the near future.

The Twins are, in essence, a moneyball team, even though they drive sabrmetricians nuts. From '01-'04, they won with defense, situational hitting, and great pitching. They played moneyball, focusing on exploiting under-valued skill-sets - fundamentals and bullpen instead of OBP or OPS. While they disappointed this year, they still won 83 games, not bad for a team that lost arguably it's most valuable player from a SABR standpoint (Koskie) and started basically unproven players at all five infield positions.

I think history clearly shows that once the postseason has been set, there are a lot of ways to win a game. I'm not one of those "SABR is the ONLY way" guys. And it's going to get pretty expensive to play that game if everyone is doing it.

But SABR principles are certainly not a "sham." You win games by scoring runs and preventing runs. The most efficient way to score runs is to get men on base and minimize outs. The most efficient way to prevent runs is to prevent baserunners. Those are the core principles of SABR.

[Ubiquitous]

Ozzie Ball? What a joke? That was some display of small ball and running rampant on the bases in the playoffs don't you think? They God they had the hit and run and the sac bunt becauase they sure didn't hit a lot of homers in the playoffs. Oh wait. . . .never mind.

Yeah those Angels and their productive outs and contact hitting. Again thank god they had those tools at their disposal or else they never would have scored runs in the playoffs. Oh wait. . . never mind.

[digglahhh]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that they are a sham, but many people on this forum certainly overvalue them. Their lure is great. Like religion, anything that presents itself as a panacea is wonderful. Advanced metrics can offer answers to player comparisons, even for players whom the evaluators have never seen, but the conclusions are not set it stone and must be interpretted in context.

I have often stated that sabermetrics have no greater predictive value than any other stats because in terms of winning it all you reach the point where you must apply the macro to the micro. SABR focuses on statistical research, correlations that are proven over time. Any 5 or 7 game series can wholly contradict its premises without invalidating the study itself. We must be aware of the limitations of all stats and theories, SABR and classical.

One thing I don't like about the advanced metrics is that any yahoo with a Bill James book can look up win shares or some other stat and think that they can add a meaningful contribution to a profound discussion of several players and their relative prowess.

SABR, IMO, is better suited to explain how what already happened, happened and not to predict what will happen in any given situation. SABR devalues the stolen base, and sure overall that's probably true, but ask Dave Roberts what he thinks of that. One instance that defies the theory can prove to be more meaningful than a boatload of instances that support it. When taken too far, SABR creates for its own sake and strays from its purpose. Those who further the research must always ask themselves questions, make sure the findings refer back to the game and understand the differences between discovery and invention.

The field though has made some very important contributions and I would never deny that.

As Twinskoop said, people should stop conflating Moneyball with sabermetrics.

[SABR Matt]

Ozzie was really starting to break down toward the latter half of 2005...they weren't scoring at ALL...in the post-season they got well timed production...read: longballs...from players that aren't normally offensive forces (read: Podsednik)...luck is a beautiful thing...in short series play...it can be a real PITA if it doesn't go your way.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that they are a sham, but many people on this forum certainly overvalue them. Their lure is great. Like religion, anything that presents itself as a panacea is wonderful. Advanced metrics can offer answers to player comparisons, even for players whom the evaluators have never seen, but the conclusions are not set it stone and must be interpretted in context.
All sabermetic models that I know of start with certain precepts and assumptions. However, "old-school" scouts have their own precepts and assumptions as well.

I have often stated that sabermetrics have no greater predictive value than any other stats because in terms of winning it all you reach the point where you must apply the macro to the micro. SABR focuses on statistical research, correlations that are proven over time. Any 5 or 7 game series can wholly contradict its premises without invalidating the study itself. We must be aware of the limitations of all stats and theories, SABR and classical.
I agree. By the way what "classical" theories are you talking about?


One thing I don't like about the advanced metrics is that any yahoo with a Bill James book can look up win shares or some other stat and think that they can add a meaningful contribution to a profound discussion of several players and their relative prowess.
Ouch! I wonder what BBF members your are talking about? ;)


SABR, IMO, is better suited to explain how what already happened, happened and not to predict what will happen in any given situation. SABR devalues the stolen base, and sure overall that's probably true, but ask Dave Roberts what he thinks of that.
What do Dave Roberts views have to do with the value of the stolen base? I believe that SABR has shown conclusively that the stolen basen do not contribute a great deal to runs scored. The purpose of SABR is not to "predict" what will happen in any given situation.

One instance that defies the theory can prove to be more meaningful than a boatload of instances that support it. When taken too far, SABR creates for its own sake and strays from its purpose. Those who further the research must always ask themselves questions, make sure the findings refer back to the game and understand the differences between discovery and invention.
How is this so?


The field though has made some very important contributions and I would never deny that.
I would agree. It has made some important contributions. SABR is mearly a tool that any team can use to help it acquire players with undervalued skills and it's a great tool for debating here at BBF. :D


As Twinskoop said, people should stop conflating Moneyball with sabermetrics.

I agree!! :clapping

[BillyF29]

Sabermetrics are great for analyzing statistics and how teams won games, but as far as using them to build champions, it's much different. You can use the stats to build a team that should win a lot of games based on the players past statistics, but little things like injuries, flukes, and off years along the way make it rough, but on average statistically driven teams do pretty well.

[DaMook]

When you look at the teams that have won it all in recent years, it hasn't been Moneyball kind of baseball or teams with GMs who are big sabermaticians:

2000 Yankees: Bought themselves the WS.
2001 D'Backs: Only one above-average offensive player (Luis Gonzalez, 57 HR), but otherwise Tony Womack, Mark Grace, etc.
2002 Angels: Lowest in walks that year, contact hitting, take the extra base....
2003 Marlins: Pierre and Castillo running and stealing bases, not a lot of home runs....
2004 Red Sox: Big money team.
2005 White Sox: Ozzie-ball. Scott Podsednik for Carlos Lee.....

Now the Sabermetrics guys will say that each case was a fluke, or that the teams got lucky, or that good pitching stopped good hitting....

Where's Paul DePodesta's ring? Or Billy Beane's? Or J.P. Riccarddi's?

And if it's all about pitching, then chalk up the A's success to Hudson, Mulder, and Zito, not Matt Stairs and Jeremy Giambi!

This is not to say that Sabermetrics is useless. Of course OBP is more important than batting average. But when you go too crazy with the stats, you don't necessarily win.

The Playoffs is all just a crapshoot. Anyone one team can beat another team in a 5/7 game series. Using past WS winners to show that Sabermetrics doesnt work is very inaccurate. Winning the World Series doesnt make you the best team, it just makes you the hottest team at the time. The White Sox were definitely not the best team. Last year the Sox were very good but the Cards were the better team. In 2003 Yanks were much better than the Marlins. Say what you what about pitching and defense or small ball but you cant build a team for the post season. Its impossible. The playoffs are such a small sample that ANYTHING can happen in that short of a time span. Great teams can go into a slumps and bad teams can get very hot. Using an entire season is a much more accurate measurement. You can build a team to make it to the post season but as Beane said, once you get there its all a crapshoot. Sabermetrics has already been proven to work. Oakland is a great example. So are the Red Sox and Yanks.

[Brian McKenna]

The Playoffs is all just a crapshoot. Anyone one team can beat another team in a 5/7 game series. Using past WS winners to show that Sabermetrics doesnt work is very inaccurate. Winning the World Series doesnt make you the best team, it just makes you the hottest team at the time. The White Sox were definitely not the best team. Last year the Sox were very good but the Cards were the better team. In 2003 Yanks were much better than the Marlins. Say what you what about pitching and defense or small ball but you cant build a team for the post season. Its impossible. The playoffs are such a small sample that ANYTHING can happen in that short of a time span. Great teams can go into a slumps and bad teams can get very hot. Using an entire season is a much more accurate measurement. You can build a team to make it to the post season but as Beane said, once you get there its all a crapshoot. Sabermetrics has already been proven to work. Oakland is a great example. So are the Red Sox and Yanks.

i've always thought the best way to view postseason ball is like a tournament which is what it is -- start the tournament over the day after it ends and you probably get different results

[Dasperp]

I wouldn't say its entirely a crapshoot (i think if you replayed this postseason over 1,000 times the Padres would only win about once), but it is definitely true that the best team doesn't always win. I also think that even a full season doesn't necessarily give a good assesment of how good a team is. For example, i don't think the 2001 Mariners were as good as the 1998 Yankees, but they won two more games.

[redoctober]

When you look at the teams that have won it all in recent years, it hasn't been Moneyball kind of baseball or teams with GMs who are big sabermaticians:

2000 Yankees: Bought themselves the WS.
2001 D'Backs: Only one above-average offensive player (Luis Gonzalez, 57 HR), but otherwise Tony Womack, Mark Grace, etc.
2002 Angels: Lowest in walks that year, contact hitting, take the extra base....
2003 Marlins: Pierre and Castillo running and stealing bases, not a lot of home runs....
2004 Red Sox: Big money team.
2005 White Sox: Ozzie-ball. Scott Podsednik for Carlos Lee.....

Now the Sabermetrics guys will say that each case was a fluke, or that the teams got lucky, or that good pitching stopped good hitting....

Where's Paul DePodesta's ring? Or Billy Beane's? Or J.P. Riccarddi's?

And if it's all about pitching, then chalk up the A's success to Hudson, Mulder, and Zito, not Matt Stairs and Jeremy Giambi!

This is not to say that Sabermetrics is useless. Of course OBP is more important than batting average. But when you go too crazy with the stats, you don't necessarily win.




I'd rather have statistical evidence than base everything upon intuition. As the Heisenberg Uncertainity Principle says: the separation between the observer and the observed is always more-or-less arbitrary.

[DaMook]

i've always thought the best way to view postseason ball is like a tournament which is what it is -- start the tournament over the day after it ends and you probably get different results

Exactly! Thats a perfect way to look at it.

[DaMook]

I wouldn't say its entirely a crapshoot (i think if you replayed this postseason over 1,000 times the Padres would only win about once), but it is definitely true that the best team doesn't always win. I also think that even a full season doesn't necessarily give a good assesment of how good a team is. For example, i don't think the 2001 Mariners were as good as the 1998 Yankees, but they won two more games.

I think the Padres would win more than once. Its such a handful of games that ANYTHING and I mean ANYTHING can happen.

A full season also doesnt paint a perfect picture but its a much better way to measure a teams ability cause the sample is so large. Teams go through upps and downs. Things then to level out.

[Ubiquitous]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that they are a sham, but many people on this forum certainly overvalue them. Their lure is great. Like religion, anything that presents itself as a panacea is wonderful. Advanced metrics can offer answers to player comparisons, even for players whom the evaluators have never seen, but the conclusions are not set it stone and must be interpretted in context.

This first part can be a descriptor for anybody who blindly follows anything including those who blindly follow the RBI and Batting Average.



I have often stated that sabermetrics have no greater predictive value than any other stats because in terms of winning it all you reach the point where you must apply the macro to the micro. SABR focuses on statistical research, correlations that are proven over time. Any 5 or 7 game series can wholly contradict its premises without invalidating the study itself. We must be aware of the limitations of all stats and theories, SABR and classical.

I too are not sure what is classical. The second thing is I think you are confusing different metrics. Practically every stathead worth his salt will tell you that his formulas are not exact and that they don't apply the same to every single situation. Lots of them are based on averages or baselins of that nature. Looking at something like batting runs to see who should pinch hit for your pitcher while facing Randy Johnson is wrong. The metric isn't wrong the person using it in that way is wrong. SABR is much more then just win shares or creating fancy metrics. Its looking at the game in detail. Seeing how often a player can hit a fastball low and away. Where he hits it. How often that particular SS can get to that spot so on and so on. Most of the stuff that gets posted on this site and others is the armchair SABR stuff, because that is the stuff available to us as outsiders. Theres a whole lot more that we only get glimpses of.


One thing I don't like about the advanced metrics is that any yahoo with a Bill James book can look up win shares or some other stat and think that they can add a meaningful contribution to a profound discussion of several players and their relative prowess.


This is the old hatred of the new comer showing itself. Its the clicky nature of people. SABR is new so people who grew up with the old ways of discussing things look at SABR as perhaps a shortcut or not real.


SABR, IMO, is better suited to explain how what already happened, happened and not to predict what will happen in any given situation. SABR devalues the stolen base, and sure overall that's probably true, but ask Dave Roberts what he thinks of that. One instance that defies the theory can prove to be more meaningful than a boatload of instances that support it. When taken too far, SABR creates for its own sake and strays from its purpose. Those who further the research must always ask themselves questions, make sure the findings refer back to the game and understand the differences between discovery and invention.


Practically everything in the world is better at explaining what happened as compared to predicting. If predicting was easy then the future would not be unknown. Weather simulations can show you exactly what happened but it gets dicier when looking ahead. That doesn't invalidate the prediction or the attempt to look forward.

[SABR Matt]

Funny Ubiquitus should mention weather modelling. I'm studying to be a meteorologist...and I can tell you that as much as people love to make weathermen the butt of jokes and claim it's the easiest job on the planet because you can be wrong half the time and keep your job...meteorological models are the most complex, advanced, outstanding accomplishments ever generated by the human scientific community. They represent the van guarde in scientific progress...and they've saved millions of lives in the last thirty years since they began to be used by forecasting offices...particularly in the last 15 years since weather model outputs became widely disseminated and drastically improved in their accuracy in the 0-84 hour period.

In point of fact, we're about 90% accurate on forecasts for 48 hours out in this country now on the whole...that level of progress was not even remotely dreamed of when back in the 1920s when pioneering meteorologists first came up with the idea of numerical modelling (because back then, we didn't have the computers that would make it possible to apply quickly enough to matter).

Compared to how much time we've spent thinking about how to forecast the weather (about 300 years of gradual scientific advancement)...sabermetrics is barely out of its' infancy.

Its' critics here seem truly steeped in their arrogance to assume that what we see today in the field of sabermetrics is all we ever will see. It's akin to the folks who laughed at the idea of numerical weather prediction as late as World War II.

Give us time...scientific advancement takes years...decades...CENTURIES...less time now of course since this is the information age...but we've only been seriously as this since the mid 70s and making real progress since the late 80s...now especially...you have got to give us the chance to get closer...

Of course the critics/traditionalists aren't the only arrogant ones...sabermetrician after bloody sabermetrician has come out with a new thing and called it revolutionary...myself included...we want to be recognized for the work we're doing...we're looking for what everyone else is looking for in life...a sense of belonging...but I fear we have allowed ourselves to be too impatient...too willing to settle for less in order to push our names out htere...too unwilling to listen to other sabermetricians...and too unwilling to listen to the traditionalists' real criticisms of our approach...I've found that some of my own best work (now I'm not saying I'm anywhere near finished...so...don't take it that way) hass come from an effort to answer a legitimate complaint of a traditionalist...

[digglahhh]

Yeah, and I don't pay attention to weather forcasts either.

To address some comments:

I am speaking hyperbolically, about people who go overboard with the application of the metrics.

It is interesting that one of you guys stated that sabermetrics was really about analyzing the game in detail. Hmm, now isn't that blatant semantic framing? I mean, people analyzed the game in detail long before anybody knew what VORP was.

When I said ask Dave Roberts, I was referring to his SB against the Yanks last postseason that helped lead to the win that sparked the BoSox comeback.

I didn't direct my comment about anybody with a Bill James book to anybody, although I could see how it could be interpretted as a dig (this is how rappers get shot).

By classical, I was just referring to the traditional theories that are basically proverbial, good pitching beats good hitting, productive outs...

When I said that one instance defying saber could be more important than several that affirm it I just meant that sometimes the defining moment in a game is something that is not really valued by SABR, a stolen base, a game saving web gem by a first baseman, or for that matter a sweep of the Yanks by KC (how sweet was that?).

[SABR Matt]

diglahhh...your ignorance is showing...I'm sorry, but not listening to weather forecasts because sometimes we get it wrong due to the overwhelming complexity of the weather is just plain foolish.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Baseball is too complex for any one "system" to be counted on for absolute finality. There are several layers to the game, the players, the numbers they put up, who they put them up against, where they put them up, and how those numbers compare with others who put theirs up.

Each successive under-layer contributes to the outcomes of the upcoming layers. Saber probably isn't meant to be the say all, end all, but is just meant to take the top layer results, and create a clearer picture of what they mean in the big picture. I think ?:lookitup

[SABR Matt]

Well Sultan...you are absolutely correct that the game and its' results are layered...

Any approach you use to understand the game that is not layered will do what you described...it will clarify the surface and define what it really means. It won't have much predictive value.

That's been the problem with sabermetrics...the statheads develop methods that do a good job of explaining what was...and hope that they will be predictive.

It's slow going due to the emmense complexity, but like the first weather models, today's sabermetricians are starting to change how they approach it (myself included)...we're starting to look at the individual game as the first layer and get a better feel for what goes on to create single-game outcomes and how those single game outcomes translate into seasonal results. The model Randy and I are building presently is a completely iterative/layered approach that is based on the idea that EVERYTHING in the game is interrelated...we're refusing to take any statistics at face value...not even the formative ones because they all effect and are effected by the environment in which they occur...we're building systems of non-linear equations that we believe when optimized will give us the best possible idea of how the interrelated pieces of the game (league contexts, parks, team sides, strengths of schedule, teams' unique reactions to parks, strengths of league) fit together to explain in a completely context neutral way what has happened...we're hoping the neutrality will allow us to place everything on the same level and thereby drastically improve our ability to predict into the future.

Of course there will always be limits to how accurate projections can be (freak injuries, extended runs of good or bad luck...the rules of statistics still apply)...but we don't believe we're anywhere near that limit yet.

[digglahhh]

diglahhh...your ignorance is showing...I'm sorry, but not listening to weather forecasts because sometimes we get it wrong due to the overwhelming complexity of the weather is just plain foolish.

Quite the opposite my friend. Not valuing something, or rather two things, that you are personally invested in does not constitute ignorance. Assuming others should share the reverence you have for your own passions- that's ignorance, not to mention arrogance.

I don't pay attention to the weather because I simply do not care. I do not need their assistance. It ain't all that complex to me, its raining/snowing or its not, its cold, its hot? Do I wear shorts or pants, boots or sneakers? I can tell all this from sticking my head out the window. The jet stream, swelling coastal fronts- these things do not interest me.

You can call me many things, ignorant is not one of them.

The revolution wil not be rained out!

[SABR Matt]

I don't care if someone doesn't find interest in following the things I do...I labelled you as ignorant because you dismissed the pursuit of a better understanding of the weather and of baseball statistics out of hand. I recognize that most people aren't thrilled by the weather...I've called myself a nerd here many times without fear. But you dismiss the pursuit of sabermetrics as having no value here many times...then when I draw a comparison to another science that relies on similar methods but is much more advanced, and make the case that sabermetrics will improve with time in much the same way, you just say "I don't care about that"...

[digglahhh]

I did no such thing.

I do not dismiss sabermetrics, I question the amount of stock certain people put in them. I question if all those who espouse them understand how they are formed and are educated enough in the advanced mathematics involved to even have a valid opinion on their relevance. I question their applicability in predicting postseason success. This is not dismissing SABR, this is constructive criticism, it is pushing you guys to address and consider diverse perspectives. This reminds me of the conservative political pundits who claim that any time somebody critisizes America is un-American, when in truth critiquing the country is the most American use of free speech possible.

I don't dismiss the study of science, although, much it too is corporate guided and largely devoid of the altruistic and humane spirit that should guide the field. Anyway, I don't need the level of weather analysis that you guys provide.

[SABR Matt]

Several times in the threads here in the Sabermetrics Forum...you have said you believed sabermetric approaches were worthless in making predictions and best if only used to diagnose what has already happened...while there is certainly a reduction in the amount of information you can get once you go into the future, you overstate your case, and then claim you didn't say it.

Most people don't need the level of weather analysis available these days and that's fine. You don't need sabermetrics to watch a baseball game either...but if you're a GM running a baseball team...just as if you're running hundreds of oil derrecks in the Gulf or a large farm in Iowa...you need to see what's coming before it gets there...you need to be better informed...

[Ubiquitous]

It is interesting that one of you guys stated that sabermetrics was really about analyzing the game in detail. Hmm, now isn't that blatant semantic framing? I mean, people analyzed the game in detail long before anybody knew what VORP was.


There was sabremetrics long before Bill coined the word. Sabremetrics wasn't something that got invented overnight, it didn't go poof here I am. Sabremetrics isn't a philosophy, is Biology a philosophy? Is chemistry? Is Algebra?

[ssbguyincognito]

Listen people, as long as there are a substantial number of people (fans, GMs, and owners included) who don't believe in sabermetrics, this just gives sabermetricians like you and me so much extra time.

The human element of looking at the game is so arbitrary and fickle sometimes it amazes me. For example, there are people who say the Red Sox won the world series becaue Dave Roberts stole a base.

Never mind how stupid it is to attribute an entire 14 game, 3 series win streak to one event. Never mind sabermetrics has never said never steal bases, only that stealing bases as a long-term strategy is counter run productive, but there are situations in which it is good (just like the bottom of the 9th inning with a runner on 1st and no out and your fastest guy pinch running and you're down by 1, hmmm, sound familiar?) Never mind that the Sox still had to win 7 more games in a row after that. Never mind Ortiz won game 4 with a HR (not a stolen base) but nobody remembers that. Never mind that Dave Roberts barely played again in the postseason, somehow his presence on the bench must have helped them. Never mind Kevin Millar walked to leadoff the inning so Roberts could pinch run and steal second base (this is my favorite). There are people who will always, endlessly, stubbornly say the Red Sox won because of Dave Roberts.

Another thing that people say that's stupid: the White Sox are a small ball team. I don't know where people got this idea from. The White Sox are a team with a couple of good baserunners (only 1 or 2 actually). They are stacked with a bunch of slow HR hitters. And that's what they do: they hit the HR. They had 7 guys with 15+ HRs in the season, that's not small ball, that's bashing-the-hell-out-of-the-ball. I think they were 4th in the majors in HRs. Even Podsednik, their small-ball guy, hit 2 HRs in the postseason! Amazing how people will still insist the White Sox won because of small ball.

Sabermetrics is not a sham. All it is, is taking objective scientific principles, and applying them to baseball. And it turns out, when you use objective scientific principles on anything, you get a better understanding of it. And if you're a GM, you can use that understanding to try win games. And if there's anything sabermetrically inclined teams do in common, it's win games.

But still, there will always be people who attribute either the inherent randomness in the game or their own subjective element as proof that sabermetrics doesn't work.

[Brian McKenna]

i think the small ball stuff about the white sox came from the media during the postseason - to push their big enlightenment about how great the pitching rotation was and about the utter brilliance of ozzie guillen - they pushed the small ball stuff to excentuate the rotation's value and to magnify guillen's role in the team's destiny

[Brian McKenna]

i'm not a big studier of sabermetrics but i understand the value of numbers and their unbiased appeal. i would rather hear a narrative than a numerical display but sabermetrics has no reason to defend itself. they have and continue to developed baselines for studying the game. the reasoning is sound and it has added a great deal to the understanding of the game within the game.

the baseball viewing public is obsessed with who is better/best/worst (just look around this forum that is what they talk about ad nauseam). sabermetrics is ideal here

sabermetrics is not moneyball - and moneyball is not what i keep reading it to be. it is not a magical concept to amass the ideal team - it is a means to draft and otherwise fill holes in your roster within the available resources.

many of the naysayers to sabermetrics hold up one team or one individual or one season or one playoff run and scream that it doesn't work. ridiculous, sabermetrics sets the guidelines so you know that that one team, etc. stands out on certain points --- statistics set the median line, of course, data falls above and below that line

[digglahhh]

[QUOTE=bkmckenna]the baseball viewing public is obsessed with who is better/best/worst (just look around this forum that is what they talk about ad nauseam). sabermetrics is ideal here

Yes, that is exactly why some people on this board go overboard because it is such a valuable tool for what WE do. That is different than saying it is an undeniable truth.

[digglahhh]

I'm really getting sick of people only taking what they want from my posts.

First of all, I do not dismiss sabermetrics. I have cautioned people to follow them carefully. Over the long haul, they are a better way of predicting than relying upon our subjective observations and sketchy memories. What I am saying is that IN THE POSTSEASON, they go out the window because the nature of the game is reduced to short series, and the way the game is played changes somewhat. Rotations shorten, different guys hit the pen, teams have individual match-up issues, (mostly righty or lefty staffs or bats, speedsters vs. poor throwing catchers, whatever). These are relationships that average themselves out over a season, but in a short series...

The fact that their predictive value is heavily comprimised when it comes time to crown a champ, is a big knock on the field, IMO. Sure, you can say that there is value in using SABR to get to the postseason, or that traditional analysis have their own flaws, but what kind of defense is that.

I say,"well, you know that in America we don't really have free speech."

Then you say, "well, in Iran, they'll kill you if speak blaspheme about Mohammed."

Okay, so our system is better than tyranny- where does that leave us, that's the end of the discussion?

I say, saber has its own problems. You say, it has less problems than subjective memory. So what? It is better than a crappy method, wonderful. Its also better than flipping a coin, or throwing a dart at a list of teams with a blindfold on. and...

No matter what sabermetricians say- it is not objective. Objectivity does not exist when assumptions need to be made- period. The subjectivity is just too enshrouded in advanced math for the average fan to discern.

[Twinskoop]

Honestly, most of the problems that the SABR crew has with getting their "message" out is plain ol' arrogance; a condescending attitude mixed with listening and comprehension deficiencies. Well, that, and the fact that, like most would-be scientists and specialized "experts," most of them are terrible writers.

On this thread, I see a lot of people making the same point - that while SABR is a useful tool, it is not an end-all, or panacea. Some of you might call yourselves SABR disciples, others undoubtedly consider yourselves traditionalists. And from what I can tell, most of you understand the core principles of baseball - that preventing runs and scoring runs are of equal importance, and that while statistical analysis based on past performance might be a useful tool, it can't substitute for traditional tool-projections, coaching, and in-game strategy.

We all know that a lineup of 9 LF/1B/DH types won't work, regardless of OPS. Just like a football team of 55 Tom Bradys wouldn't win any football games.

[ssbguyincognito]

A nice summary of your perspective, digglah.


What I am saying is that IN THE POSTSEASON, they go out the window because the nature of the game is reduced to short series, and the way the game is played changes somewhat. Rotations shorten, different guys hit the pen, teams have individual match-up issues, (mostly righty or lefty staffs or bats, speedsters vs. poor throwing catchers, whatever). These are relationships that average themselves out over a season, but in a short series...
This is most certainly true, but you're still missing the point. Sabermetrics represents a long-term strategy on how to make the best team. Every team has a fixed amount of resources (even the Yankees), so the question is, how do we maximize our output given our finite resources? Traditional baseball thinking tried to answer this too, but through historical, empirical, and mathematical studies, it was shown that the historical way of looking at the game is wrong. For example: teams who emphasize batting average won't score as many runs as teams who emphasize on base percentage. A fast Jose Reyes leading off isn't worth nearly as much as a fat Giambi leading off.

Sabermetrics is not trying to predict the outcome of every single game and say if we were wrong then it must be due to chance. There is chance in everything, and that chance is uncontrollable. Sabermetrics is just a newer, more scientific, more advanced way of doing the same thing traditionalists do -- analyze the game -- but we do it better.

A team cannot control the inherent randomness in the game. But it can maximize its chances of winning by getting the most output from their finite resources.

No matter what sabermetricians say- it is not objective. Objectivity does not exist when assumptions need to be made- period. The subjectivity is just too enshrouded in advanced math for the average fan to discern.
This I have an issue with, since it's blatantly not true. I'm not sure how much math you have taken, but every system of logic employs the axiomatic method. We assume certain things to be true (axioms), then try to derive much more complex theorems from these simple axioms. The point is, if you're going to assume something to be true without proof (you have to), make sure it's as simple as possible. None of this is subjective. An example of an axiom would be: the goal of an offense is to maximize the runs it scores. It's simple enough. A bad axiom is: the goal of an offense is to maximize its batting average, becuase any empirical study will show you, there is significantly less correlataion between runs and batting average than runs and other things.

[Ubiquitous]

Everything goes out the window during a short series, not just sabremetrics. Every single way to build a team has lost in the playoffs and every single way has won.

[digglahhh]

There are truths that one has to assume, I agree.

An offense's goal is maximize run production.

A defense's goal is to minimize run production for the other team.

A CS is more detrimental than an SB is valuable.

OBP is more valuable than BA.

I agree with all this stuff. The subjectivity involved is how you weight the successful completion of your respective axiomatic goal on an in individual basis. Walks are productive, okay, how productive in comparison to a single? Therein lies the questions. The same axioms apply to traditional perspectives, the goals are always the same.

Build your team however you want. I believe that sabermetrics are an important part of team building. There are many aspects of research that shoud be included in building, managing and organizing a team.

I have more of a problem with the derived metrics of measuring individual player rankings. Believe me, I would love to agree with the conclusions these metrics reach. I would love to quantify the intangibles. But I would rather leave them alone than quantify them incompletely, or with biases.

How many times do you hear people say, well system A overvalues corner IF defense, system B overrates slightly above average production and underrates great production? Many people look for ways to support their subjective claims, regardless of the research they have. They selectively choose certain metrics for certain players, make arbitrary adjustments for league strength, era, etc.

What is so harmful about not being sure? Is it an indictment of your baseball knowledge to conclude after long research I prefer Mays to Mantle, but the debate could go either way, and if you prefer Mantle that is entirely understandable? Since when is certaintude a useful tool for the advancement of knowledge?

Perhaps, I am guilty of bias in this debate. Bias not against the studies, but the way the conclusions are sometimes used.

[Twinskoop]

Sabermetrics represents a long-term strategy on how to make the best team. Every team has a fixed amount of resources (even the Yankees), so the question is, how do we maximize our output given our finite resources? Traditional baseball thinking tried to answer this too, but through historical, empirical, and mathematical studies, it was shown that the historical way of looking at the game is wrong. For example: teams who emphasize batting average won't score as many runs as teams who emphasize on base percentage.

A perfect example of how someone might go about confusing moneyball principles with advanced statistical analysis. SABR has nothing to do with the resources a team has. A team with finite resources benefits from SABR only if those SABR principles happen to be undervalued in the current market. If anything, with the publication of "Moneyball," I think we'll find those principles to be overvalued in the near future. Teams with limited resources will have to find other areas to exploit, and you better believe guys like Billy Beane will find them.

A fast Jose Reyes leading off isn't worth nearly as much as a fat Giambi leading off.

Which might be germane if they played the same defensive position. But they don't. A fat Giambi playing shortstop would be a sight to behold, though would likely cost his team a lot of runs. A less blatantly subjective analogy would be to assert that a quick defensive specialist like Doug Mientkiewicz hitting anywhere in the lineup isn't worth nearly as much as a fat Jason Giambi hitting in that same spot. And on that point, I doubt you'll find much disagreement.

[digglahhh]

What teams don't try to maximize their resourses? (please refrain from the obvious- my team)

All perspectives begin with goal of maximizing resources. Some think that SABR provides better tools with which to analyze.

[Ubiquitous]

Every team tries to maximize their resources just some don't do it so well. Some waste their resources signing top picks out of high school that never do anything. Some focus their resources on one region and find undiscovered diamonds in their backyard on the cheap. Some use their resources to sign old established veterans while other use their resources to develop youth and then let them play.

[Twinskoop]

What teams don't try to maximize their resourses? (please refrain from the obvious- my team)

All perspectives begin with goal of maximizing resources. Some think that SABR provides better tools with which to analyze.

Simple economics explains most of the discrepancy between teams that succeed in maximizing their resources and teams that don't. It is, simply speaking, a zero-sum game. Teams that don't innovate, simply trying to keep up with what everyone else is doing, counting on getting lucky, will have a harder time breaking away and actually getting the most bang for their buck. If you're doing what everyone else is doing, you're not exploiting undervalued skill-sets, and therefore, not maximizing production.

SABR is one set of tools, and a valuable set. Some SABR principles are more valuable than others, none is a panacea. Traditional tool-scouting, coaching, and strategy cannot be replaced by stat analysis.

There's a familiar basketball expression that sums up the traditional approach to scouting - "You can't coach tall." The flip-side of this idea is that there are some attributes that are coachable, and an evaluator does well to allow for that. SABR principles can only address what a player has done, not what he is capable of doing. Before the 2003 season, lots of SABR guys were in love with Erubiel Durazo, and were predicting MVP-like stats from him. Never happened, never will happen. David Ortiz went to Boston in 2003 with no fanfare from the statheads. His stats weren't SABR-friendly. That was the system he was in. But discipline, unlike power and speed, is coachable. In Boston, Ortiz is an MVP-caliber player, and a SABR darling.

All that is to say that while SABR is a good tool, it is not the only tool. Baseball is a game, not a constant. Games are fluid, and are decided by their participants, not mathematical equations.

[SABR Matt]

diglahhh seems to be of the mindset that in a short series (post-season) setting, sabermetric principles fail and traditional philosophy succeeds, which is of course 100% not true. The paradigm shifts, but you could still use sabermetrics to get an understanding of how to win more post-season games than you lose over a period of several years in the post-season.

For instance...perhaps in the regular season you need to worry some about who your fifth starter is, but in the post-season it might be more advantageous to have a dominant top three than a solid top five. It's all about putting as much value as you possibly can into each situation you're likely to face. In the regular season, someone's got to pitch at least 5 innings (generally) every day and to maximize the value you get on the mound, you need to find servicable guys to fill the back of your rotation. In the post-season...all of your innings go to your best avaiable arms.

In the regular season, you starting position players need rest so you have to have good depth at every position. In the post-season, depth is a strategic thing...used to better single-game match-ups...not to weather the attrition of a long season...meaning a DIFFERENT kind of depth is required.

This may all be true...but it doesn't mean you can't use sabermetric principles to analyze it...you would need to take many years worth of post-seasons to get a large enough sample to test on...but just because no one has studied the best way to team-build for the post-season sabermetrically...doesn't mean it can't be done.

And just because seemingly subjective traditional methodologies have produced winning teams in the past sometimes doesn't mean it always works or work any better than sabermetrically derived team-building strategies would.

There is inherent variability in attempting to apply any ideology over a scant few games. That's the way the ball bounces when you've got just 7 games to play. But...if for instance you're the Yankees and you can just about count on making the post-season every year, you most CERTAINLY can and should attempt to build a long term strategy that maximizes your chances of winning once you get there.

[jalbright]

I did no such thing.

I do not dismiss sabermetrics, I question the amount of stock certain people put in them. I question if all those who espouse them understand how they are formed and are educated enough in the advanced mathematics involved to even have a valid opinion on their relevance. I question their applicability in predicting postseason success. This is not dismissing SABR, this is constructive criticism, it is pushing you guys to address and consider diverse perspectives. This reminds me of the conservative political pundits who claim that any time somebody critisizes America is un-American, when in truth critiquing the country is the most American use of free speech possible.

I don't dismiss the study of science, although, much it too is corporate guided and largely devoid of the altruistic and humane spirit that should guide the field. Anyway, I don't need the level of weather analysis that you guys provide.

Some of my brethren in the sabermetric community want to have everyone believe that their hammer or screwdriver or wrench (pick your tool) is the only one you'll ever need. They've gone overboard, just like one could with a choice of tools. If one wants to cut ones fingernails, a sledgehammer will not provide a nice solution. But if you want to pound some metal flat, a clipper won't help much either. It's even true that if we have all the tools available to us, we can't solve everything. That's particularly true in situations where the sabermetric tools, which are largely based on probabilities, are given a limited number of trials. Playoffs are just too short for everything to balance out. The White Sox played well, but they also caught a very helpful string of breaks. Nothing can predict when such events will occur, because human beings simply aren't that predictable. On the other hand, if you understand how to get predictions for such series right 75% of the time when everyone else is struggling to beat 60%, and there are ways to exploit that knowledge, you have a definite advantage. I happen to believe sabermetrics can provide those kinds of advantages.

Even in ranking players, sabermetric approaches have the defiinite advantages of organizing our knowledge and helping us see things clearly, which is an exceptionally difficult task to accomplish with subjective information for just one comparison, much less for a long series of such comparisons. There are times that the way the numbers come out are ones that initially make us scratch out heads. Sometimes, those numbers are picking up something we've missed. Sometimes, for whatever reason, our assumptions don't balance out on a given individual, and the "system" yields a lesser answer. We can work toward refining those systems so they yield fewer and fewer results which aren't acceptable, so long as we try to be objective about what is "acceptable". I believe we've gone a long way in that regard, though we're certainly not at perfection. I'm not sure that state is achievable, but we can get closer.

Jim Albright

[SABR Matt]

Again...I hope I have not left the impression that I expect everyone to fully understand or make use of my work or any work in sabermetrics...I do however think that for people who really want to know more about how the game works...how to build teams...even how to win more championships if you have enough chances...those folks should be making an effort to learn about probability theory, sabermetrics, etc. It's perfectly fine to just enjoy the game casually...MOST of the time, even I just enjoy the game casually...my sabermetric research does not encroach much on how I watch the games. Team owners/GMs/Managers though would be better served to come to a good understanding about the science of baseball strategy than they would if they continued using the same "old hat" methods they've been using since the 60s.

[Twinskoop]

Some of my brethren in the sabermetric community want to have everyone believe that their hammer or screwdriver or wrench (pick your tool) is the only one you'll ever need. They've gone overboard, just like one could with a choice of tools. If one wants to cut ones fingernails, a sledgehammer will not provide a nice solution. But if you want to pound some metal flat, a clipper won't help much either. It's even true that if we have all the tools available to us, we can't solve everything. That's particularly true in situations where the sabermetric tools, which are largely based on probabilities, are given a limited number of trials. Playoffs are just too short for everything to balance out. The White Sox played well, but they also caught a very helpful string of breaks. Nothing can predict when such events will occur, because human beings simply aren't that predictable. On the other hand, if you understand how to get predictions for such series right 75% of the time when everyone else is struggling to beat 60%, and there are ways to exploit that knowledge, you have a definite advantage. I happen to believe sabermetrics can provide those kinds of advantages.

Even in ranking players, sabermetric approaches have the defiinite advantages of organizing our knowledge and helping us see things clearly, which is an exceptionally difficult task to accomplish with subjective information for just one comparison, much less for a long series of such comparisons. There are times that the way the numbers come out are ones that initially make us scratch out heads. Sometimes, those numbers are picking up something we've missed. Sometimes, for whatever reason, our assumptions don't balance out on a given individual, and the "system" yields a lesser answer. We can work toward refining those systems so they yield fewer and fewer results which aren't acceptable, so long as we try to be objective about what is "acceptable". I believe we've gone a long way in that regard, though we're certainly not at perfection. I'm not sure that state is achievable, but we can get closer.

For the most part, I agree with the spirit of this post. But I don't think we can overlook the fact that while we may think of the numbers that SABR metrics yield as "objective," in order for them to mean anything to us, we must apply subjective normative standards. And I think your analysis is understating the scope that many SABR folk strive for in the development of these measures. Win Shares? Runs Created? These are very clearly attempts to establish broad valuations on players who have, for the most part, very specific skill sets in a game that demands many different skills. This is like trying to develop a single tool that will trim your fingernails and pound metal (not to mention mow the grass and walk the dog).

I'm all for a more modern approach to understanding baseball statistics. When I first read Rob Neyer talk about OPS in 1997, I was knocked over. But in its evolution, it's become more of an idealogical wedge than anything, and that's sad. As you imply, it (the system of statistical analysis) just doesn't do what some seem to want it to do - and it likely never will. It can't replace tool-scouting, coaching or strategy. You just can't take the game out of the game.

[SABR Matt]

You keep saying sabermetrics won't replace "tool scouting"...what the heck does that even mean? Sabermetric analysis can't really be used on players who have not yet reached the major leagues, but that's primarily because not enough data is kept on minor league players, teams, and leagues to get a real understanding about how each player achieved his minor league statistics. You're comparing apples to oranges. We can't really "scout" with sabermetrics at this time, but I think you're misattributing the reason why.

[digglahhh]

[QUOTE=SABR Matt]diglahhh seems to be of the mindset that in a short series (post-season) setting, sabermetric principles fail and traditional philosophy succeeds, which is of course 100% not true. The paradigm shifts, but you could still use sabermetrics to get an understanding of how to win more post-season games than you lose over a period of several years in the post-season.

QUOTE]

No, what I am saying is that in a short series there is no predicting what model will work at any given time. Therefore when it is all on the line, the seeming advantages of SABR evaporate and it is just another theory that may be proven or disproven on one particular roll of the dice. This doesn't negate the findings of course, but it just happens that the outcome of that particular roll of the dice determines the champions of the sport.

[digglahhh]

Again...I hope I have not left the impression that I expect everyone to fully understand or make use of my work or any work in sabermetrics...I do however think that for people who really want to know more about how the game works...how to build teams...even how to win more championships if you have enough chances...those folks should be making an effort to learn about probability theory, sabermetrics, etc. It's perfectly fine to just enjoy the game casually...MOST of the time, even I just enjoy the game casually...my sabermetric research does not encroach much on how I watch the games. Team owners/GMs/Managers though would be better served to come to a good understanding about the science of baseball strategy than they would if they continued using the same "old hat" methods they've been using since the 60s.

Yeah, well for the record, I think I'm brilliant too.:rolleyes:

[SABR Matt]

I never said I thought I was "brilliant"...there's a difference between intelligence and experience/insight gathered through years of hard work.

Now I do in fact believe I'm a fairly intelligent person, but so are just about all of the other posters here (you included diglahh...there can be no doubt you are a very bright person)...my confidence in the power and utility of sabermetrics and in my own insight into the game comes from years of study, not some misguided thought that I'm God's gift to baseball.

[redoctober]

Why don't you people understand? You CAN'T build a championship team by strictly looking at the intangibles of a player. I mean I could look at a lot of players and say "yeah I want this guy, he plays with such heart," Or "yeah I want a team of hustle players." While it's ideal to have a roster full of players who bust their butts on the basepaths and in the field, "hustle" and "heart" is something everyone on this planet has. This is where the weeding out must come in, and while the field of Sabermetrics is still a "third world country," it's still an objective and beautiful field. This isn't a philosophy, it's black and white, it's numbers. The numbers don't lie. It's a matter of how you interpret those numbers that put them to use, and while I consider myself a baseball purist I am all in support of this new way of analyzing our past time. Not only will I learn about this field, but I attempt to someday advance the field in someway, and I only hope traditionalists will follow.



SABR Matt, I've really enjoyed reading your passionate posts ever since I began reading these boards. If by any chance, could you keep me informed on your latest workings in the Sabermetric field? Thanks, I'd appreciate it.

[digglahhh]

Matt,

My sarcasm was just a reaction to the arrogant undertones in your previous post, a post that is not indicative of your general personality (as I have interpretted through your contributions here). Still the subtleties of that post were rather condecending. I was just adding a playful jab. I have much respect for the work you do, and I would like to think that you know that.

Red October,

Numbers are never objective. The ancient Greek Pythagoreans and Monists prove that long before baseball was even conceived. To provide a gratuitous example, the Exxon Valdez spills and creates all sorts of destruction. We are forced to commission U.S. clean-up services. That leads to increased GDP. Now, the numbers say drunken captains of oil ships are good for the economy- you do the math.

I think that Matt, deep down somewhere, realizes that I too, in my own way, want to contribute to the development of sabermetrics. I don't consider myself a traditionalist or a sabermetrician, there is too much conotation infused in either term, by identifying ourselves as such we pigeonhole ourselves, in the process encouraging ourselves to adopt the precepts of the respective groups in the search for an identity. I am a person who attempts to use all the tools I have for the purposes of maximizing my understanding of the subject at hand. In that pursuit, sometimes I find sabermetrics free me from the prison of raw stats and traditional views. Other times, I find sabermetrics serve only to further complicate the issue.

Above all, I do my best to leave room for dissent. This is why I am willing to engage in these discussions.

[SABR Matt]

Why don't you people understand? You CAN'T build a championship team by strictly looking at the intangibles of a player. I mean I could look at a lot of players and say "yeah I want this guy, he plays with such heart," Or "yeah I want a team of hustle players." While it's ideal to have a roster full of players who bust their butts on the basepaths and in the field, "hustle" and "heart" is something everyone on this planet has. This is where the weeding out must come in, and while the field of Sabermetrics is still a "third world country," it's still an objective and beautiful field. This isn't a philosophy, it's black and white, it's numbers. The numbers don't lie. It's a matter of how you interpret those numbers that put them to use, and while I consider myself a baseball purist I am all in support of this new way of analyzing our past time. Not only will I learn about this field, but I attempt to someday advance the field in someway, and I only hope traditionalists will follow.



SABR Matt, I've really enjoyed reading your passionate posts ever since I began reading these boards. If by any chance, could you keep me informed on your latest workings in the Sabermetric field? Thanks, I'd appreciate it.

Hi redoctober...first of all thanks. :D I care about this stuff entirely too much for my own good...LOL I strongly believe (and this is something that will always be true even when I'm listening to the good arguments against current sabermetric efforts and trying to find ways to address those arguments) that there is far FAR more information available to us than sabermetricians have thus far accessed even in the days before play by play data...You can get at a lot of untapped information about the skill of teams and players just by looking at game linescores, which is NOT something sabermetricians have done yet...TKD and I are just really starting to fully realize how much information there is and make use of it (see our posts on the Fiato/Souders Arithmetic Adjustments for instance...although we're moving away from linear analysis into multivariate nonlinear optimization).

There seems to be an almost religious attachment to the idea that because current sabermetric methods are strongly limited by the problems that come from averaging data and smoothing and accepting certain large error margins...this means that future methods will never improve enough to become incredibly powerful...

You guys who think sabermetrics is severely capped by a lack of data...you're missing so much...we have ENORMOUS amounts of data here...it's mind boggling how much of it has been thus far unused.

[SABR Matt]

biglahhh...what did I say that you took to be "arrogant"...the point of that post was that people who need to build the teams...and people who want seriously to get as much information about the game as they can need to study sabermetrics to do so. Even you yourself recognize this...you may not agree with some precepts of the theory...but you need to study and understand it. If you don't learn how to make sense of the data...then you have only one tool...your judgment. I didn't say sabermetrics were the only thing you needed to study...I don't just study sabermetrics to understand the game...in fact studying non-sabermetric perspectives has often led to major advancements in my sabermetric pursuits...

Not everyone has the desire to learn as much as possible about baseball...in fact few people do. For the crazies out there like you and me...you need more than traditionalist perspective...you need to understand statistics to understand history...it's that simple.

[Twinskoop]

You keep saying sabermetrics won't replace "tool scouting"...what the heck does that even mean? Sabermetric analysis can't really be used on players who have not yet reached the major leagues, but that's primarily because not enough data is kept on minor league players, teams, and leagues to get a real understanding about how each player achieved his minor league statistics. You're comparing apples to oranges. We can't really "scout" with sabermetrics at this time, but I think you're misattributing the reason why.

I think the term "tool-scouting" is pretty simple - traditional scouting for certain "tools" like power, contact, speed, arm, defensive range. Plate discipline is becoming more important in scouting. But it is more of a developed skill than a natural talent for most hitters. It matters because developed skills are more dependent on the coaching staff than the more natural skills. There is obviously more subjectivity in projecting natural skills, which explains the aversion SABR folk have towards it.

[digglahhh]

The "arrogance" came from the notion, if you want to understand baseball study my work. Yo, that's cool. I should hope than anybody who driven to innovate feels that way. Sometimes, it just comes out in a way that's offputting when you vocalize (or type) it. Without the history of discussion that I had with you, I could have easily interpretted that post as "I'm the greatest thing since sliced bread, if you don't understand MY WORK(not the work in my general field), you will never advanced beyond the doldrum of the casual fan characterized my misconception and ignorance.

Look, we come from entirely different perspectives here. About the only thing we share is a desire to understand the game of baseball as best we can. You study meteorology, and obviously advanced math. I earned my Masters Degree is Social Science Research. I break down numbers to find the falsehoods. One of the most important thing a researcher learns is to never trust the numbers at face value, the idea that people, living, complicated, thinking people drive them- in all stages of the research, and in ways that can and can't be controlled.

I find the end product of a lot of the SABR to be somewhat reductionalist and neglectful of the human aspect of team building and game playing.

I have played on teams where losing our best player has made the team more successful. I don't take this anectdotal evidence as gospel, but it is a phenomenon that occurs- more frequently with middle of the road guys (a team losing a B+ guy for a B- guy and improving.

[redoctober]

I find the end product of a lot of the SABR to be somewhat reductionalist and neglectful of the human aspect of team building and game playing.

I have played on teams where losing our best player has made the team more successful. I don't take this anectdotal evidence as gospel, but it is a phenomenon that occurs- more frequently with middle of the road guys (a team losing a B+ guy for a B- guy and improving.


This is where I disagree. As I stated in my previous post you cannot build a winning team by strictly looking at the intangibles such as "heart," and/or "hustle." Everyone on this planet has those, and you really can't weed out whats good, and whats bad. As for your second statement that is very untrue. More often than not if a team loses it's best player, the team also goes down.

[SABR Matt]

There is sometimes the perception that a team has lost a B+ player for a B- player and gotten better...that's not really what happens though...generally a team will lose a B+ player and get a player that is commonly thought of as a B- player but is actually an A- or B+ player in his own right when given the chance to play everyday...and gets better.

In any event, your comments about your interpretation of my post from a bit back...not once did I reference my own work in that post, so if you interpreted that as me saying "study my work or be condemned to stupidity"...that's your own damned problem...I said you had to study sabermetrics to understand the game fully...not study MY sabermetric research.

[SABR Matt]

Again...I hope I have not left the impression that I expect everyone to fully understand or make use of my work or any work in sabermetrics...I do however think that for people who really want to know more about how the game works...how to build teams...even how to win more championships if you have enough chances...those folks should be making an effort to learn about probability theory, sabermetrics, etc. It's perfectly fine to just enjoy the game casually...MOST of the time, even I just enjoy the game casually...my sabermetric research does not encroach much on how I watch the games. Team owners/GMs/Managers though would be better served to come to a good understanding about the science of baseball strategy than they would if they continued using the same "old hat" methods they've been using since the 60s.

Yeah...let's see...does anyone see where I said anything about people needing to study my work? Cause...wow...I don't!! Reference to my own work was strictly to REFUTE thew idea that I thought you had to study my work to understand the game...I specifically said that I didn't think most people would ever have a need for it and when I talked about what people who want to understand the game should study, I used the words, probability theory, sabermetrics, etc...and that GMs needed to come to an understanding about the science of the game.

That's it.

But whatever.

[WillieKamm]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that they are a sham, but many people on this forum certainly overvalue them. Their lure is great. Like religion, anything that presents itself as a panacea is wonderful. Advanced metrics can offer answers to player comparisons, even for players whom the evaluators have never seen, but the conclusions are not set it stone and must be interpretted in context.

I have often stated that sabermetrics have no greater predictive value than any other stats because in terms of winning it all you reach the point where you must apply the macro to the micro. SABR focuses on statistical research, correlations that are proven over time. Any 5 or 7 game series can wholly contradict its premises without invalidating the study itself. We must be aware of the limitations of all stats and theories, SABR and classical.

One thing I don't like about the advanced metrics is that any yahoo with a Bill James book can look up win shares or some other stat and think that they can add a meaningful contribution to a profound discussion of several players and their relative prowess.

SABR, IMO, is better suited to explain how what already happened, happened and not to predict what will happen in any given situation. SABR devalues the stolen base, and sure overall that's probably true, but ask Dave Roberts what he thinks of that. One instance that defies the theory can prove to be more meaningful than a boatload of instances that support it. When taken too far, SABR creates for its own sake and strays from its purpose. Those who further the research must always ask themselves questions, make sure the findings refer back to the game and understand the differences between discovery and invention.

The field though has made some very important contributions and I would never deny that.

As Twinskoop said, people should stop conflating Moneyball with sabermetrics. Excellent. My sentiments exactly.

[digglahhh]

Matt,

I am talking about people I played ball with, make-ups of teams that I played on and how they got better at times without some of our most skilled players. I realize that this is anectdotal evidence, and, as a researche,r I know it proves nothing except the mere existence of the phenomenon, but this did happen.

You can't tell me otherwise. You don't have a system to grade the play of my high school teammates and recreational league partners. It has nothing to do with heart/hustle- its just about cohesion. You don't just take your favorite foods and put them in a pot and expect it to taste good because it has "the best" ingredients.

[iPod]

Numbers are never objective. The ancient Greek Pythagoreans and Monists prove that long before baseball was even conceived. To provide a gratuitous example, the Exxon Valdez spills and creates all sorts of destruction. We are forced to commission U.S. clean-up services. That leads to increased GDP. Now, the numbers say drunken captains of oil ships are good for the economy- you do the math.


That's absolutely not what economics says.

The #1 problem I have with "traditionalist" stats critics: When they criticize stats guys of things which stats guys don't do.

A guy on the MLB.com message board said something like, "Yeah, well if you just went by the numbers, you'd have to give the MVP award to Todd Helton every year, so if you don't think Todd Helton deserves the MVP award you're saying numbers aren't very important you hypocrite!"

[ssbguyincognito]

That leads to increased GDP. Now, the numbers say drunken captains of oil ships are good for the economy- you do the math.

I think what's most subjective isn't using number, but using numbers when you have a very limited understanding of them.

I'm going to use this specific example to prove my point. Yes, if suppose there is an Exxon spill. The government has to spend lots of money to clean that up. They spend that money on many private services. This leads to increased spending. Then by the multiplier, GDP will rise some amount. It's Keynesian economics.

But here's what you're forgetting: its called opportunity cost. After all, if I spend $100 on say a TV then I am benefitting. But if I could have bought that same TV from BestBuy for $50, then my spending money was inefficient, and and I lost $50 on an opportunity cost. So when the government, with its finite resources, has to spend some of its resources on cleaning up an oil spill, it has less resources to do other stuff what might have improved the economy even better (and not messed up the environment).

If you are trying to argue that anyone would seriously use numbers in the way you just used them, then I suggest you take a step back and try to understand the numbers -- that's most important.

For example, can you tell the difference between a .275 hitter and a .300 hitter by looking at them play for a really long time? The former is an average player, the latter a perennial all star. And the answer is no, you cannot, because the difference between them is 1-2 hits a week. Unless you are recording down both their hits and their ABs (statistic analysis), then your eye alone is too bad and subjective to differentiate.

[digglahhh]

Well, first of all that is exactly how the government uses numbers and economics. It creates problems, or neglects to prevent them and, then hands off lucrative contracts to those who financed the campaigns to "fix" the problems. Its a win/win situation- its called pork barrelling and its the prime objective of a plutocracy. Those of use familiar with the streets recognize it as money laundering. Enough about that though.

And I know that the difference between a .275 hitter and .300 hitter is slim, 1 or 2 hits a week. But watching those hitters over time you can tell things the numbers don't. Whose having that good ABs, what are the context of those hits.

Assume those two hitters are rookies. The guy who hit .300 this year, may really be more of a .275 hitter, while the guy who hit .275 may really be a .300 hitter. You can tell this by watching a player but not by a stat sheet.

I wholeheartedly agree that people must understand the numbers they use. Many of them don't understand the limitations and scope of either traditional or sabermetric stats.

[iPod]

I think what's most subjective isn't using number, but using numbers when you have a very limited understanding of them.

I'm going to use this specific example to prove my point. Yes, if suppose there is an Exxon spill. The government has to spend lots of money to clean that up. They spend that money on many private services. This leads to increased spending. Then by the multiplier, GDP will rise some amount. It's Keynesian economics.

But here's what you're forgetting: its called opportunity cost. After all, if I spend $100 on say a TV then I am benefitting. But if I could have bought that same TV from BestBuy for $50, then my spending money was inefficient, and and I lost $50 on an opportunity cost. So when the government, with its finite resources, has to spend some of its resources on cleaning up an oil spill, it has less resources to do other stuff what might have improved the economy even better (and not messed up the environment).

If you are trying to argue that anyone would seriously use numbers in the way you just used them, then I suggest you take a step back and try to understand the numbers -- that's most important.


Not to mention the fact that it's a hugely negative environmental externality, damages public goods, probably damages market infrastructure (like, the road itself; hence, transactions costs go up and many investments in the immediate future don't have positive net present value), the oil in the spill wasn't sold, the people who were going to buy the oil can't buy it; hence, production gets slowed down... the list goes on and on.

[digglahhh]

Do you people live in the United States?

C'mon, Ipod, I expect more from you. Its patently obvious that this is the United States' dominant economic model. How come we didn't pony up the pittance it would have cost to fix the levys in NO. Who's got the contracts to rebuild? And don't confuse this with Keynsian economics, that's not what JMK had in mind.

What's up with this bird flu? Check out Ashcroft's massive stock holdings in the pharma company that has the patent on the drug that will be perscribed to treat it.

Where are the cats on this forum from other countries, its a shame, but they are usually more educated on US economic and foreign policy than we are.

Numbers will tell whatever story we want them to, baseball, economics, whatever. Let the buyer beware!

[csh19792001]

Matt,

I am talking about people I played ball with, make-ups of teams that I played on and how they got better at times without some of our most skilled players. I realize that this is anectdotal evidence, and, as a researche,r I know it proves nothing except the mere existence of the phenomenon, but this did happen.

You can't tell me otherwise. You don't have a system to grade the play of my high school teammates and recreational league partners. It has nothing to do with heart/hustle- its just about cohesion. You don't just take your favorite foods and put them in a pot and expect it to taste good because it has "the best" ingredients.

If it isn't amenable to a formula, then a stat geek will automatically repudiate it as an ephermal figment of one's imagination or chalk it up to some effusive sentimentality. "If we can't put an absolute number on it or put it in a formula, it isn't real"

No use banging your head against the wall because all someone knows/sees/understands/cares about is NUMBERS.

[redoctober]

If it isn't amenable to a formula, then a stat geek will automatically repudiate it as an ephermal figment of one's imagination or chalk it up to some effusive sentimentality. "If we can't put an absolute number on it or put it in a formula, it isn't real"

No use banging your head against the wall because all someone knows/sees/understands/cares about is NUMBERS.



And this is the reason why you're sadly misinformed on the purpose of Sabermetrics. For starters, you've placed an incorrect classification on a Sabermetrician.

[redoctober]

For future reference: Before any of you decide to speak out against Sabermetrics and Sabermetricians, please do an impartial research on the topic first. Theres way too many stereotypes being thrown around, and I think everyone here who supports Sabermetrics and it's cause should feel like they're wasting their time at this point, considering the fact that the anti's can't even correctly classify the field.

[SABR Matt]

csh...I expected more you...such blanket creedism (think racism but against a creed or philosophy) is beneath you...

:ughh :confused:

[csh19792001]

csh...I expected more you...such blanket creedism (think racism but against a creed or philosophy) is beneath you...

:ughh :confused:

There is sometimes the perception that a team has lost a B+ player for a B- player and gotten better...that's not really what happens though...generally a team will lose a B+ player and get a player that is commonly thought of as a B- player but is actually an A- or B+ player in his own right when given the chance to play everyday...and gets better.

In any event, your comments about your interpretation of my post from a bit back...not once did I reference my own work in that post, so if you interpreted that as me saying "study my work or be condemned to stupidity"...that's your own damned problem...I said you had to study sabermetrics to understand the game fully...not study MY sabermetric research.

Since when does one have to study sabermetrics to understand the game of baseball fully? You jumped down Diglahh's throat, and he's one of the most learned, well rounded, and erudite posters here. He simply isn't bound for life to the statistics.

It's the imperious air with which "sabermetricians" framed everything (including their work) that causes the derision you've seen.

[redoctober]

Since when does one have to study sabermetrics to understand the game of baseball fully? You jumped down Diglahh's throat, and he's one of the most learned, well rounded, and erudite posters here. He simply isn't bound for life to the statistics.

It's the imperious air with which "sabermetricians" framed everything (including their work) that causes the derision you've seen.


You know, your eyes are very subjective.

[redoctober]

Listen, I can enjoy the game without the numbers in front of me. However, to fully understand the environment of the game one must analyze. Thats where sabermetrics comes into play. Now, taking digglah for example, he can state that a team of mariginal players can outdo everyone else because they exhibit cohesiveness. However, the reality out of it all is that it's a fallacious assumption.

[SABR Matt]

Since when does one have to study sabermetrics to understand the game of baseball fully? You jumped down Diglahh's throat, and he's one of the most learned, well rounded, and erudite posters here. He simply isn't bound for life to the statistics.

It's the imperious air with which "sabermetricians" framed everything (including their work) that causes the derision you've seen.

I'm sorry Chris...but that's a load of dung. You can understand a lot about baseball, but learning about proability theory and statistics is essential to understanding the theory of team-building and to properly comparing players you've never seen play...I'm sorry if that bothers you, but it's a fact of life...you don't have to be a sabermetrician, or agree with the way sabermetricians choose to interpret the statistics...but you do have to understand the logic behind what they're doing so you can form a proper, well-informed opinion on it...particularly if you're going to spend all of your free time on these forums bashing sabermetrics.

[digglahhh]

CSH,

Thanks for the kind words.

Red October,

When did I say that, you are twisting my words. I did not say that a team of marginal player's can make up their lack of talent by "heart," "cohesion" or "hustle" or whatever nonsensical contention you are attributing to me today.

What I said was that a team is more than a collection of individual players and numbers reflect real, fluid events that take place in a larger context. To look to the numbers to give context to game is putting the proverbial cart before the horse.

You wouldn't sacrifice a hit a week for a guy who may be able to teach a teammate how to get three more. That's the glass menagerie that is yur world. The numbers represent the work of people. I sacrifice salary for my personal happiness, for my freedom and in order to adhere to my principles. An evaluation of this decision based upon numbers would classify me as foolish. It would also completely miss the motivating factors of the decision itself.

While the school of SABR thought has made many contributions, I firmly believe that many of the advanced metrics were INVENTED, not discovered. There is a very important difference.

[digglahhh]

Oh and one more thing:

If you guys are willing to admit that sabermetrics has problems, and the field is a "work in progress" how am I off base in criticizing it in its contemporary form. You guys recognize my criticisms amongst yourselves but won't admit it to one of your critics.

You guys can critisize your work, but I can't. Is this like white people not being allowed to say "*****?"

[SABR Matt]

When did anyone here say it was not OK to criticize the legitimate weaknesses of modern sabermetrics?

All I've said is...if you're going to criticize sabermetrics...you must understand exactly how they work first and make an informed judgment about what they're missing and come at me with more than "numbers don't see everything"...

You must also understand that sabermetric analysis is not designed to give EXACT and undeniable answers to every question...just to get us a lot closer to the truth than we'd be just using our eyes.

[ssbguyincognito]

You wouldn't sacrifice a hit a week for a guy who may be able to teach a teammate how to get three more.

These are the MAJOR LEAGUES. It's the top 1% of the talent pool. Everyone who's in the major leagues has to keep trying to stay in the major leagues -- otherwise they wouldn't be there. And guess what: players in the major leagues are always trying as hard as they can to hit as well as they can because (1) if they didn't, they wouldn't be in the majors and (2) if they do, they make a lot of money. Now this is true except for maybe one or two players out of a thousand, so don't bring up the Manny Ramirez -- who may be the greatest right-handed hitter ever -- as an exception. For 99% of players (not the superstars), they have to always be trying and playing their hardest to stay in the majors, and they'll do so regardless of who they are playing with.

[obmij5]

okay, just registered and read the whole thread. kudos to both the main guys here. You're both excellent and fairly argumentative ;)

First the whole "you have to understand statistics to understand the game fully" thing. The key word, which was used in the original post, is fully. Like it or not (for complete disclosure, i happen to like it) sabermetrics are part of the game, they shape how several major league enterprises act and how countless fans think about the game. So if understanding the game fully is understanding all of its facets (which by the way, i dont see happening in this lifetime), you must understand statistics as well as scouting.

Second, The earlier discussion about throwing the statistical analysis out the window in the playoffs. No doubt about it, sample size is an issue and both sides can point to it (Traditionalists: The Red Sox were lucky, Sabermetricians: The Marlins were lucky), but that doesnt mean that analysis becomes meaningless. These teams displayed over the course of a season that they were better at preventing runs and scoring runs than other teams. Therefore, they should be better than the other team in a seven game series. While luck plays a huge role, that better team should win the majority of the time because they are better. It might only be a slight majority, but it will be a majority.

So thats my first post.
Both sides, commence tearing it to pieces.

[SABR Matt]

Welcome obmj5...

From the sound of your first post, I can tell you're gonna fit in well here.

To your first paragraph...that's basically what I was saying...as much information as you can get from scouting (and no where did I say we should abandon scouting practices in favor of purely sabermetric management...because I don't think that...I think we need to merge both fields)...there's a lot of stuff you can only really figure out through detailed statistical analysis...that's all I am saying.

[redoctober]

Oh and one more thing:

If you guys are willing to admit that sabermetrics has problems, and the field is a "work in progress" how am I off base in criticizing it in its contemporary form. You guys recognize my criticisms amongst yourselves but won't admit it to one of your critics.

You guys can critisize your work, but I can't. Is this like white people not being allowed to say "*****?"


Now you're twisting my words. I never said you couldn't criticize the weaknesses of present day Sabermetrics. What I meant was understand the REAL mission statement of Sabermetrics before you go, and question our purpose.

Sabermetrics is still in it's infancy. You wouldn't predict a newborn's future right after it came out of a mother's womb. Give us time to mature.

[obmij5]

I have played on teams where losing our best player has made the team more successful. I don't take this anectdotal evidence as gospel, but it is a phenomenon that occurs

You're right, but you yourself call it a "phenomenon", which, by definition is somewhat unusual. Granted i never played ball with you, but I'm sure if you looked at records you would see that more often than not, in any league in the world, (any sport for that matter), the majority of the time that a team loses their top player, they get worse. Its just not as interesting, so nobody notices it.
Building a team on sabermetric principles is about minimalizing risk. Its more likely that you'll win with guys who put up runs than high character guys.

Just ask SABR Matt, he's a mariners fan...:) :) :) (Cough, Spezio, Cough Cough)

[SABR Matt]

Ah shaddap!!!

You have no business talking...*cough*Jeter at short*cough cough* :)

In all seriousness though...the Mariners front office has been building "cohesive" and professional rosters for years now...it ain't working.

[obmij5]

Ah shaddap!!!
You have no business talking...*cough*Jeter at short*cough cough* :)

Well Played, matt. :laugh
and the stereotypical yank fan responds with: "what are you talking about? Jeter has won 2 straight Golden Gloves!"

But to quote Baseball Prospectus 2005

As for the Gold Glove, peel back the foil on the award and you'll find there's some tasty chocolate underneath.

Im just happy that he's improved to the point where you don't have to hide the children whenever he picks up his Easton.:laugh

[redoctober]

Ah shaddap!!!

You have no business talking...*cough*Jeter at short*cough cough* :)

In all seriousness though...the Mariners front office has been building "cohesive" and professional rosters for years now...it ain't working.

The anti's think your team is heading in the right direction, and that the future is filled with a million suns. :laugh

[SABR Matt]

My team is...starting...to head in the right direction...it's going to take several years IMHO to fully recover unless they have some outstanding drafts and do better in free agency...

And Jeter's defense has noticeably improved in the last two years...he's gone all the way from being one of the five or six worst fielding shortstops in major league history...to being *gasp* AVERAGE! Ah mediocrity...ain't it great. :)

I could also have mentioned sticking with Bernie Williams in CF about five years too long...

[SABR Matt]

Well Played, matt. :laugh
and the stereotypical yank fan responds with: "what are you talking about? Jeter has won 2 straight Golden Gloves!"

But to quote Baseball Prospectus 2005


Im just happy that he's improved to the point where you don't have to hide the children whenever he picks up his Easton.:laugh

LOL!! I like that quote...they need to give out some rapsberry awards...there'd be a LOT of Yankees in there..."Worst starting outfielder -> Bernie Williams, worst trade -> Vazquez/prospects for RJ, worst mid-leve free agent signing -> Tony Womack, worst starting pitcher making at least 5 mil -> Jaret Wright"...I could go on. :)

[obmij5]

LOL!! I like that quote...they need to give out some rapsberry awards...there'd be a LOT of Yankees in there..."Worst starting outfielder -> Bernie Williams, worst trade -> Vazquez/prospects for RJ, worst mid-leve free agent signing -> Tony Womack, worst starting pitcher making at least 5 mil -> Jaret Wright"...I could go on. :)
Worst Player: Ruben Sierra
However...
Adrian Beltre...
Not a wise signing. Not Womack bad. I would settle it at about a Wright level of badness.
Hey look at the bright side, Gillick isnt allowed to talk to you guys anymore.

I just need to buy Steinbrenner some super glue and convince him its chapstick....
its a work in progress

[SABR Matt]

LOL!

Yeah...the Mariners are run poorly...the Yankees are run HORRIDLY...spending 200 mil a year, Seattle could win 140 games while the Yankees are winning 94-98

[iPod]

Do you people live in the United States?

C'mon, Ipod, I expect more from you. Its patently obvious that this is the United States' dominant economic model. How come we didn't pony up the pittance it would have cost to fix the levys in NO. Who's got the contracts to rebuild? And don't confuse this with Keynsian economics, that's not what JMK had in mind.

What's up with this bird flu? Check out Ashcroft's massive stock holdings in the pharma company that has the patent on the drug that will be perscribed to treat it.

Where are the cats on this forum from other countries, its a shame, but they are usually more educated on US economic and foreign policy than we are.

Numbers will tell whatever story we want them to, baseball, economics, whatever. Let the buyer beware!

If you think the president's economic advisers said not to shore up the levies in New Orleans because it would help the economy to let them burst and then rebuild the city... well, I just don't know what to tell you. No economist thinks that environmental disasters are good for the economy. Farm subsidies are very much part of the US's economic policy, but no economist is going to tell you that subsidies are good for the economy. On the contrary, it's quite obvious to anyone that's taken an economics class that subsidies have a negatively warping effect on the market. They exist nonetheless because small rural states are full of farmers that are decisive on that issue; a politician's stance on subsidies will affect how they vote for him, because it really affects their wellbeing. We, on the other hand, are indecisive on the issue of subsidies, because we really don't care about them one way or the other. That's how politics works, as I'm sure you agree, but it's wrong to say that politicians do what they do because that's what the economic community tells them to do.

[Ubiquitous]

Wow I missed those posts by digglahhh. It isn't baseball but the government didn't pony up because they didn't want to spend the money not because they were hoping some disaster would come along and force them to spend ten times that amount. Human beings have been doing that for generations. The ants and the grasshopper? We are shortsighted by nature.

As for foriegners knowing are ways better then us, well thats bunk. Generally speaking foriegners are just more cynical about our ways but that doesn't mean they are well informed. They go looking for the worst parts of our ways and then hold them up as if that is all we do and all we are capable of. It isn't true and it isn't that simple and clear cut.

I have sat in the Amsterdam airport while foriegners bash and stereotype America and americans. The funniest time or most bizarre moment came when a Canadian was telling three Brits how rude, inconsiderate, and oblivious Americans are to others and their surroundings. I wanted to tap him on the shoulder and ask him just what he thinks he was doing at that moment that was any different then his stereotype? But then I would just be another rude American. I've talked with a german who had the audacity to chastise me and America on our race relations! I've had a Brit scold me for our foriegn relations. I've had a frenchmen mock our government for its inefficiency.

[Chisox]

Wow I missed those posts by digglahhh. It isn't baseball but the government didn't pony up because they didn't want to spend the money not because they were hoping some disaster would come along and force them to spend ten times that amount. Human beings have been doing that for generations. The ants and the grasshopper? We are shortsighted by nature.

As for foriegners knowing are ways better then us, well thats bunk. Generally speaking foriegners are just more cynical about our ways but that doesn't mean they are well informed. They go looking for the worst parts of our ways and then hold them up as if that is all we do and all we are capable of. It isn't true and it isn't that simple and clear cut.

I have sat in the Amsterdam airport while foriegners bash and stereotype America and americans. The funniest time or most bizarre moment came when a Canadian was telling three Brits how rude, inconsiderate, and oblivious Americans are to others and their surroundings. I wanted to tap him on the shoulder and ask him just what he thinks he was doing at that moment that was any different then his stereotype? But then I would just be another rude American. I've talked with a german who had the audacity to chastise me and America on our race relations! I've had a Brit scold me for our foriegn relations. I've had a frenchmen mock our government for its inefficiency.
The irony.

[Twinskoop]

If you think the president's economic advisers said not to shore up the levies in New Orleans because it would help the economy to let them burst and then rebuild the city... well, I just don't know what to tell you. No economist thinks that environmental disasters are good for the economy. Farm subsidies are very much part of the US's economic policy, but no economist is going to tell you that subsidies are good for the economy. On the contrary, it's quite obvious to anyone that's taken an economics class that subsidies have a negatively warping effect on the market. They exist nonetheless because small rural states are full of farmers that are decisive on that issue; a politician's stance on subsidies will affect how they vote for him, because it really affects their wellbeing. We, on the other hand, are indecisive on the issue of subsidies, because we really don't care about them one way or the other. That's how politics works, as I'm sure you agree, but it's wrong to say that politicians do what they do because that's what the economic community tells them to do.

I can't speak for digglahhh, but I do hold a similar view, so I'll offer a possible explanation. It's not as though politicians wait and hope for disasters. That's a strawman. But the occurance of a disaster is more acceptable to certain factions and to certain interests than spending the money to prevent the disaster, which may or may not ever occur.

The way we tend to look at economics is a bit narrow. There are different interests at stake in any economy. We are constantly fed the notion that what's good for business is good for "the economy" which is only true if you happen to have a vital stake in the profits of a certain business. The health of the economy depends on our standards, which depend on our priorities. What's good for your personal economic well-being is to live beneath your means, saving money, avoiding debt. If everyone actually lived like this, it would be disastrous for "the economy" as defined by the business world.

The point is (to get back to baseball) that for every yin, there is yang. For a dollar earned is a dollar spent. A run scored is a run allowed. There is a very broad context to consider, and it is far too easy to use a measure (like a price index), whether simple or complex, to define "the economy" - just as it is far too easy to use a measure (like VORP) to define "the value" of a player.

[Ubiquitous]

That makes no sense. So you are saying a politician will not spend a billion dollars to prevent something in the hopes that he can spend 20 billion dollars someday down the road on a disaster? You say its a strawman but that is what you are arguing for. Disasters are not good for the economy because most of the money goes down the drain not pumped into the economy. A good chunk of the money is used on resources that are spent fighting the disaster and are never recouped. Most areas take years and years to recover from a disaster and sometimes they never do. Yet these are the areas where most of the money is spent yet it somehow doesn't help the economy. Sept 11th didn't help New York's economy.

[Ubiquitous]

I forgot to mention this. The money spent on disasters isn't additional money its replacemeny money. For example lets say a local area has one million dollars pass through its economy every day. A disaster hits and now non-disaster money passsing through that economy falls to $10,000 a day. Disaster money comes along and pumps $700,000 dollars into the economy. But that doesn't mean 1.7 million is going through that area. It means that 710,000 is being put through that area. On top of that most of that most money is emergency money which isn't as efficient as the normal economic dollar. In otherwords that 700,000 isn't strengthening the economy but keeping it alive in the short term.

[Twinskoop]

U, you are missing the forest for the trees here, and my point entirely. The point is, a disaster is good for some - namely, those who make a living cleaning it up (and those who make a living making things and selling things that clean it up). In the same way, war is costly - for some - because for whoever is contracted to supply for it, it is profitable. Whether a certain event or action is labeled good or bad (or profitable or unprofitable) depends on perspective, and whether you're doing the buying or the selling.

Note - this does not mean that politicians make a conscious effort to allow disasters so some can profit from it, as you imply in interpreting my meaning. It simply means that certain outcomes are more acceptable to different groups. For many politicians, especially those from areas that aren't directly affected by the disaster at hand, it is much more acceptable to not spend the money to prevent a disaster before it occurs - because certain constituents in certain districts will call that a "waste," as long as it's not their assets that are being covered. Because how do we know the disaster will occur? And how do we know the extent to which preventative measures were effective?

Consequence reflects policy, policy reflects priorities, priorities reflect values.

What does this have to do with SABR? I forgot... I think it was something about context, interpretation of data, the fluid (as opposed to static) nature of the game, and not looking at the game as if each instance is played in a vacuum. Or something.

[hellborn]

U, you are missing the forest for the trees here, and my point entirely. The point is, a disaster is good for some - namely, those who make a living cleaning it up (and those who make a living making things and selling things that clean it up). In the same way, war is costly - for some - because for whoever is contracted to supply for it, it is profitable.

Excellent point, and I don't know why people are having a hard time getting it.
How about this...our president wants to make sure that his buddies make money and doesn't care about the overall economy or the country. And his buddies are in defense, oil, and disaster recovery.
Is that it in a nutshell?

[Twinskoop]

Excellent point, and I don't know why people are having a hard time getting it.
How about this...our president wants to make sure that his buddies make money and doesn't care about the overall economy or the country. And his buddies are in defense, oil, and disaster recovery.
Is that it in a nutshell?
Maybe. I don't know. I don't really want to get into the partisan politics here, because I'm afraid that might obscure the underlying idea - that truly understanding economics and policy requires perspective; and perspective is subjective.

[Brad Harris]

Guys...let's keep the discussion on baseball and leave the politics out of it. If you want to make an illustration, pick a different example.

[Brian McKenna]

this used to be a good thread discussing the value of statistics in evaluating history and personnel in baseball

[Twinskoop]

The analogy is legitimate - economics is a vital part of baseball, and goes hand-in-hand with SABR arguments (why so many people confuse SABR with moneyball). Baseball is the most free market in sports. The original point was that stat analysis, while it may have the appearance of objectivity, is not objective. That is true in economics, and in baseball. The value of a player, the value of a policy, the cost of a disaster, none exist existentially in a vacuum.

A dollar spent by one is a dollar earned by another. A run scored by one is a run allowed by another.

I personally tried to keep the politics out. There are always some conclusions some are going to draw. The basic point is that it is very easy to overvalue SABR-metric analysis, and overstate its objectivity. It's a valuable tool - but there are lots of valuable tools.

The other point is that it's just plain silly to try to mix and match specific measures that describe specific occurrences and specific skills and try to come up with a panacea-ic, overarching "value" measure.

[Ubiquitous]

I'm not missing your point, your point is wrong thats all. The original statement was that disasters are good for the economy. Well as a whole they are not. Yes some company or another will recieve more money then they would have before the disaster but many many other companies and the economy as a whole will take a hit.

You are looking at a tree and saying how wonderful and healthy that tree is. I am looking at the entire forest and seeing how unhealthy overall the forest is, despite the prosperity of that one particular tree.

[Twinskoop]

I'm not missing your point, your point is wrong thats all. The original statement was that disasters are good for the economy. Well as a whole they are not. Yes some company or another will recieve more money then they would have before the disaster but many many other companies and the economy as a whole will take a hit.

You are looking at a tree and saying how wonderful and healthy that tree is. I am looking at the entire forest and seeing how unhealthy overall the forest is, despite the prosperity of that one particular tree.
No, you are definitely missing the point. I didn't make the "original statement," but you are misattributing Digglahhh's point as well (as far as I can tell). We are certainly not saying that disasters are good for the economy. You need to understand that first and foremost. And it is undeniable that disasters are economically good for some. That is the point - the value of something is not an existential and objective truth - it depends on perspective.

Saying disasters are good for the economy is like saying that Cristian Guzman is good for a baseball team.

[Ubiquitous]

This is what started it all,

Numbers are never objective. The ancient Greek Pythagoreans and Monists prove that long before baseball was even conceived. To provide a gratuitous example, the Exxon Valdez spills and creates all sorts of destruction. We are forced to commission U.S. clean-up services. That leads to increased GDP. Now, the numbers say drunken captains of oil ships are good for the economy- you do the math.

and it isn't true. the numbers don't say that. The numbers don't say that drunken captains are good for the economy. Nor did digglaahh say that drunken captains are good for a very select group of companies. He wasn't making a very narrow observation like you claimed, he was making a very broad generalized assertion to try and proove his notion that numbers are never objective.

I am talking about the economy as a whole and you keep telling me his point was certain segments. I don't see it, that maybe your point but I don't see it as his.

[digglahhh]

Sorry, I've been absent for a while due to, of all ironies, a big project at work involving massive amounts of PBP data. But you guys seem to be doing fine without me.

Look, it is this simple- if you have an opinion you feel is valid, you will find what data supports it, or create the data if you need to. There is nothing wrong with that, but some may be working just as hard to prove that their alternative view is correct. That's cool; we call that progress, free thinking and the marketplace of ideas.

Now, the irony of all ironies is that I'm the one who urges my friends and colleagues to give more effort to understanding and evaluating more SABR methods of evaluation...

[SABR Matt]

I'd just like to say that I know I don't speak for the whole community that is sabermetrics, but as I've learned more about the laws of probability and the workigns of the game, I've changed where I stand many times and am not working specifically toward proving I'm right about anything...we're not all self-interested single-minded sabermetricians with tunnel vision and the desire to fabricate data as diglahhh suggests.

[digglahhh]

I'd just like to say that I know I don't speak for the whole community that is sabermetrics, but as I've learned more about the laws of probability and the workigns of the game, I've changed where I stand many times and am not working specifically toward proving I'm right about anything...we're not all self-interested single-minded sabermetricians with tunnel vision and the desire to fabricate data as diglahhh suggests.


Here we go, somebody possibly more istigatory than myself.

It's okay, feign objectivity in your research, as you were taught to do in school. You are always taught to let the research lead you. Eventually, those of us who hold viewpoints inconsistent with dominant values and ideology realize, that such an adage is just like almost everything else you are taught in school- a lie intended to preserve the status quo.

I tutor students in writing and one of the first thing I tell them is that what is called objectivity in research is a means of protecting hegemony. It is always easy to find copious amounts of research to substantiate accepted ideological premises. Finding evidence for contrasting viewpoints requires more diligence and savy.

Most of those who produce research have agendas; I'm willing to admit that I do,when I write. Why should we view our quest for research objectively, why introduce it the end of the chain? If you don't have a viewpoint, why bother writing. Numbers are merely tools and tools don't build anything on their own. Interpretation is the important part, how do you interpret X and how good are you at convincing others that your interpretation is the most accurate one out there? That's what writing is about!

This is actually what I admire about sabermetrics. It takes courage to claim that strikeouts are not really more detrimental than other outs. In order to present evidence as such, sabermetricians must dig deeper, look harder and not be deterred by the rampant discourse that says otherwise.

But once we get into math, the game becomes two dimensional. I don't fully agree with the argument about strikeouts, I've discussed this several times here. From a mathematical model, the qualifications to the afforementioned conclusion don't really exist.

Hard outs are better predictors than soft, seeing-eye singles. How does sabermetrics quantify that?

[SABR Matt]

What the...???

How was what I said even remotely instigatory?

I'm speaking from experience...I've gone through something like 13 compeltely different iterations of career player evaluation over 8 years...I show no loyalty to one set of ideals aside form some of the most fundamental to baseball...anyone who's talked to me about my ongoing efforts will confirm that I am *ALWAYS* listening when someone brings a different opinion to the table and that I invariably give them hell...make them debate for days and even weeks and really convince me with a lot of logic that a change in my thinking is needed...but if there is merit, then I find it.

Call honest research whatever the heck you want...I don't know what status quo you imagine me defending...there IS NO STATUS QUO in sabermetrics...the sabermetricians are mostly at WAR with each other over what the status quo should be! About the only things we can all agree on is that teams win when they consistantly outscore their opponants...that's it! Everyone has different ideas and I've done nothing over the past several years but try to listen to as many of them as possible and learn what I can about the workings of the game (both statistical and otherwise).

I'm completely at a loss...your entire last post makes absolutely, positively no sense...it sounds like pseudo-intellectual university grade steaming piles of nothing.

[SABR Matt]

And if you knew ANYTHING about me or any of the stuff I've gone public with, you'd know I do ANYTHING but parrot what BP says or what any sabermetrician says...I've taken a multitude of very controversial stands in the field of baseball analysis and presented my logic as to why.

a) The DH is not the largest reason for the difference in run scoring between the 1990s/2000s AL and NL...the ballparks are.

b) The longball has not spiked in the 90s/2000s...any increase in longball rates is minor and related to a number of factors..none of which is steroids.

c) Pythagorean logic...the very foundation of PCA...my former sabermetric effort...is flawed and not useable for detailed analysis of teams or players due to a false assumption that baseball Run Scoring probabilities can be roughly linearized.

d) Expansion did not cause a drop in the competitiveness of baseball...it was countered by free agency, the latin wave, negro league players, and international scouting and talent evaluation improvements.

e) Fielding is about twice as important as most sabermetricians currnetly believe due to incorrect assessments of the importance of pitchers in team defene.

f) James is NOT a sabermetrician...he's an empiricist and talented writer.

g) Willie Mays was NOT one of the best defensive center fielders in baseball history...he was very good...but not Andruw Jones good.

I could go on...agree with me or don't, but you MUST concede that I'm not parroting some hegemony.

[BoSox Rule]

Nobody is Andruw Jones good, but I still think Willie Mays is one of the best defensive CF's.

[SABR Matt]

He might well be...everything I've seen argues otherwise thus far...but I could be missing something.

The point is that I have done nothing but faithfully report my findings...attempt to explain how I got them...and listen to the criticisms...and then try again....I'm not beholden to any single philosophy and NEVER HAVE BEEN...although some people have mistaken my forceful debates as defensive posturing...I have repeatedly attempting to clarify that I force my opponants into long debates because I want to see all of their "cards" and fully understand where they're coming from...I don't learn unless I do that.

[digglahhh]

...we're not all self-interested single-minded sabermetricians with tunnel vision and the desire to fabricate data as diglahhh suggests.

Not instigatory?

[digglahhh]

Relax Matt, don't get so defensive.

You have taken some strong stances in the face of widespread dissonance. And I actually agree with many of those statements.

I was speaking in general and made specific effort to commned sabermetricians for bucking traditional and default explanations. All research has inherent bias due to its inclusions and omissions. You can remove the observer from the observation.

BTW, what is a pseudo intellectual university grade steaming pile of nothing.

I can't figure out if "pseudo-intellectual" and "university" are adjectives describing "grade." If the former is qualifying the later? Or if grade steaming is really a hyphenated noun form of a verb, ie- to grade-steam?

Then is "pseudo intellectual university" attempting to qualify the type of grade steaming I am engaging in?

I'm confused, and won't be overly picky and as how a pile of "nothing" can exist?

[SABR Matt]

Very cute diglahhh...glad you decided to focus on the omitted hyphens (should read pseudo-intellectual, university-grade steaming pile of nothing) than anything of actual significance in my response...you're a real class act. (end sarcasm)

In any event...you baffle me...one minute you're calling me instigatory for claiming I'm not out to serve my own interests...thereby insinuating that I AM serving my own interests and am therefore not pursuing any real objectivity...the next minute you're saying you respect the non-traditional stances I've taken...which is it? Am I just some ideologue who's out to defend the status quo...who is incapable of objective research...a representative of your intellectual relativism (relativism is DANGEROUS in all forms...moral relativism leads to moral chaos...intellectual relativism leads to negative progress in scientific pursuits...either way...I don't buy it) view? Or am I actually making progress...is there a sabermetrician out there who isn't defending the status quo...thus upsetting your apple cart and disproving the idea that all "objective" pursuits are led by personal agenda and the status quo?

[digglahhh]

Your own interests are objective- to you. That's the point. Internally, we border on moral/scientific/whatever absolutism. As a member of a social structure our personal absolutes represent a point in the arc of relativism. One's own truth represents only one of the possible ways of perceiving the greater issue. So while we think whatever work we do in effort to advance our cause, and developing our truth, we are obscuring somebody else's.

Kind of like baseball, a run scored is a run surrendered.

Serving your own interests is being objective, some say its being human. Actually, its also being Hume-an. Being subjective on the other hand allows you to consider other people's truths. The etymology of the words are self explanatory. When you are the subject, you are witnessing and interpretting phenomenon, when you are the object your are the one upon which the phenomenon is acting. Of course you can never fully seperate the two.

"Subjectivity" and "objectivity" and Heraclitean opposites and do not exist without one another. Your objectivity is subjective- get it?

There is room for both traditional and sabermetric analysis, and relying too heavily on one is detrimental to the overall pursuit. That's why I refrain from labeling myself a traditionalist or a sabermetrician.

[SABR Matt]

Oh good lord...you're definitely spent way too much time in university sociology/philosophy classrooms...or some very close approximation within the field of humanities in general.

This whole "everyone's truth is equally valid and therefore there is no truth" ideology is sickening. It leads to Al Quaida apologists when it goes in the moral direction...and it leads to a very convenient way to dismiss anything as personally motivated in the scientific community if it doesn't agree with your opinion.

Subjectivity is not some pure and wonderful thing where you are "open to the thruths of others"...subjectivity is the projection of your own world view onto your surroundings.

When you're the object of the world, you let the data/information/evidence mould your thinking and guide you to something closer to the truth. When you're the subject of the world, it's all about you and how you interpret the data.

If there can be no truth...then it cannot be shown that if I go on a killing rampage tomorrow what I did was wrong. If there can be no single truth...then there is no reason to pursue higher education at all...it's all a lie right?

[iPod]

This is what started it all,


and it isn't true. the numbers don't say that. The numbers don't say that drunken captains are good for the economy. Nor did digglaahh say that drunken captains are good for a very select group of companies. He wasn't making a very narrow observation like you claimed, he was making a very broad generalized assertion to try and proove his notion that numbers are never objective.

I am talking about the economy as a whole and you keep telling me his point was certain segments. I don't see it, that maybe your point but I don't see it as his.

If his point was that an oil spill helps certain people, that I can't argue with, although it's very, very few people. Inflation is good for firms that have large debts, because they can pay back their loans with weaker dollars. But, beyond the novelty of imagining a situation where inflation would be good, it's sort of an irrelevant point to make, because the negatives of inflation so thoroughly outweigh it that it seems silly to go out of one's way to remind people that it can be good.

The original argument was, basically, "You can't trust Sabermetrics because Sabermetrics measure the wrong things. It's like with economics; all they care about is GDP, so I'll cite an example of something that will raise GDP that's clearly bad for the economy."

My point is that, being an economics student right now, I know that's a poor analogy. First of all, I don't really think it would raise GDP at all, but besides that, there are lots of other reasons why it would be bad. There's a lot more to economics than just GDP.

Likewise, I think that lots of people misinterpret what Sabermetrics actually try to do. I think I mentioned this already, but there's a guy on the MLB.com board who said, basically: "All the stat geeks only care about numbers, but if you just went by the numbers, you'd have to give Todd Helton the MVP award every year, and that's obviously not right, so the numbers must not be very important." The guy's error in logic is that he thought that being a stats-admirer meant you just look at the numbers and say the one with the prettiest line is the best. This is a very crude error; the guy wasn't very smart. But there are more sophisticated forms of fallacies, like, as discussed, assuming that Moneyball and SABR are the same.

It's important to understand exactly what the people you're criticizing are actually saying.

[SABR Matt]

Indeed...there's a lot of misinterpretation of the sabermetric field going on because people are generally not interested in knowing what is actually going on when a new stat is introduced...they've got their opinions and they'll agree with the stat that shows it...that's how sabermetrics tend to be used by casual fans.

That's obviously not what we're trying to do...not the result we're hoping for...and we try to educate all types of fans whenever possible...but this thread's existance proves that we have a lot of work to do...the guy that posted it not only showed a lack of understanding for what moneyball is, and how it's different than sabermetrics...but he showed a lack of understanding for how the winning teams have won their games and who the most successful teams have been in recent years...he was spectacularly wrong in general.

[Twinskoop]

Oh good lord...you're definitely spent way too much time in university sociology/philosophy classrooms...or some very close approximation within the field of humanities in general.

This whole "everyone's truth is equally valid and therefore there is no truth" ideology is sickening. It leads to Al Quaida apologists when it goes in the moral direction...and it leads to a very convenient way to dismiss anything as personally motivated in the scientific community if it doesn't agree with your opinion.

Subjectivity is not some pure and wonderful thing where you are "open to the thruths of others"...subjectivity is the projection of your own world view onto your surroundings.

When you're the object of the world, you let the data/information/evidence mould your thinking and guide you to something closer to the truth. When you're the subject of the world, it's all about you and how you interpret the data.

If there can be no truth...then it cannot be shown that if I go on a killing rampage tomorrow what I did was wrong. If there can be no single truth...then there is no reason to pursue higher education at all...it's all a lie right?
Wow Matt, your defensiveness is startling. Leads to al Qaeda apologetics? Come on, you're smarter than that.

The issue is not whether truths exist, it's to what extent we "know" them, and how we know them. We get much closer to understanding the reality of the world around us when we lose the pretenses of "objectivism."

[SABR Matt]

Calling objectivism "a pretense" is the definition of a relativistic world view. There's nothing false about gravity...there's nothing false about Newtonian physics (aside from their limitations at extreme speeds and energies...but correctly applied to mundane situations they work for a reason)...there's nothing false about probability theory...it's scientific FACT...so is calculus...so is algebra...so is the field of plate techtonics...I could go on...there's nothing for you to "interpret"...no malleability here aside of course from the bounderies we haven't learned to understand yet.

When you extend that philosophy to the moral realm...when you say "We can't know what is right or wrong....it is only right or wrong in the subjective eyes of the person taking that action"...then you get people spouting off about how we should learn to understand and appreciate the terrorists' point of view and love them unconditionally and maybe the violence will stop...

The real world doesn't work that way because moral relativism can only lead to one conclusion...if there is no truth but the truth we make ourselves...then no one can be deemed morally wrong, and everyone's actions are just...the result is amoral chaos.

It doesn't DIRECTLY apply to baseball except that I strenuously object to all forms of relativism and hold true to the belief that there is an objective truth out there...that although we will never achieve pure and perfect objective truth, the strive toward objectivism is NOT a pretense but a noble and worthwhile pursuit that drive human innovation, civility, religion, economy and the great standard of living we now enjoy...that our desperate struggle to achieve understanding is the singular thing that makes humans better than lowly animals led by our instincts and without a moral and philosophical center that defines who we are.

The human race has its' problems, but one of those problems is NOT the quest for objectivity...that is our greatest strength.

[Twinskoop]

Calling objectivism "a pretense" is the definition of a relativistic world view. There's nothing false about gravity...there's nothing false about Newtonian physics (aside from their limitations at extreme speeds and energies...but correctly applied to mundane situations they work for a reason)...there's nothing false about probability theory...it's scientific FACT...so is calculus...so is algebra...so is the field of plate techtonics...I could go on...there's nothing for you to "interpret"...no malleability here aside of course from the bounderies we haven't learned to understand yet.

When you extend that philosophy to the moral realm...when you say "We can't know what is right or wrong....it is only right or wrong in the subjective eyes of the person taking that action"...then you get people spouting off about how we should learn to understand and appreciate the terrorists' point of view and love them unconditionally and maybe the violence will stop...

The real world doesn't work that way because moral relativism can only lead to one conclusion...if there is no truth but the truth we make ourselves...then no one can be deemed morally wrong, and everyone's actions are just...the result is amoral chaos.

It doesn't DIRECTLY apply to baseball except that I strenuously object to all forms of relativism and hold true to the belief that there is an objective truth out there...that although we will never achieve pure and perfect objective truth, the strive toward objectivism is NOT a pretense but a noble and worthwhile pursuit that drive human innovation, civility, religion, economy and the great standard of living we now enjoy...that our desperate struggle to achieve understanding is the singular thing that makes humans better than lowly animals led by our instincts and without a moral and philosophical center that defines who we are.

The human race has its' problems, but one of those problems is NOT the quest for objectivity...that is our greatest strength.
Eloquent, Matt. But far removed from any point that anyone was making.

The point I made long ago was that baseball is a game - and a fluid one, decided by officials who create the rules, managers who devise game plans, and players who execute them. It is not a constant to be discovered. It is not plate tectonics, it is not meteorology. There are things (truths) to be discovered within the specifics of the game (physics addresses much) - no one disputes this. Stat analysis can also address a lot of specifics. I have no problem understanding or using principles of stat analysis when thinking and talking about the game I love. But as I've said repeatedly, there is more than one way to win a baseball game. There is also more than one way to understand a player's value to a team. I reject any system of thought that tends to lead us toward thinking of this game in terms of a constant.

[Twinskoop]

And by the way, it is far beneath you to start linking SABR dissent to al Qaeda apologetics. That's what politicians do. Republicans tell everyone that will listen (other Republicans) that Democrats hate America and just want to give terrorists a hug. Democrats tell everyone that will listen (Democrats, and foreigners) that Republicans are hell-bent war-mongers who hate the environment, and their agenda is either money, or hastening the arrival of Judgment Day. I think we should be above that.

In short, a lack of complete objectivism does not equal moral relativism, and even if it did, there is a long step between that and terrorism.

As I said, the issue is not whether or not truth exists, but how we know it. Calling something "objective" doesn't make it so. There are value judgements in any stat - that's a function of linguistics. Numbers don't denote objectivity. For numbers to have linguistic meaning, they must be interpreted. For them to be meaningfully interpreted, the interpreter must operate in an established value system. And operating in a value system is subjective.

[SABR Matt]

Eloquent, Matt. But far removed from any point that anyone was making.

The point I made long ago was that baseball is a game - and a fluid one, decided by officials who create the rules, managers who devise game plans, and players who execute them. It is not a constant to be discovered. It is not plate tectonics, it is not meteorology. There are things (truths) to be discovered within the specifics of the game (physics addresses much) - no one disputes this. Stat analysis can also address a lot of specifics. I have no problem understanding or using principles of stat analysis when thinking and talking about the game I love. But as I've said repeatedly, there is more than one way to win a baseball game. There is also more than one way to understand a player's value to a team. I reject any system of thought that tends to lead us toward thinking of this game in terms of a constant.

Actually...there are enormous similarities between baseball and meteorology...the major difference is that baseball is significantly more SIMPLE despite the human factor...but offsetting that is the fact that we have better data to analyze the weather and the science of meteorology has had a lot more time to advance.

The atmosphere is infinite in its' random variations...fluid...driven by chaos and even probability. So is the behavior of the human race...including when they play games. The nice thing about games is that the rules are essentially constant and events are usually discrete and inherently easy to record and diagram both logically and empirically.

Please don't think I'm overlooking the human side of the game...because I'm not. No sabermetrician will ever be able to predict with absolute certainty who will win what division and by how many games or who will win the next MVP award or which rookies will stick...that's not now nor has it ever been nor will it ever be or mission statement. It's about maximizing probability for success...and we still have a very long way to go before we've exhausted the scientific avenues for advancing baseball research and understanding.

There is nothing "subjective" about that statement. We know an awful lot about probability theory and baseball data behaves very well in the confines of real statistical analysis...that's science...that's not agenda as some of you have suggested...and it's CERTAINLY not a pretense for upholding some status quo or for obscuring the true value of the game and its' players.

As for it being "beneath" me to link moral relativism with logical relativism...I'll leave that in the opinion of the people reading this thread...relativism...in ALL its' forms...is extremely dangerous to the betterment of our understanding of the world and our quality of life. In science...it curtails progress in favor of confusion and ignorance...in society, it creates a sense that there is no moral truth and therefore that nothing anyone does can be wrong...in discourse it ends debates before they have a chance to flower...how do you argue with someone when they tell you there is no truth and no such thing as the scientific method? How can we have an honest discussion about all things baseball when a certain element here considers it a LIE (that word has been used many times in this thread) to think of the game scientifically?

I respect the human element...I believe there is a limit to what sabermetricians can learn about the game (I don't believe we've come anywhere close to that limit yet...we're just starting!)...but a significant portion of the other posters here think everything I do is a personally otivated lie...there can be no debate until there is mutual respect and an honest effort by BOTH sides to really learn about the position of the other side...I've spent long weeks and months talking with Bill_Burgess about the finer points of his subjective (and extremely well researched) analysis of the 19th century...most of my opponants here have probably never taken the time to really discuss sasbermetric theory with ANY sabermetrician or serious student of the field.

[therealnod]

Originally Posted by SABR Matt
Calling objectivism "a pretense" is the definition of a relativistic world view. There's nothing false about gravity...there's nothing false about Newtonian physics (aside from their limitations at extreme speeds and energies...but correctly applied to mundane situations they work for a reason)...there's nothing false about probability theory...it's scientific FACT...so is calculus...so is algebra...so is the field of plate techtonics...

I just fell in love with Matt all over again. Truth is in fact truth. Novel concept.

[YOUgodofwalks]

Sabermetrics is good for those who want to spend there time with it. However, whats wrong with batting average, hits, home runs, RBI's, wins, losses, ERA, errors, fielding percentage ect? These tells us what we need to know about the game. Someone can have all the win shares, VORP, WARP3, collapse rate and all of that that he wants, i don't care. The actual statistics are what a player does, not some formula. Those real stats are what will always dictate to me who is a better player than someone else.

[SABR Matt]

The problem with the traditional statistics you just listed is that all of them are, to one degree or another dependent on contexts like the ballparks, the league, the teammates, the strength of schedule, and the situation in which they occured during a game...and until we can apply some statistical reasoning to those numbers in an effort to filter out those biasing contextual effects...they're going to be poor tools for seeing who the better players are.

[iPod]

Sabermetrics is good for those who want to spend there time with it. However, whats wrong with batting average, hits, home runs, RBI's, wins, losses, ERA, errors, fielding percentage ect? These tells us what we need to know about the game. Someone can have all the win shares, VORP, WARP3, collapse rate and all of that that he wants, i don't care. The actual statistics are what a player does, not some formula. Those real stats are what will always dictate to me who is a better player than someone else.

What's wrong with it, simply put, is we'd be forced to conclude all the best hitters played in the 1920s and 1930s, and all the best pitchers played in the 1960s. I think we know intuitively that's not the case, because it's easier to pitch with a tall mound, wide strikezone, and the right to plunk batters with impunity, rather than what pitchers are forced to deal with today. This is a real phenomenon, not something dreamed up in a laboratory. We can either throw our hands up and say there's nothing we can do about it, or we can think about it and do something about it.

[Brian McKenna]

What's wrong with it, simply put, is we'd be forced to conclude all the best hitters played in the 1920s and 1930s, and all the best pitchers played in the 1960s. I think we know intuitively that's not the case, because it's easier to pitch with a tall mound, wide strikezone, and the right to plunk batters with impunity, rather than what pitchers are forced to deal with today. This is a real phenomenon, not something dreamed up in a laboratory. We can either throw our hands up and say there's nothing we can do about it, or we can think about it and do something about it.

1) people are not forced to conclude anything
2) there is not full acceptance on bbf much less society as a whole for all these total player evaluations - and yet people still don't consistently indentify the best hitters from the 1920s-30s or pitchers from the 1960s - as you mentioned - people already note that "it's easier to pitch with a tall mound, wide strikezone, and the right to plunk batters with impunity" - they have realized for decades that and numerous other variances in the games from era to era and they really didn't need an elaborate formula for it
3) from my perusal of all the best lists it is obvious that everyone views things subjectively -- no matter what one says or whatever calculations are thrown in the mix, most simply will not bump certain individuals from a list

the story of the game is just that - a story - numbers are there to enhance it, to perhaps show us another way of looking at something - the numbers, though, do not stand by themselves - they are not the end of a story just a footnote to the story

i love numbers - have an economics degree - evaluate, argue, adjust and re-evaluate and re-adjust all you want with your collegues - but when you speak to the group as a whole, back way off the numbers and focus on the narrative, touch on the mathematical evaluations and why they are useful and present the numbers in a clear, concise fashion but don't force-feed them -- it's like arguing with your teenager - the more you push - the harder they push back - at a certain point you will be ignored and apathy will creep in

[iPod]

1) people are not forced to conclude anything
2) there is not full acceptance on bbf much less society as a whole for all these total player evaluations - and yet people still don't consistently indentify the best hitters from the 1920s-30s or pitchers from the 1960s - as you mentioned - people already note that "it's easier to pitch with a tall mound, wide strikezone, and the right to plunk batters with impunity" - they have realized for decades that and numerous other variances in the games from era to era and they really didn't need an elaborate formula for it
3) from my perusal of all the best lists it is obvious that everyone views things subjectively -- no matter what one says or whatever calculations are thrown in the mix, most simply will not bump certain individuals from a list

the story of the game is just that - a story - numbers are there to enhance it, to perhaps show us another way of looking at something - the numbers, though, do not stand by themselves - they are not the end of a story just a footnote to the story

i love numbers - have an economics degree - evaluate, argue, adjust and re-evaluate and re-adjust all you want with your collegues - but when you speak to the group as a whole, back way off the numbers and focus on the narrative, touch on the mathematical evaluations and why they are useful and present the numbers in a clear, concise fashion but don't force-feed them -- it's like arguing with your teenager - the more you push - the harder they push back - at a certain point you will be ignored and apathy will creep in

Advanced metrics are attempts to quantify things like "It's easier to pitch in the 1960s." We all agree on that. But how much better? Without some attempt to quantify it, it's total guesswork. Guesswork's OK, I guess, if you're not particularly interested in getting the answer all the way right, but that's all advanced numbers try to do. Quantify questions like that, and properly adjust for them. That's it.

When debating exactly how good a player was, of course that discussion would revolve around numbers. "Focusing on the narrative" is, what, exactly, in a discussion about how good a player is? A story about how powerful a hitter was? OK, that's good I guess, but we already can get a pretty good idea of the kind of hitter he was by looking at his numbers.

If you mean "focusing on the narrative" like, "Klu only started hitting home runs when the Reds pulled their fences in," or something like that, then that is definitely relevant, and something I would agree with.

[Brian McKenna]

Advanced metrics are attempts to quantify things like "It's easier to pitch in the 1960s." We all agree on that. But how much better? Without some attempt to quantify it, it's total guesswork. Guesswork's OK, I guess, if you're not particularly interested in getting the answer all the way right, but that's all advanced numbers try to do. Quantify questions like that, and properly adjust for them. That's it.

When debating exactly how good a player was, of course that discussion would revolve around numbers. "Focusing on the narrative" is, what, exactly, in a discussion about how good a player is? A story about how powerful a hitter was? OK, that's good I guess, but we already can get a pretty good idea of the kind of hitter he was by looking at his numbers.

If you mean "focusing on the narrative" like, "Klu only started hitting home runs when the Reds pulled their fences in," or something like that, then that is definitely relevant, and something I would agree with.

i'm with you - believe me i am - there is value in park adjustments, eras, etc. - please get it "all the way right" - i'm interested - i guess my problem lies in the whose better/whose best debates which at the core are really meaningless, hold little intellectual appeal for me and, in the end, advance no one's understanding of the game -- i guess to some it is fun - it's a game within the game - hell, i respect that - it can only build affection for the game

the numbers are great - don't get me wrong - i think they often get improperly used when it comes down to debating

thanks for the discussion ipod

[SABR Matt]

Au contraire.

Answering the question of "who was better" doesn't have a lot of intellectual appeal all by itself aside from for us curious types who like to rank and categorize...but knowing exactly how and why games were won throughout major league history...who created the wins and how such things could be duplicated in the future is of the UTMOST intellectual significance.

Any sabermetrician who does not see the value in taking all of those statistics from the past, putting them on a proper, flat playing field, and using the mountains of data we have from eras gone by to make more accurate predictions about what's going on now and in the next few years shouldn't call himself a sabermetrician.

[northside]

Actually...there are enormous similarities between baseball and meteorology...the major difference is that baseball is significantly more SIMPLE despite the human factor...but offsetting that is the fact that we have better data to analyze the weather and the science of meteorology has had a lot more time to advance.


This here sums it up; and you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Baseball has absolutely nothing in common with meteorology. Simply put, baseball is about throwing, running, catching and hitting, etc. Ask any child who has ever played on the street, sandlot, or diamond. Don't lose site of the essence of the game. You're getting so involved in statistics that you're losing site of what baseball really is.

Do you even have any idea how to really play the game? The mechanics of a swing? Of a pitch? How to condition yourself? Proper running mechanics? Special exercises and drills? Hand positions, etc, etc? Have you ever experienced the joy of making a diving catch, or getting a game winning hit? If you did, then you could never compare such a wonderful institution as baseball to meteorology.

Sir, it appears to me that you cannot separate the game from the recording of the game. Your statistics may very well have a lot in common with meteorology. But baseball...it's much better than that, aand much more than that. It's about pitting yourself against your opponent. About rallying your teammates to play at their highest level. About taking direction and coaching. About reaching your potential. It's about getting off your rump and actually doing physical things to make improvements. And NO baseball player needs a sabermetrician to tell him when he needs improvement.

Keep studying your stats and contributing to the baseball world in your own way. But never reduce baseball to pen and paper, or a computer printout.

I apologize for any hostile tone. That's not my intent.

[EvanAparra]

This here sums it up; and you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Baseball has absolutely nothing in common with meteorology. Simply put, baseball is about throwing, running, catching and hitting, etc. Ask any child who has ever played on the street, sandlot, or diamond. Don't lose site of the essence of the game. You're getting so involved in statistics that you're losing site of what baseball really is.

Do you even have any idea how to really play the game? The mechanics of a swing? Of a pitch? How to condition yourself? Proper running mechanics? Special exercises and drills? Hand positions, etc, etc? Have you ever experienced the joy of making a diving catch, or getting a game winning hit? If you did, then you could never compare such a wonderful institution as baseball to meteorology.

Sir, it appears to me that you cannot separate the game from the recording of the game. Your statistics may very well have a lot in common with meteorology. But baseball...it's much better than that, aand much more than that. It's about pitting yourself against your opponent. About rallying your teammates to play at their highest level. About taking direction and coaching. About reaching your potential. It's about getting off your rump and actually doing physical things to make improvements. And NO baseball player needs a sabermetrician to tell him when he needs improvement.

Keep studying your stats and contributing to the baseball world in your own way. But never reduce baseball to pen and paper, or a computer printout.

I apologize for any hostile tone. That's not my intent.

Well, If Matt was a CFer for the Indians, then maybe you have a case. You act like you just told us what baseball was, like we didn't already know. Thanks for the life lesson, we didnt know you had to throw and catch a ball. You are talking about PLAYING baseball, and if you want to continue i'd advise you to move to one of the other forums on this site. This is about analyzing baseball, no one here is giving Curt Schilling pitching tips. This is more about finding value in players, more than just the junk stats that are spit out by ESPN and the triple crown. If you to become a GM, and want to ignore everything except for catching, throwing and hitting a ball, when contemporaries have more advanced things to look at, then you will fail miserably. No one here is coaching, or telling people what baseball is... its called analyzing, and maybe you would be better fit to be a little league coach, and not a General Manager.

[northside]

Well, If Matt was a CFer for the Indians, then maybe you have a case. You act like you just told us what baseball was, like we didn't already know. Thanks for the life lesson, we didnt know you had to throw and catch a ball. You are talking about PLAYING baseball, and if you want to continue i'd advise you to move to one of the other forums on this site. This is about analyzing baseball, no one here is giving Curt Schilling pitching tips. This is more about finding value in players, more than just the junk stats that are spit out by ESPN and the triple crown. If you to become a GM, and want to ignore everything except for catching, throwing and hitting a ball, when contemporaries have more advanced things to look at, then you will fail miserably. No one here is coaching, or telling people what baseball is... its called analyzing, and maybe you would be better fit to be a little league coach, and not a General Manager.

So there are "enormous similarities between baseball and meteorology"
huh? You're a funny man.

[EvanAparra]

Haha, im trying to find where i wrote that....hmm...NOPE, cant find it.
Or where I agreed with it.... NOPE cant find that either.

Also, when Matt says that, he's talking about the DATA that comes from it, not the game itself, dont take things out of context. And get who your quotes are coming from right.

[538280]

So there are "enormous similarities between baseball and meteorology"
huh? You're a funny man.

He wasn't saying there are enormous similarites between playing baseball and meteorology, just that there are similarities in how you can analyze and study baseball and meteorology. You seem to have completely misunderstood Matt's point. It had nothing to do with how to play the game, just about analyzing and studying it.

[EvanAparra]

He wasn't saying there are enormous similarites between playing baseball and meteorology, just that there are similarities in how you can analyze and study baseball and meteorology. You seem to have completely misunderstood Matt's point. It had nothing to do with how to play the game, just about analyzing and studying it.

Yeah, i think he just looked for a line he could pick at, didn't look at the context, and rolled with it.

[SABR Matt]

That is of course precisely what he did...which is why I didn't respond.

The STUDY of baseball and the STUDY of meteorology are similar in that statistical methods are used to smooth out things that can't fully be quantified and give you as clear a picture as we are capable of giving you. In meteorology, the fluxing of heat, moisture and momentum from the boundary layer (think of the thermals on which birds ride) happen at a scale too small for numerical models to recognize, so they are "parameterized" using statistical averaging methods in order to capture their net large scale impact on the weather. In baseball, the human element of the game...the luck involved in ball meeting bat (a tiny variation in the angle of contact, whether the seem or the flat partt of the ball is the first thing to hit the bat, what kind of spin the ball has, etc will often create a big difference in the flight of the ball...or a small difference that makes a huge difference in the score), the clustering of events...these things get "parameterized" by similar statistical averaging methods to give us as much info as we can get.

Meteorologists are a lot further along than sabermetricians, but similar methods will come to be applied in both fields.

Playing baseball isn't like observing the weather...but studying baseball is very much like studying the weather.

[baseballPAP]

But Matt, apparently, unless you have played the game, or been swept away in a tornado, you can't say anything about either ;)

[SABR Matt]

I make no pretenses of being an athlete. :) I'm a geek...that's all there is to it. The jocks in the Mariners' clubhouse would probably give me an atomic wedgy if I started explaining to them why it was important that they take a few more pitches. That doesn't mean I'm wrong. :)

[Tango Tiger]

Do people really think we analyze the game because we hate baseball, but want to be involved with baseball for some reason?

We LOVE baseball. Not love. LOVE. Can people not fathom that it is possible to love watching and playing baseball, and, also be able to analyze it too. Or do they think that because we use such newfangled terms like database and event files that we can't love baseball?

We can actually watch baseball and think at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive, just because they are to those who believe it.

[SABR Matt]

Indeed Tango.

I don't really get why I have a reputation among some of the non-SABR members of BBF as not truly loving the game when I've spent thousands and thousands of words doing a bad immitation of a poetic writer practically writing love letters to the beauty of the game here at Fever. Not to mention the thousands of hours spent studying the game...you don't do all of that if baseball isn't your greatest passion.

[Tango Tiger]

Yeah, and I'm sure Beethoven was a mathematical genius who wouldn't know music if it him in the face.

[northside]

When one of these stats guys in the world can actually play baseball as well as Beethoven could play music, I'll accept your argument. :)

What I see are some people who love stats. That doesn't mean they love baseball. The two are different. Now maybe you guys love baseball. I don't know anyone of you so I can't say. But in all my life, I have never heard a human being refer to baseball as being similar to meteorology. It was a bizarre statement to me that's all.

[Tango Tiger]

There's a difference between saying
baseball = meteorology
and
analysis of baseball events = analysis of meteorological events

And if you've never heard it, maybe you should hang out with more scientists!

And yes, people who love stats doesn't mean they love baseball. But, people who love stats don't devote hundreds of hours a year to baseball for 30 years unless they love baseball.

I think it's safe to say that anyone who is a regular contributor to Baseball Fever is a defacto baseball lover.

[SABR Matt]

Again...well said Tango.

I'm not sure if I just didn't say it very well or if northside didn't read it well, but I never said baseball = meteorology. The study of both is similar...that's all I've ever maintained...that's the great thing about science...you can study a lot of different htings once you develop your ability to use your reason, the scientific method, and statistics.

[RuthMayBond]

When one of these stats guys in the world can actually play baseball as well as Beethoven could play music, I'll accept your argument. :) As if you can :rolleyes:

[northside]

As if you can :rolleyes:

Do you know me? Do you know anyhting about me?

[northside]

Again...well said Tango.

I'm not sure if I just didn't say it very well or if northside didn't read it well, but I never said baseball = meteorology. The study of both is similar...that's all I've ever maintained...that's the great thing about science...you can study a lot of different htings once you develop your ability to use your reason, the scientific method, and statistics.

Matt, here is your quote,"Actually...there are enormous similarities between baseball and meteorology."

That is what I am addressing.

[EvanAparra]

Matt, here is your quote,"Actually...there are enormous similarities between baseball and meteorology."

That is what I am addressing.

Did you not read the rest of it? That would be like me saying "Albert Pujols sucks...compared to Babe Ruth" But then you address me only saying "pujols sucks"

[northside]

Did you not read the rest of it? That would be like me saying "Albert Pujols sucks...compared to Babe Ruth" But then you address me only saying "pujols sucks"

Yes I did read the rest of it. There is a difference between baseball and statistics.

[EvanAparra]

Yes I did read the rest of it. There is a difference between baseball and statistics.


Which Matt has already addressed.

I played baseball, and I ACTUALLY used statistics to play better..

My batting average in high school was consistently about .260, needless to say, I wasn't a great hitter, and I had almost no power.. However, I looked into my stats and realized the only way I could make a better contribution would be to move me to centerfield, put a guy with more power in Left (my previous position) and definately take more pitches.... My senior year I hit .260 and had an OBP nearing .400.(boy, it hurt too, i led the team in HBP as well)

[northside]

Which Matt has already addressed.

I played baseball, and I ACTUALLY used statistics to play better..

My batting average in high school was consistently about .260, needless to say, I wasn't a great hitter, and I had almost no power.. However, I looked into my stats and realized the only way I could make a better contribution would be to move me to centerfield, put a guy with more power in Left (my previous position) and definately take more pitches.... My senior year I hit .260 and had an OBP nearing .400.(boy, it hurt too, i led the team in HBP as well)

That shows just what kind of character you have. You took the intitiative to do what it took to improve. As a coach, I would love to have a squad full of men with your attitude.

[EvanAparra]

That shows just what kind of character you have. You took the intitiative to do what it took to improve. As a coach, I would love to have a squad full of men with your attitude.

except my coach took my suggestion as me trying to coach the team myself, what a jerk.

p.s. thanks.

[northside]

except my coach took my suggestion as me trying to coach the team myself, what a jerk.

p.s. thanks.

You know, that doesn't surprise me. He felt one-upped, when in fact he should have taken inventory of himself to see how he could improve as a coach. What kills me is imagine if he's that shallow regarding that incident, what else may he have needed room for improvement in?

Do you still play at all?

[EvanAparra]

You know, that doesn't surprise me. He felt one-upped, when in fact he should have taken inventory of himself to see how he could improve as a coach. What kills me is imagine if he's that shallow regarding that incident, what else may he have needed room for improvement in?

Do you still play at all?

We had great talent, 3 consecutive district championships... I think if he would have put more attention into the stats we would have been even better... Hunches can only take you so far, which is what got me into Sabrmetrics in the first place.

I go to UT, so I since I cant make the team, im trying out for the club team come spring.

[northside]

We had great talent, 3 consecutive district championships... I think if he would have put more attention into the stats we would have been even better... Hunches can only take you so far, which is what got me into Sabrmetrics in the first place.

I go to UT, so I since I cant make the team, im trying out for the club team come spring.

Congratulations on your H.S. success.

Is there anyway you can possibly make the UT team? Can you get outside coaching?

[EvanAparra]

Congratulations on your H.S. success.

Is there anyway you can possibly make the UT team? Can you get outside coaching?

No possible way. Team was ranked #1 in the Nation most of last year, 2 National Championsips in the last 4 years... A lot of the guys they have are pro-projected players. Maybe if I was as big as they are, i'd give it a shot (and I even have a personal connection to Coach Garrido), but they are just too good.
Therefore, I'll just concentrate on the club team.

[northside]

No possible way. Team was ranked #1 in the Nation most of last year, 2 National Championsips in the last 4 years... A lot of the guys they have are pro-projected players. Maybe if I was as big as they are, i'd give it a shot (and I even have a personal connection to Coach Garrido), but they are just too good.
Therefore, I'll just concentrate on the club team.

I see. Are you interested in a career in baseball in some other context?

[EvanAparra]

I see. Are you interested in a career in baseball in some other context?

I hope the mod doesnt get mad for this off-topic banter, sorry Ubiquitous!

Yeah, I'd like to be in the day-to-day baseball operations of a ML team.. Or at least thats what i'm working towards... I'm currently applying for interships with MLB teams for the spring.

[northside]

As well as you know anyone else. I do know that if you could play baseball as well as Beethoven could write music, you probably wouldn't be spending that much time on boards :laugh

I can't even play baseball as well as Schroeder can play the piano.

[RuthMayBond]

I can't even play baseball as well as Schroeder can play the piano.So what was your point then?

[northside]

What was my point? That baseball doesn't have much in common with meteorology. What's your point. That you don't know the first thing about me, but you're acting like you do?

[SABR Matt]

If you read the entire post rather than fixating on the first line, you would know that I was not comparing the playing of baseball to the weather...but you're apparently not developed enough in your reading comprehension.

[northside]

Stop with the personal insults. If you have a problem with me, shoot me a PM and we can take it from there. I think that would be the best thing to do. Fair enough?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Northside, I probably side with you more than anyone else here. I could write an epic drawn-out piece about how beautiful the game of baseball is. How nothing else can compare. The smell of the grass and leather, the sounds, the feel of not feeling the ball squarely meet the bat and watching it backspin off...knowing its gone. Nothing compares to baseball. I think however, that you were out of line in your attack of Matt's comparison. Of all the "stat guys" that I've seen post here and talked to in real life, he seems to "get it" more than any. Realizing that everything will never be able to be accounted for through numbers, so his goal is to come as close as possible while always searching for newer, more accurate ways to capture on-field happenings. I grew up playing and still play. Never had time for the stat side of things but I respect those whose love for the game is expressed through that avenue. Provided they take Matt's approach that is.

[SABR Matt]

that's some nerve you have northside...

I extend a hand to new posters with regularity here...I am open about my work...its' strengths, weaknesses and limitations, and my plans for future research. The regulars here have all told you they understood CLEARLY what I was saying in my post re: meteorology and baseball research on the first try...the fact that you did not is, IMHO, not my problem. It's rather galling to me that you would tell me to stop with the "personal attacks" when you first post was filled with them.

[west coast orange and black]

rarely do i post in this forum. and when i do it is usually because i have a question about the numbers and stats and stuff. and then you guys answer thoughtfully and succinctly.

right now, though, it's this: calling for a truce.