Are Sabermetrics Going Too Far?

[RuthMayBond]

If the whole of your contribution to a player x vs player y thread is pasting their career Eqa or Win Shares, why are you even participating?As opposed to "contributions" like "Completely Agree"?

[digglahhh]

Well you guy miss what we are saying too.

Its not the stat we are bashing, but the irresponsible use of them. In a utopian world all kinds of quantitative and qualitative methods would be used to create harmony. Sometimes we just get one guy playing one instrument clearly louder than the rest of the orchestra- often times its off beat too.

[digglahhh]

As opposed to "contributions" like "Completely Agree"?

So the general goal is to be better than the other half and not the best you can be overall?

You don't seem to be doing much defending of your own; you seem to rely on attacking the others as well.

Vapid is vapid whether its in numbers or letters.

Damn, I gotta get back to work, where has the day gone- oh yeah, here...

[Ubiquitous]

Obviously it isn't just one, though (although that would be nice). And if you think this is just me who believes this, ask Bill, CCN, Wamby, Diglahh, Shlevine, Wjackman, Sultan, and several others I've chatted with about this very topic both here and via PM.

No probably is just one. How many regualrs do we have here? HOw many of them are in the stathead camp? Or again are you guys going to bash us all because some guy makes a post or two and is never heard from again?

Leecemark
Therealnod
Me
53820
SABRMATT
misterdirt
WRGPTFAN
Appling
RMB

Thats pretty much the numbers camp. Misterdirt doesn't really hang out in the history thread and Kent doesn't really hang out on this forum anymore, nor does Nod. Not sure whether or not Appling and RMB would consider themselves in this camp or not. And their are some other guys of course but these are the regulars. Looking at that list I can only see one name on it which one could lay those faults on if one wanted too, and didn't like what they had to say. Now that doesn't mean we are all nice guys and nobody should disagree with us, but I don't see the flaw you mentioned in the group as a whole, nor would I label any one person in that group as harshly as what you describe is the major flaw in the statperson.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I am by no means condemning the "statheads" as you put it, ubi. I actually thought the post were I quoted Matt was supportive of his efforts, I understand where he is coming from in his viewpoint about the proper method of statistical analysis. And analysis in general.
For me, this is just like politics, as I am a moderate independent. I applaud those who do their work for the benefit of the greater good, not so they can appease some line of thought. It's the same here. If the analysis, whatever analysis it is, is taken at a full approach of anything and everything available, without blind condemnation, it is worthy of being considered as part of the picture. Somehow, we're getting this ridiculous battle with full sides chosen, and sniping no matter what is said. It doesn't matter what you're saying now because you said such and such, then. And I don't like that view point so it must be wrong.
There are excellent baseball people from both methodologies. And there are those from both methodologies who know what they've read and that's it. It's like the Scopes trial where some support Darrow and some support Bryan and I think you can guess who H.L. Mencken is.

[Bill Burgess]

I choose not to mention anyone because I'm not the type to call people out, especially if they're not taking part in the discussion.
But it happens. If you say it doesn't, you're either not paying attention or you're just arguing for the sake of argument.

Jeffrey,

I think what Captain/Chris are referring to are a few members who put out some numbers and believe they win arguments. For example.

Young Chris often throws out WS numbers at me, knowing I have no idea what they represent and seldom believes my arguments. He disdains traditional peer opinion even when the historical consensus is over-whelming, determining, identifying, decisive and incisive.

SABR Matt often shares his PCA values with me, at my request, and I don't really know what they mean, although I usually like the results.

And btw - I do indeed know how to use opinions, and do it quite often, hopefully with good results. I have fed you lots of good defensive guys to look up, guys you'd not know of otherwise, like Long, Wallace, Jennings, etc. and you thanked me for them at the time.

It's not like Chris the elder is just blowing smoke here. He does have a bedrock case, even if he presents it with too much edge.

Bill

[SABR Matt]

*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*

I don't understand why traditionalists (and I don't use that word pejoratively like some of the cocky types at BTF for instance) feel so violated by the contribution of sabermetric arguments to historical debate.

As I've said over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, you'll generally see me contribute one particular methodology (my own) to each debate I choose to join, not because I think my way is the only way, but because there are people here who can contribute the other stuff and no one else can contribute PCA right now (though theoretically...at some point in the vast distant future that will change...if only one of the many contacts I've made over the years would have any danged free time to help me with the computer programming aspect of converting my ideas into actual verifiable data).

I've been accused of presenting PCA as though it were THE ANSWER in the past, when that was NEVER the case intentionally...so lately I've made a concerted effort to point out where I think my efforts might be going wrong...but I still feel the system is worth being looked at when we get to debating the merits of players and teams.

If csh######## and digglahhh want to villify me for feeling I have something to contribute, I can't stop them, but I will continue contributing unless this forum tells me as a group that they don't want to hear it.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I honestly wasn't thinking about 53280 when I said that. He has put a lot of effort into his views and is able to give us his rationale behind it. Since this is baseball the sun is going to come up no matter what that rationale is. It's the ones who just throw out one sentence statements (again, I am not going to point out individual cases. This is not a trial.) then disappear that seem to be driving this wedge between baseball views. You can have baseball without all these numbers, but you really can't understand what is going on eveywhere in baseball without all these numbers.

[Ubiquitous]

I think you can guess who H.L. Mencken is.

I actually can't, and that is not insulting any posters here but understainding the complex nature of Mencken.

[Bill Burgess]

LOL. :laugh I was a victim of the chicanery of Lumpy Rutherford and Eddie Haskel....it really wasn't my fault!

Ward Cleaver: Son, your mother tells me you opened a brand new can of whoop ass on your younger brother's pink little buttocks. Bright red welts. Is this true? Jeffrey's upstairs crying now. I hope you're satisfied.

For your punishment, you are grounded for 2 weeks. And you can't speak with Mary Ellen on the telephone. I trust this this will not be repeated. Are we clear on this, Chirstopher?

Ward

[wamby]

As opposed to "contributions" like "Completely Agree"?

My sincerest apologies for completely agreeing with someone else.

[digglahhh]

I don't always villify you, Matt.

Again the real crux of this is noting when the historic opinions and the numbers don't match up, and then examining why. That's the hard part.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I actually can't, and that is not insulting any posters here but understainding the complex nature of Mencken.
There are, ahem, Fever members who will hammer at all sides just to get to a conclusive viewpoint of what is right.

[leecemark]

--I would describe myself as a statistically inclined moderate and I think that actually applies to most of the regular "Stat-heads" at BBF. I start with the numbers, but I don't believe they tell the whole story and I do believe there is more than one way to interpret them. Sometimes the numbers are so overwhelming in support of one side of a discussion that it is frustrating to to have them countered by some random quote from John McGraw or whoever.
--Did John McGraw know more about baseball than I do? Sure. Was John Mcgraw ever wrong about anything? Many times, no doubt (as, of course, am I). Are there times when he said something once and contradicted that another time? Yes again. The comments of even the most expert witness need to be put in context. The motives behind the remark may not be clear cut, the person being quoted may have been answering a question not the same as ours and he may have simply got it wrong.
--Also, John McGraw has been dead 70 years. Alot has happened that he didn't witness and couldn't have foreseen. That is true of most the old time commentary and even those who lived a long time often get stuck in their ways and don't keep up with the modern game. I see contemporary thought as supplementary to the numerical record. Most players are at least a little better or worse than what their numbers say. The eyewitness stuff is our best way of making adjustments up or down from the numbers.

[SABR Matt]

I don't always villify you, Matt.

Again the real crux of this is noting when the historic opinions and the numbers don't match up, and then examining why. That's the hard part.

Yeah...I've made a much more concerted effort to examine case studies where PCA and the expert opinions disagree by large amounts recently, and I believe I've made some important observations on that in recent days.

[Ubiquitous]

It's the ones who just throw out one sentence statements (again, I am not going to point out individual cases. This is not a trial.) then disappear that seem to be driving this wedge between baseball views.


But again then whats the point of chiding us all? Actually whats the point of creating these kind of threads if one sentence posters who disappear into the night are causing the rift? It's like imposing a curfew on an entire town because one or two teenagers don't know how to control themselves at night.

[Bill Burgess]

Leecemark
Therealnod
Me
53820
SABRMATT
misterdirt
WRGPTFAN
Appling
RMB

Thats pretty much the numbers camp. Misterdirt doesn't really hang out in the history thread and Kent doesn't really hang out on this forum anymore, nor does Nod. Not sure whether or not Appling and RMB would consider themselves in this camp or not. And there are some other guys of course but these are the regulars.

I think ElHalo is more numbers than opinions. And Cubbieinexile is way more numbers. I like our stat members. Always have, even when young Chris refuses to lose an argument. I guess that's part of his "charm".

Bill

[Ubiquitous]

This is kind of humorous to me because I thought it was obvious (apparently not with 2 threads now going on about this) but Cubbieinexile is on the list.

[Bill Burgess]

--Did John McGraw know more about baseball than I do? Sure. Was John McGraw ever wrong about anything? Many times, no doubt (as, of course, am I). Are there times when he said something once and contradicted that another time? Yes again. The comments of even the most expert witness need to be put in context. The motives behind the remark may not be clear cut, the person being quoted may have been answering a question not the same as ours and he may have simply got it wrong.
--Also, John McGraw has been dead 70 years. a lot has happened that he didn't witness and couldn't have foreseen. That is true of most the old time commentary and even those who lived a long time often get stuck in their ways and don't keep up with the modern game. I see contemporary thought as supplementary to the numerical record. Most players are at least a little better or worse than what their numbers say. The eyewitness stuff is our best way of making adjustments up or down from the numbers.
Nice posting, Mark, and I do agree with what you have to say.

An analogous division of opinion in the baseball community, and one which has existed since 1920, is the preference for old time deadball style of the game, and the modern game, played more or less since the late 1920's.

Some bright baseball folks preferred the old style, while most today much prefer the modern game. Most today might not even comprehend the old game, its values, and how it was conducted.

A similar situation existed in the first 2 decades, in another way. There was a very deep and profound difference between the game pre-1900 and after 1900. And all the folks of that day had to take sides and were in one camp or the other. They all gave their all time teams, pre-1900/post 1900.

People like Sam Crane, Tim Murnane, Comiskey, Griffith, Ewing, Hanlon, Jennings, McGraw, Bill Dinneen, Hank O'Day, McAleer, Lange, Keeler, Anson, Billy Sunday all had rip-roaring editorials on which generation of ballplayers were the best!! Man oh man did they rip each other. And if an old timer like Wilbert Robinson came out and opined that a modern team or player were better, he'd better leave town before anyone woke up and read his words in the papers!! Man was Robinson roasted for speaking his mind!

So these honest differences in perception have existed always. We are not the first set of baseball fans to have completely different conceptions of the game.

Bill Burgess

[Bill Burgess]

This is kind of humorous to me because I thought it was obvious (apparently not with 2 threads now going on about this) but Cubbieinexile is on the list.

Ubi,

This is creeping me out. Is this a cryptic way of saying you used a different name and now you post as Ubi? I find that hard to believe. I don't believe you. I just don't.

[RuthMayBond]

I have fed you lots of good defensive guys to look up, guys you'd not know of otherwise, like Long, Wallace, Jennings, etc. and you thanked me for them at the time.Bill. you just admitted I consider eyewitness opinions :eek:

[Captain Cold Nose]

But again then whats the point of chiding us all? Actually whats the point of creating these kind of threads if one sentence posters who disappear into the night are causing the rift? It's like imposing a curfew on an entire town because one or two teenagers don't know how to control themselves at night.
You're absolutely right, and it really is a shame to hang labels on people who don't deserve it.
If a third grader does not know what two times four is, can you blame the college-level calculus student for poor math understanding?
Look at what goes on in the Baseball 101 forum. Quite a few divergent viewpoints from people who, in their way, are very intelligent about playing baseball. There are disagreements aplenty, but at the end of the day, it's all about what it takes to succeed in the sort on the field. "You do it this way? Well, I don't use that terminology, but do it similar to that in my own way." It's all the same goal, and, in the end, the results are similar. Ruth was this. Cobb was that. No matter what side of the fence you're on, Jimmy Wynn was a fine player.
The more numbers-inclined guys, and it is entirely unfair to say that numbers are all what some of the regular users look at, are getting an unfair rap. Yes, it seems at times there is a tidy little formula for everything that through outward appearances seem to ignore that the game is played by human beings on the field, and certain conditions come from that that cannot be quantified, but some of it certainly can. Adding in hypotheticals seems to be just that. What exactly is WARP anyway? I know what the acronym stands for, but is it anything more than an unprovable hypothetical?
And the major problem with eyewitness testimony is it is bound to be biased. It conveniently ignores (or not so much) that which it did not witness. And traditional statistics can be biased in that certain conditions they are accomplished in are far more favorable than other conditions.
So what to do? Know where to look and who to look to if you're looking for answers. But realize you're all trying to accomplish the same thing.

[barzilla]

I guess I'm not a regular since I haven't posted regularly in months, but my point was not to get people to list names. My point is to stop using group accountability for individual infractions. I know I have been wrong and have been corrected in many forums. That's all that it takes. Most of us are adults and will admit our mistakes.

One of the reasons why I left this board is because I was taking a break from almost every board. People at one particular site take excerpts from my stuff at Astrosdaily and turn me into some kind of virtual pinata. What's funny is that they paint me as some kind of arrogant SOB because I had the temerity to try to answer their concerns. They couldn't have a civil conversation. I've always been okay with criticism, but this kind of unabated character assassination was difficult to take.

Then, it hit me. I'm the one putting myself out there and publishing. They can poke fun at my writing and look for every little grammatical mistake, but what have they done really? They just snipe from the friendly confines of their silly site.

What has this have to do with the discussion? I suppose not much except that I can let out a little frustration and point out that people that create may not be smarter than the rest of us, but it does take courage. Matt has shown us his system and opened himself up to the same criticism and ridicule. I don't mind the criticism on my front. I expect a lot of people will think I'm an idiot when my book comes out on the Hall of Fame. The only thing I ask and that anyone can ask is that people bring that criticism to our doorstep instead of letting it spillover elsewhere.

[Bill Burgess]

Bill. you just admitted I consider eyewitness opinions :eek:
It wasn't I who ever implied otherwise. I just wanted you to know that some of us know how to keep opinions within their proper context. I simply asked you to play with your playmates nicely.

Bill

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Wow, now I'm convinced that the two sides just plain don't want to get along. The water was almost calm. The birds had begun to chirp and the sun was beginning to rise. Who created this tidal wave?

I agree with csh on most things; we have similar views. We both prefer not to start with stats, but eventually realize that they need to play a part. The problem comes when those who start with stats, never come toward the middle and keep lobbing out advanced metrics as if it'll solidify their case. Not every stat guy does that here, but it happens, and can be frustrating for us who like to go deeper.

Awhile back somebody started a thread about Jeter's HR's at Yankee Stadium. He posted Jeters home homers and away homers. The next guy said something about YS hurting Jeter, and right away I knew that made no sense. Not from any numbers I'd seen, but from knowing Jeter's swing. From knowing his approach it was clear that a majority of his home HR were from right center to right field. While the number backed it up, they weren't needed when the player is understood.

SeaverGooden awhile back threw out that Griffey is better than Speaker. Ok, so what could I do about that. It seemed like such an outlandish statement, but I don't have the skill necessary to rattle of advanced stats and stuff that would prove the case. Simply describing the type of player Speaker was, and how his peers viewed him wouldn't be enough either, so I suggested he start a poll, which he did. Numbers will always need to be brought up, and they should be brought up. Some of us just choose to start with either. If we have a goal it should be not to stick on that side. Come toward the middle to have a discussion both parties can feel equally comfortable with. Peace and love. :D

[RuthMayBond]

It wasn't I who ever implied otherwise. I just wanted you to know that some of us know how to keep opinions within their proper context. I simply asked you to play with your playmates nicely.

BillIt takes two sides to play nicely :(

[Bill Burgess]

It takes two sides to play nicely :(
You've been in your room long enough. You may go out to play. Play nicely, please. You know how upset your father gets.

June Cleaver

[Captain Cold Nose]

You've been in your room long enough. You may go out to play. Play nicely, please. You know how upset your father gets.

June Cleaver

Cut me some slack, Jack! Chump don' want no help, chump don't get da' help!

Ditto.

(As taken from IMDB, incidentally.)

[Bill Burgess]

Cut me some slack, Jack! Chump don' want no help, chump don't get da' help!

Ditto.

(As taken from IMDB, incidentally.)

Jeffrey? Where did you learn that colorful street language? Have you been chatting with Eddie and Lumpy again? I'm calling Fred Rutherford right now. I think you've been listening to that banned, pirated Lenny Bruce LP!

June Cleaver

[SABR Matt]

Hmmmm...

Well Sultan, I was just starting to think that you and I could come close to seeing eye to eye after the Ozzie Smith thread...then you went and said that the problem between sabermetricians and traditionalists is when sabermetricians throw advanced metrics out there in an attempt to win an argument and you thought the two sides didn't want to get along.

:(

The problem between traditionalists and sabermetricians is far more TWO-sided than you made it sound...no sabermetrician who is worth being labelled as such goes to the web intending to single-handedly end all debate by throwing out his pet metrics. The problem between abermetricians/stattheads (I hate that word by the way..it has nothing but angry negative connotation and reminds me of my days in middle-school when everyone picked the cliques they were in and made up cute insulting names to call their outgroup rivals) and traditionalists (probably also a more pejorative word than is necessary, but I don't use it pejoratively...if there's a better word, perhaps someone should tell me), is that the two sides tend to talk over each other. The traditionalists lack the math expertise or desire (some of them are skilled mathematically but have no interest) to understand how advanced metrics work and why sabermetricians take them seriously in debate, so they just ASSUME we take them seriously because it's a number we arbitrarily invented and therefore don't need proof. The sabermetricians don't really think in terms of scouting reports and the emotional impact of players and therefore don't tend to take traditional arguments seriously when we've spent long years developing metrics which we have "proved" work pretty well in predicting wins/runs but that prove exists only in our own language so it's not simple to explain...

I thought I was making a HUGE step in the right direction when I started looking at the results of PCA through the critical eye of a baseball scout...apparently there is still work to be done. :(

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Hmmmm...

Well Sultan, I was just starting to think that you and I could come close to seeing eye to eye after the Ozzie Smith thread...then you went and said that the problem between sabermetricians and traditionalists is when sabermetricians throw advanced metrics out there in an attempt to win an argument and you thought the two sides didn't want to get along.

:(


Matt,

I urge you to read back through this entire thread and re-read the few posts that I have made. There has been no attempt on my part to blame one side more than the other. In fact, when stating my opinion, I've said that it would be nice if both sides could understand the other's point of view.

I said that it seemed the two sides didn't want to get along, because I thought there was an agreement taking place. An understanding of sorts from both sides, then all of a sudden people started lobbing grenades at eachother again.

When I said that "the problem between sabermetricians and traditionalists is when sabermetricians throw advanced metrics out there in an attempt to win an argument," I was trying to convey what the problem is. If you do re-read my posts, you will also see that I mention a few times that not EVERY stat guy relies on just stats, and that is a very good thing. While both parties may choose to start at different ends of the spectrum, and may give more weight to their end, that we need both come towards the middle if anything is to be truly learned.

Hope you understand you took what I said out of context Matt. I do respect your view on all of this, and the work you're doing. In order to "fix" anything though, it's crucial to point out how each side feels and go from there.

[SABR Matt]

I do think that sabermetricians have not made enough of an effort to see their statistics through the eyes of a traditionalist...by that I mean...when they go to defend their metrics, they tend to focus on things like how much the answers "make sense" to them, and how well things correlate...rather than trying to do what I've tried to do lately (although I'm guilty of the same error in the past...the error of defending a statistical method using statistical means only)...which is try to make sense of the statistics from the frame of reference of a talent scout/fan of the game, an look for reasons I'm disagreeing with traditionally held beliefs.

[barzilla]

Matt,

I urge you to read back through this entire thread and re-read the few posts that I have made. There has been no attempt on my part to blame one side more than the other. In fact, when stating my opinion, I've said that it would be nice if both sides could understand the other's point of view.

I said that it seemed the two sides didn't want to get along, because I thought there was an agreement taking place. An understanding of sorts from both sides, then all of a sudden people started lobbing grenades at eachother again.

When I said that "the problem between sabermetricians and traditionalists is when sabermetricians throw advanced metrics out there in an attempt to win an argument," I was trying to convey what the problem is. If you do re-read my posts, you will also see that I mention a few times that not EVERY stat guy relies on just stats, and that is a very good thing. While both parties may choose to start at different ends of the spectrum, and may give more weight to their end, that we need both come towards the middle if anything is to be truly learned.

Hope you understand you took what I said out of context Matt. I do respect your view on all of this, and the work you're doing. In order to "fix" anything though, it's crucial to point out how each side feels and go from there.

Sultan,

I certainly hope you didn't interpret my last post as a grenade being launched because I wasn't talking about anyone on this site. Personally, I put people into two categories: people who are open to free and fair exchange of ideas and those that aren's. A good majority of the folks around here don't seem to go too deeply into the childish retorts, but there are always a few (again, I have no inclination to say who). So, the camps idea is put forth by those that aren't interested in hearing ideas different from there own.

If anything my last post was an attempt to blow off steam so that I didn't let that angst spillover to people or places where it doesn't belong.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Sultan,

I certainly hope you didn't interpret my last post as a grenade being launched because I wasn't talking about anyone on this site. Personally, I put people into two categories: people who are open to free and fair exchange of ideas and those that aren's. A good majority of the folks around here don't seem to go too deeply into the childish retorts, but there are always a few (again, I have no inclination to say who). So, the camps idea is put forth by those that aren't interested in hearing ideas different from there own.

If anything my last post was an attempt to blow off steam so that I didn't let that angst spillover to people or places where it doesn't belong.

It's cool, I wasn't referring to anyone in particular. Just seemed that everyone had said their peace and we all had come to a mutual understanding. And then things got hostile again. Who knows, maybe they didn't and I misinterpreted something. We can all teach eachother something on here. Heck, I don't know how WS are handed out, everything about EqA, can't understand positional adjustments because of personal beliefs, same to a degree with relative numbers being thrown around. But I'll stay open to learn.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

The answer, shoeless, is the one that is rooted in logic. OPS is not logic. Its results correlates well, generally, with the logically-based ones. But, OPS fails in extreme cases (those very cases we care most about).

What I'm saying, and what SABRMatt is saying, as I'm sure some of the other heavyhitters around here are saying, is correct. No one is contradicting us.

In fact, those who aren't saying what we are saying are simply ignoring us, plain and simple. That's their delusion.

Come up with something better than that and less personal to those who have a different view. Are those who see it differently the "light hitters" and "delusional." I'm not ignoring anyone, is not agreeing the same as ignoring.

This is what gives stat people a bad rep, don't dig their formulas and the method used to arrive at a conclusion and you don't know what your talking about.

May I close, don't take the above paragraph personal, I've followed much of your work and you do know your stuff and you back up much of what you say. Second, no problem with stat people, no problem with numbers they are the big contributor in coming to some conclusions.

The problem is the word delusional, was that really neccessary. Bad choice of words

[SABR Matt]

What bothers me about your position Shoeless is that it's intellectually lazy for no good reason. What you are essentially saying is:

"Math makes me queasy, I will therefore accept something illogical and less accurate."

The stupid thing about that...you don't have to do the math...those of us who are NOT lazy have DONE the math and posted it on our websites. :) All you have to do is take our linear weight values and multiply them with the number of times each hitter does each type of offensive event and you've got your answer. And if multiplying and adding is too hard for you, then you represent everything that is wrong with America today.

Tom is probably thinking the same thing...I don't have a problem with someone who is bad at math because their brain is not wired for it...I have a problem with people who refuse to even try. And that doesn't extend to just math. In my college humanities courses I ran into people all the time who would get asked relatively simple questions but would absolutely refuse to even try to make the necessary mental connections...they'd just say "I don't know," and hope other students would do the work for them in class. I never felt more vindicated than the day I showed up at my Philosophy course and the professor refused to allow such pathetic displays of laziness. He would grill you incessantly until you turned on your brain. Good times.

I have no patience at all for what you've said in this thread. Make a tiny bit of effort in life...even if that effort involves (gasp!) math!!

[SHOELESSJOE3]

What bothers me about your position Shoeless is that it's intellectually lazy for no good reason. What you are essentially saying is:

"
The stupid thing about that...you don't have to do the math...those of us who are NOT lazy have DONE the math and posted it on our websites. :) All you have to do is take our linear weight values and multiply them with the number of times each hitter does each type of offensive event and you've got your answer. And if multiplying and adding is too hard for you, then you represent everything that is wrong with America today.
I have no patience at all for what you've said in this thread. Make a tiny bit of effort in life...even if that effort involves (gasp!) math!!

Here we go with another one." Those of us who are not lazy".

"I represent everything that is wrong with America.

You and Tango seem to a bit hot under the collar over a discussion about the game.

Delusional, then a hint at me being lazy....everything thats wrong with America. I don't play your games, personal attacks on another poster who doesn't see things my way. Too much math was nothing personal and I don't have a problem doing math

I represent everthing that wrong with America.. do you realize how silly that one looks............. in a baseball discussion.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

The floor is yours, you'll get no reply from me, foolish to waste time going at each other. Not even a parting shot from me. Far as I'm concerned, it's over.

[SABR Matt]

How do you NOT see how it is lazy to refuse to engage in basic algebra to get a logically consistent answer? Just because it's baseball doesn't mean those of us who study it should be satisfied with inferior study.

[SABR Matt]

That's fine...but to me...it's not a good enough reason EVER in life to say you'll accept less because your other options are too much work. Work makes you appreciate the knowledge you gain.

[GoOrange]

What do you think is the single best offensive statistic to judge hitters by?

That's fine...but to me...it's not a good enough reason EVER in life to say you'll accept less because your other options are too much work. Work makes you appreciate the knowledge you gain.

Matt,

It is quite acceptable to accept less because other options are too much work. That has nothing to do with what's wrong with America or people being lazy. It has everything to do with other people having lives outside of baseball statistics and a limited number of hours in the day. A statistic such as OPS is readily accessible (I can easily get it on ESPN.com) compared to other statistics listed here. That greatly increases it's value in my book.

Please, in the future, try to show a modicum of respect for others and try to be a little less narrow minded about where people may be coming from.

[SABR Matt]

You can go to fangraphs.com among many other sites and just as easily access a correct runs created count based on linear weights. That's not an excuse either.

Do you imagine I spend every waking hour of the day working with/thinking about baseball? Do you imagine Tom does? Hate to break it to you, but aside from this brief period between the end of my undergraduate education and the start of my Ph.D. candidacy, I have been a full time student in meteorology, which has nothing whatsoever to do with baseball (apart from some of the research methods being similar). I have a family to help support and a very busy social life too, but you of course assume otherwise since unlike some people, I don't expect low standards from people.

[digglahhh]

Matt,

I think what you are neglecting is the idea of diminishing returns. Your research-related interest in the game lies primarily in the realm of statistical analysis; Joe's seems a lot more varied. There's nothing wrong with either set of priorities, but one can't fully invest oneself in everything. I don't know if Joe is explicitly claiming that there is no value in anything beyond OPS, but to him that's a point at which he is satisfied in terms of specificity.

It's funny you mention your admiration for your philosophy professor. So many of the quarrels we've had over the last few years come down to me raising philosophical objections not to statistical analysis itself, but the value and scope of conclusions to be drawn and the limits of the "real life" application thereof.

To draw a line where one decides the balance of the benefits of further analysis and the work involved in computing and processing it becomes counterproductive from an opportunity cost standpoint isn't lazy, per se.

Hey, one could craft a fine, intellectually rigorous argument claiming that there is almost no practical value to the entire field of statistical analysis you engage in because the myriad factors that determine the individual context of any situation sufficiently outweigh the marginal advantage derived from strenuous analysis of past events.

I certainly think the work you do is worthwhile, and I challenge sometimes because I respect your process and your willingness to both defend and revisit your work when you think appropriate. I'd readily grant your superiority in terms of the type of work you do - but what does it actually translate to? Could you out-manage, scout, or GM me if we were given the opportunity? I dunno - maybe, maybe not.

Now, I understand you are a researcher you advancing your theories doesn't mean that you WANT to GM a team, so that shouldn't be the proxy necessarily. Similarly, if I write political criticisms, that shouldn't be taken as me wanting to run for office. I'm just saying, your time and energy is a limited resource, not choosing to apply a large portion of it to any one pursuit isn't lazy, per se. I think the tone of your posts than puts people like Joe off is the implication that my pursuit is more worthwhile than yours.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Matt,

I think what you are neglecting is the idea of diminishing returns. Your research-related interest in the game lies primarily in the realm of statistical analysis; Joe's seems a lot more varied. There's nothing wrong with either set of priorities, but one can't fully invest oneself in everything. I don't know if Joe is explicitly claiming that there is no value in anything beyond OPS, but to him that's a point at which he is satisfied in terms of specificity.



Now, I understand you are a researcher you advancing your theories doesn't mean that you WANT to GM a team, so that shouldn't be the proxy necessarily. Similarly, if I write political criticisms, that shouldn't be taken as me wanting to run for office. I'm just saying, your time and energy is a limited resource, not choosing to apply a large portion of it to any one pursuit isn't lazy, per se. I think the tone of your posts than puts people like Joe off is the implication that my pursuit is more worthwhile than yours.


I know I said I would not return to debate this and I will not, not here to push my point, however since a question has come up......... possible that I "might" think there is no value in anything beyond OPS, my answer is no, there is value in some stats beyond OPS, it was just a choice I made.

[Tango Tiger]

possible that I "might" think there is no value in anything beyond OPS, my answer is no, there is value in some stats beyond OPS, it was just a choice I made.

Earlier you said:


Too much math, with so many claims to the best how could any one be the best. I keep it simple.................OPS...slugging and OBA. What more do you want in a hitter.

High slugging percentage....big stick,

High OBA he gets on a lot.

Don't complicate the matter with math and all these muti numbered formulas one contradicting the other. So which one is it, who determines.


Like I said, the issue is not the choice, but the justification for it. If you simply say that you like SLG and you like OBP, so you like how you can combine the two, fine.

But, you went further, about how we complicate matters with "math" and contradicting formulas, and who's to say what's better, etc. You strike this from your statements, I don't have an issue.

The reason that you can use OPS is because we have proven it with math that it is an ok (but not great) measure.

[SABR Matt]

digg...I got snippy in this case because I felt the tone of Joe's posts on this subject was that of a complaint rather than a legitimate argument. It sounded like "eeehhh...I hate math and I don't want to have to think about it." Rather than a reasonable paragraph like the one you just gave me saying "I understand the value of the advanced metrics, but I don't have enough time in my day to both study history and study sabermetrics and OPS is intuitive in scale to me now."

I don't react well to whining...that's the only reason I got snippy.

[dl4060]

Make a tiny bit of effort in life...even if that effort involves (gasp!) math!!

While I agree with some of what you have said here, you are pretty far off base with the last comment. If you had said, "make a little bit of effort in your analysis of baseball statistics" you might have a point, but adding "in life" is pretty far off base. I don't know what you do on a day to day basis, and neither do you know my activities. To paint someone as lazy in life based on the fact that they do not want to make the same level of effort in regards to baseball statistics that you do is pretty absurd. It is kind of like an EPL soccer player describing someone who works 80 hours a week as an investment banker and only gets 1 hour a day of exercise as lazy. If Shoeless does not want to put in the effort in a part of life which should rank well below work, exercise, relationships, and social life, that is probably a good decision. His baseball analysis will suffer, but does that really matter all that much?

If you want to tell him that a lack of a fear of math will limit the strength and accuracy of his conclusions in his judgment of baseball statistics, that is a different story.

One of my cousins runs his own advertising firm, which takes about 80 hours a week. He also runs up mountains, has 6% body fat, manages to ski 30-40 days a year, and kayaks all summer. He is close to 40, but can still run the 1500 at a close to D1 level. He is physically at the "competitive" level for seal recruits, if you know what that means. He finds time to occasionally help some of the environmental defense groups where he lives. He is something of a baseball fan, and if you asked him to make more of an effort than looking up OPS on ESPN's website he would say that it is not worth the effort.

Anyone who cannot do 25 pullups and run a 5:15 mile is lazy.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Thank you for some of what appears to be support. May I just make one thing clear, I do not tremble in fear when I see that 4 letter word MATH.

In the Army for 1963 to 1972 I attended and graduated from Ordnance Guided Missile School at Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville Alabama. Worked with a missile unit. My MOS was in rocket motor and rocket motor repair my last 7 years in the service, I saw plenty of math, maybe a different use but I got to be pretty familiar with lots of numbers and formulas.

That was long ago, not here to blow my own horn, there are probably posters in the statistics section here that know much more math than I do, in particular dealing with the game of baseball.

Did not want to enter this post, not much choice. Just to clear up the fear and the lazy darts, it's neither. I just thought I found a stat that fits the theme here, it just happens to involve less work, nothing wrong with that

[digglahhh]

In one respect, I actually do understand Matt's reflex to react as such. The jocks vs. nerds (false) dichotomy is so pervasive in the culture of baseball. Guys who do the kind of work that Matt, Tango, etc. do are so often lambasted as underwear-clad, parents'-basement-dwelling specimens of social ineptitude. Arguably a greater insult, they are often dismissed as not even being fans of the sport. The quirks of the dichotomy are revealed as even more bizarre as it is seemingly acceptable (and even laudable) to be a history geek. Tim Kurkijan is fine, but Rob Neyer is a rogue-agent iconoclast...

People like Matt are working in the most marginalized genre of baseball research; they are challenging anecdotal assumptions about the underlying workings of the game that had never really been proven, but conferred divinity on the basis of intuition and repetition. In light of the larger dynamic, the "I don't need no math," argument is often perceived as (partially because it is often a euphemism for) "get off the field, nerd; this game is for the big boys." Sabermetricians get defensive when they perceive that tone (accurately or inaccurately).

As far as what is or isn't "lazy," I believe we are just projecting the efforts we make toward things about which we are passionate and holding others to that scale. Anybody who defines "lazy" without having read Derrida is lazy...:p

[SHOELESSJOE3]

In one respect, I actually do understand Matt's reflex to react as such. The jocks vs. nerds (false) dichotomy is so pervasive in the culture of baseball. Guys who do the kind of work that Matt, Tango, etc. do are so often lambasted as underwear-clad, parents'-basement-dwelling specimens of social ineptitude. Arguably a greater insult, they are often dismissed as not even being fans of the sport. The quirks of the dichotomy are revealed as even more bizarre as it is seemingly acceptable (and even laudable) to be a history geek. Tim Kurkijan is fine, but Rob Neyer is a rogue-agent iconoclast...

People like Matt are working in the most marginalized genre of baseball research; they are challenging anecdotal assumptions about the underlying workings of the game that had never really been proven, but conferred divinity on the basis of intuition and repetition. In light of the larger dynamic, the "I don't need no math," argument is often perceived as (partially because it is often a euphemism for) "get off the field, nerd; this game is for the big boys." Sabermetricians get defensive when they perceive that tone (accurately or inaccurately).

As far as what is or isn't "lazy," I believe we are just projecting the efforts we make toward things about which we are passionate and holding others to that scale. Anybody who defines "lazy" without having read Derrida is lazy...:p

I can go with that. I can only say I may have used the wrong choice of words in my view on the method used, I liked my method and conclusion better.

You make an excellent point with your words "sabermetricians get defensive" thats putting it mildly, it's more like they might be insulted if you don't do the work they do.


The difference is and this is the bigger issue, I never said anything that could be viewed as a negative comment about another poster, no excuse for that.

[SABR Matt]

As for comparing baseball and other priorities in life...I would never argue that baseball should be taken more seriously than your marriage or your job or your practical education, but I find quite often that the way people pursue their passions and hobbies very often reflects the way they pursue life in the grander scheme. People who are motivated and driven don't just read some books about poker...they study poker and play it often...improving their game as they go. They don't just hike twice a week when the weather is nice, they go hiking every weekend, often for days at a time, taking a different route through complex terrain each time. They don't just fall in love and let relationships come to them...they pursue their partner zealously, making every effort to make their relationships work. They don't just shoot 9 holes once a month...if they can afford it at all, they shoot 18 every weekend and track their handicap and work on their skills. I could go on.

A motivated person loves life and ravenously tears into it at every opportunity. Shoeless Joe posts at baseball-fever.com...fairly regularly. He's a major baseball enthusiast. But he is satisfied with a substandard understanding of hitting. There's a good chance that speaks to his overall proclivity toward pursuing his hobbies and passions.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

As for comparing baseball and other priorities in life...I would never argue that baseball should be taken more seriously than your marriage or your job or your practical education, but I find quite often that the way people pursue their passions and hobbies very often reflects the way they pursue life in the grander scheme. People who are motivated and driven don't just read some books about poker...they study poker and play it often...improving their game as they go. They don't just hike twice a week when the weather is nice, they go hiking every weekend, often for days at a time, taking a different route through complex terrain each time. They don't just fall in love and let relationships come to them...they pursue their partner zealously, making every effort to make their relationships work. They don't just shoot 9 holes once a month...if they can afford it at all, they shoot 18 every weekend and track their handicap and work on their skills. I could go on.

A motivated person loves life and ravenously tears into it at every opportunity. Shoeless Joe posts at baseball-fever.com...fairly regularly. He's a major baseball enthusiast. But he is satisfied with a substandard understanding of hitting. There's a good chance that speaks to his overall proclivity toward pursuing his hobbies and passions.

Thank you for another compliment, substandard understanding method is fine for Joe. I'll put that in with your other kind words......hint a lazy and the your other shot, your words directed at me .. "If multiplying and adding is too hard for you then you represent everything that is wrong with America."

Don't you get it Matt, were having different view, the difference I'm talking baseball and your talking about me.

It's all yours, I should have never returned and I won't return this time, not on this subject, this will get us no where. You would be better served to stick to the game and not make negative comments about other posters. Say what you like anyone can go back on the posts and see I am being truthful with the above words and respectful of others. It's all yours.

[digglahhh]

To the extent that someone believes in the kool-aid offered by OPS, there is something that is clearly better than OPS.

This I can basically agree with. As Matt said, the grounds on which one may argue against this would be one that privileged something other than mathematical precision. One could argue that OPS is the best blend of accuracy, simplicity, familiarity, etc. But, of course, that's also relative and contextual, the dynamic with which it harmonizes is subject to change.

If your granting the underlying principles of OPS, it makes sense that you should grant those principles in their "more advanced" forms as well. Perhaps this is as simple as a quibble of semantics, "best" vs. "favorite."


digg is doing his best devil's advocate, but he's obviously facing a steep climb.

Speaking for myself, not Joe, I don't question the math involved in any of the work you guys do. I don't have any aversion to math. Being of a social science background with a deep interest in philosophy most of my questions deal with approach, underlying assumptions, etc.

I guess, it goes back to the, now cliche, statement by Alfred Korzybski, "the map is not the territory." I have no doubt you guys are sketching the most precise and detailed map possible, my only question is the essential likeness it bears and its functionality as it relates to the actual territory, the game itself.

The game isn't based on thousands of trials, during which variables are attempted to be controlled. The game is defined by glares of sun peeking through clouds, mysterious gusts of winds, a ball dropping three inches to left or right - something which neither the batter nor the pitcher consciously controls. The larger truths, in all their specificity, are meaningless over the course of a game or series, on the ground, in the territory.

That is, in fact, the beauty of the whole landscape. The margins are small, baseball is a game of inches, so too is statistical analysis. Every play in every inning of every game is a unique event. The statistical advantages levied by in-depth research are small enough to still allow an individual to justifiably play a hunch, and sometime success is about nothing more than defying the odds over the course of a few trials. To me, knowing about the statistical side of the game only makes me appreciate the novelty of anomalous stretches even more, it helps me to manage my expectations.

But, am I going to conclude that Miguel Cabrera is better or worse than Ryan Howard on the basis of two win shares, or three base runs, or whatever - nope! I just don't trust any metric to that degree, not in the face of the myriad other variables unable to be accounted for, not in the face of the territory.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

What bothers me about your position Shoeless is that it's intellectually lazy for no good reason. What you are essentially saying is:

"Math makes me queasy, I will therefore accept something illogical and less accurate."

The stupid thing about that...you don't have to do the math...those of us who are NOT lazy have DONE the math and posted it on our websites. :) All you have to do is take our linear weight values and multiply them with the number of times each hitter does each type of offensive event and you've got your answer. And if multiplying and adding is too hard for you, then you represent everything that is wrong with America today.

I have no patience at all for what you've said in this thread. Make a tiny bit of effort in life...even if that effort involves (gasp!) math!!

Not one of your better efforts Matt. Surprised this came from you actually.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

In one respect, I actually do understand Matt's reflex to react as such. The jocks vs. nerds (false) dichotomy is so pervasive in the culture of baseball. Guys who do the kind of work that Matt, Tango, etc. do are so often lambasted as underwear-clad, parents'-basement-dwelling specimens of social ineptitude. Arguably a greater insult, they are often dismissed as not even being fans of the sport. The quirks of the dichotomy are revealed as even more bizarre as it is seemingly acceptable (and even laudable) to be a history geek. Tim Kurkijan is fine, but Rob Neyer is a rogue-agent iconoclast...

People like Matt are working in the most marginalized genre of baseball research; they are challenging anecdotal assumptions about the underlying workings of the game that had never really been proven, but conferred divinity on the basis of intuition and repetition. In light of the larger dynamic, the "I don't need no math," argument is often perceived as (partially because it is often a euphemism for) "get off the field, nerd; this game is for the big boys." Sabermetricians get defensive when they perceive that tone (accurately or inaccurately).

As far as what is or isn't "lazy," I believe we are just projecting the efforts we make toward things about which we are passionate and holding others to that scale. Anybody who defines "lazy" without having read Derrida is lazy...:p

Ya know, you may not come out of the wood-work often, but when you do, you consistently make spot-on posts imo. Very well put.

I respect Matt's work and appeciate the line he must strattle, between protecting his passion, and helping those interested, to understand. Seeing the game differently is what makes baseball so great.

For the record...those who don't spend years and years researching a baseball players life, on and off the field, are lazy ;) Just playin'.

[AstrosFan]

Hey, at least least we've got you and Bill Burgess as examples of how to live.:)

[SABR Matt]

For the record...I never said you were lazy if you didn't study sabermetrics with the same zeal that I do. I just think it's lazy to refuse even a small effort to become acquainted with some basic sabermetric tools if you're a serious baseball fan, especially when your reason for doing so is "ew...math!" and especially these days with the proliferation of availability of those basic metrics.

Also for the record, I do happen to think you're also lazy if you make no effort to get to know something about the important players in the game's history...doesn't have to be the in depth close personal study that some here have put into guys like Ruth, Cobb and Joe Jackson, but you should know about baseball history if you take baseball remotely seriously as a passtime.

[AstrosFan]

That bothers me some, but I am more irritated by the people who try to put as much of a negative spin on sabermetric analysis as they can. The attitude is, if I don't understand it, it must be bad. If you consider yourself into sabermetrics, how much do the following phrases irritate you on a 1-5 scale, with 1 being mildly annoyed, and 5 being ready to disintegrate that person's head with your fist?

Stat-head

Stat-freak

Stat-hound

Confusing, newfangled stats

Baseball is played on the field, not with computers.

These new stats have nothing to do with real baseball

Who needs stats? My eyes are all I need to tell how great a player was.

What makes you think you know so much more about how great a player was than those who saw him?

[SABR Matt]

Stat-head 1

Stat-freak 2

Stat-hound 1

Confusing, newfangled stats 4

Baseball is played on the field, not with computers. 5

These new stats have nothing to do with real baseball 5

Who needs stats? My eyes are all I need to tell how great a player was. 4

What makes you think you know so much more about how great a player was than those who saw him? 3

[AstrosFan]

I think the only place I would differ is I would give the phrase stat-freak a 1. None of those nicknames in the first three phrases bother me in and of themselves. I take it as a compliment. It is the context that matters. If a person were to say, "These stat-hounds think they have all the answers with their little formulas," then I would probably be up to the 5 level.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Also for the record, I do happen to think you're also lazy if you make no effort to get to know something about the important players in the game's history...doesn't have to be the in depth close personal study that some here have put into guys like Ruth, Cobb and Joe Jackson, but you should know about baseball history if you take baseball remotely seriously as a passtime.


Sounds reasonable. Perhaps we are on the extreme opposite ends of whatever spectrum we are defining here. I understand some stats, even curious about some other ones that I know will never be within my grasp. And you have some historical knowledge in you, so perhaps we've come the same distance toward the middle in those respective areas. I'm just sayin', don't be so quick to snipe back. Joe isn't posting with any sort of agenda or malice, just posting his opinion. He's anything but lazy...we all just choose where and how to focus the most energy.

Keep up the good work Matt. ;)

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Confusing, newfangled stats

Nothing wrong with that. Actually a humbling statement.



Baseball is played on the field, not with computers.

Nothing false about this statement.


These new stats have nothing to do with real baseball

Eye of the beholder. Some see the game different than others.


Who needs stats? My eyes are all I need to tell how great a player was.

Some might side more toward this, but I don't think anyone, even extreme anti-formula guys, will say that no stats are required. Stats are the backbone of the game. We need them. How in depth we need to go with them is another question altogether.


What makes you think you know so much more about how great a player was than those who saw him?

Historical opinions don't mean near as much, if we don't have numbers to back them up. The opinions particularly help in the cases of great past catchers like Schalk, whose total contributions will never be captured by numbers, no matter how in depth.

[AstrosFan]

You clearly have never seen the context in which those phrases are typically used. Aside from the nicknames:

"Confusing ..."

This is used in the context of perpetuating the idea that the first thing a person should look for in a statistic is its simplicity, not its accuracy in predicting or modeling run scoring. To a sabermetrician, that speaks volumes about a person's attitude.

"... on the field ..."

Technically, it is not a false statement. But the statement is not made with the intent of being a technically true statement. It is made with the intent of arguing that advanced statistical analysis cannot help the game, because formulas don't win games, players do. Yes, players win games. But sabermetrics can provide insight as to what strategies to use, how to optimize a batting order, how to best use the relief corps, etc. When that statement is made in its usual context, it is advancing a falsehood, that sabermetric analysis does nothing to help teams win games.

"... real baseball."

They have everything to do with real baseball, because they are the result of studying countless games and measuring the best ways to predict player performance or play percentage baseball. To say that sabermetrics having nothing to do with real baseball is in the eye of the beholder is an incorrect statement. How important they are is in the eye, but zero percent important is simply false.

The last two I don't really get worked up about. I kind of just threw them in there to give some more options.

[AstrosFan]

You know, that first sentence from the previous post makes a rather broad assumption. So just assume it says, "Your response gives the implication that you are unfamiliar with the context those phrases are typically used."

[four tool]

You clearly have never seen the context in which those phrases are typically used. Aside from the nicknames:

"Confusing ..."

This is used in the context of perpetuating the idea that the first thing a person should look for in a statistic is its simplicity, not its accuracy in predicting or modeling run scoring. To a sabermetrician, that speaks volumes about a person's attitude.

"... on the field ..."

Technically, it is not a false statement. But the statement is not made with the intent of being a technically true statement. It is made with the intent of arguing that advanced statistical analysis cannot help the game, because formulas don't win games, players do. Yes, players win games. But sabermetrics can provide insight as to what strategies to use, how to optimize a batting order, how to best use the relief corps, etc. When that statement is made in its usual context, it is advancing a falsehood, that sabermetric analysis does nothing to help teams win games.

"... real baseball."

They have everything to do with real baseball, because they are the result of studying countless games and measuring the best ways to predict player performance or play percentage baseball. To say that sabermetrics having nothing to do with real baseball is in the eye of the beholder is an incorrect statement. How important they are is in the eye, but zero percent important is simply false.

The last two I don't really get worked up about. I kind of just threw them in there to give some more options.

And for evidence to support saberemetrics, how many world series have the Red Sox won since they hired Bill James?

[digglahhh]

And for evidence to support saberemetrics, how many world series have the Red Sox won since they hired Bill James?

I support sabermetrics and I support James, but that is not "evidence."

It's an anecdotal, rhetorical quip based upon a unquantifiable kernel of truth.

Correlation vs causality.

[four tool]

They have won 2 world series since they hired him, they hadn't won any without without James for decades despite many close calls--look up the meaning of evidence and tell me how it isn't evidence. There is a difference between evidence and proof, as any reader of mysteries knows, and I did not say proof.

[brett]

They have won 2 world series since they hired him, they hadn't won any without without James for decades despite many close calls--look up the meaning of evidence and tell me how it isn't evidence. There is a difference between evidence and proof, as any reader of mysteries knows, and I did not say proof.

but I'd like to know specifically what suggestions he has made that have lead to winning. I heard he recommended not re-signing Pedro, and possibly Damon. Boston does not actually use their pitchers the way the he suggests.

The one real area where he can be valuable to a team is in his age analysis. If he tells you that a 31 year old coming off a career year is unlikely to have 3 more great years then that is worth it.

He picked David Wright to be the top player over the next 5 years by the way. Possible, but I think that someone would want to physically examine Wright's talents before giving him the ultimate contract.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

They have won 2 world series since they hired him, they hadn't won any without without James for decades despite many close calls--look up the meaning of evidence and tell me how it isn't evidence. There is a difference between evidence and proof, as any reader of mysteries knows, and I did not say proof.

What evidence do you have besides what you believe happened. You think thats the reason so it has to be accepted as evidence by others. We're playing word games again, splitting hairs. Look in any dictionary at proof and evidence they are first cousins.
But instead of wasting time with the word games how can you convince anyone...is that better, that The Bosox did it because of Bill James.

It could be, it could be part of it, we don't know.

[four tool]

What evidence do you have besides what you believe happened. You think thats the reason so it has to be accepted as evidence by others. We're playing word games again, splitting hairs. Look in any dictionary at proof and evidence they are first cousins.
But instead of wasting time with the word games how can you convince anyone...is that better, that The Bosox did it because of Bill James.

It could be, it could be part of it, we don't know.

Could be is a little different than not evidence, and you obviously didn't look evidence up: "data presented to a court or jury to support claims." is a direct quote from Random House Webster's If you can prove they would have won without James, then it isn't evidence--otherwise it is according to the dictionary. Personally I'll take the dictionary definition over your speculation.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Could be is a little different than not evidence, and you obviously didn't look evidence up: "data presented to a court or jury to support claims." is a direct quote from Random House Webster's If you can prove they would have won without James, then it isn't evidence--otherwise it is according to the dictionary. Personally I'll take the dictionary definition over your speculation.


Instead of playing the word game can we get to the point, what did you try to say in your original post. Do we have to read between the lines. In another post you point out they won two World Series since they hired Bill James and hadn't won any for decades. It certainly sounds like your saying that James was the reason they won those two. I'm saying that hiring James might not be the reason.

[four tool]

Instead of playing the word game can we get to the point, what did you try to say in your original post. Do we have to read between the lines. In another post you point out they won two World Series since they hired Bill James and hadn't won any for decades. It certainly sounds like your saying that James was the reason they won those two. I'm saying that hiring James might not be the reason.

Why do you think it's a word game? I was originally pointing out the value of sabermetrics and I was specific when I said evidence--I never said proof or the only reason--you apparently inferred something that wasn't said or implied. I don't know why you tried to read between the lines, I used a specific word to convey meaning and used it in a valid sense according to the dictionary, and somehow you jumped to conclusions.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Why do you think it's a word game? I was originally pointing out the value of sabermetrics and I was specific when I said evidence--I never said proof or the only reason--you apparently inferred something that wasn't said or implied. I don't know why you tried to read between the lines, I used a specific word to convey meaning and used it in a valid sense according to the dictionary, and somehow you jumped to conclusions.

I can buy that, your saying it wasn't the only reason.

[four tool]

I can buy that, your saying it wasn't the only reason.

Thank you, for the difference between evidence and proof, watch any old Perry Mason or read an Agatha Christie, etc. etc.

[abolishthedh]

They have won 2 world series since they hired him, they hadn't won any without without James for decades despite many close calls--look up the meaning of evidence and tell me how it isn't evidence. There is a difference between evidence and proof, as any reader of mysteries knows, and I did not say proof.

There is a major element missing in your assumption, though, fourtool. Remember that the Red Sox are a high quality organization and that they had been for some time prior to their recent success. I happen to know that Bill James' hometown is Lawrence, Kansas, and that his first love among all teams has been the KC Royals since their inclusion into the league.

If, on the other hand, the Royals had hired him for what he knows, we all know how it would have worked out.

For sabermetrics to have the impact that James has shown, there must be a high quality organization for the proper scouting. I teach high school math, and have done so for several years. I love math and high level analyses, but there may be something to the old-fashioned 'hunch' that scouts bring to the game. Raw numbers, whether calculated through sabermetrics or not, cannot bring to life the reason Blake DeWitt has surprised some people this season. It probably has something to do with something that a scout noticed in how DeWitt prepares, his attitude on and off the field toward his teammates and coaches, and maybe even his tendency to take care of his health everyday (as opposed to most very young players). These observations will never show up in OPS.

[AstrosFan]

The sabermetricians who believe we should do away with scouting and rely solely on statistics aren't real sabermetricians. They're nitwits. The Boston Red Sox win because they combine scouting and stats, and have the two sides work together toward a common goal. If either side becomes snobbish toward the other, it's going to hurt the team.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The sabermetricians who believe we should do away with scouting and rely solely on statistics aren't real sabermetricians. They're nitwits. The Boston Red Sox win because they combine scouting and stats, and have the two sides work together toward a common goal. If either side becomes snobbish toward the other, it's going to hurt the team.

Can you name the sabermetricians that believe that scouting should be done away with and please cite your sources. And the Book Moneyball doesn't count. ;)

[four tool]

You are coming across as a math teacher who doesn't know the definition of proof. Evidence is not proof--why don't any of you get it?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

You are coming across as a math teacher who doesn't know the definition of proof. Evidence is not proof--why don't any of you get it?

Get what? :shrug: My question pertains to Astrofan's assertion that there are sabermetricians that are advocating that traditional scouting show be abandoned. I am simply asking for the name of specific sabermetricans that have advocated this and to cite a source for this. I don't thin that's asking too much is it?

[AstrosFan]

Get what? :shrug: My question pertains to Astrofan's assertion that there are sabermetricians that are advocating that traditional scouting show be abandoned. I am simply asking for the name of specific sabermetricans that have advocated this and to cite a source for this. I don't thin that's asking too much is it?

Actually, it is a bit much to ask. I don't know the names of that many sabermetricians, beyond Bill James, Pete Palmer, Rob Neyer, the guys at Baseball Prospectus and the Hardball Times, and our members, Tom Tango and Matt Souders, plus a few others if I really concentrated. And I consider those good sabermetricians. Indeed, my post was that a person who styles himself a sabermetrician, but prefers to rely solely on stats (or almost solely, if you insist on the distinction, Captain Literal) is not a sabermetrician at all, but just some dull-witted stathead.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Actually, it is a bit much to ask. I don't know the names of that many sabermetricians, beyond Bill James, Pete Palmer, Rob Neyer, the guys at Baseball Prospectus and the Hardball Times, and our members, Tom Tango and Matt Souders, plus a few others if I really concentrated. And I consider those good sabermetricians. Indeed, my post was that a person who styles himself a sabermetrician, but prefers to rely solely on stats (or almost solely, if you insist on the distinction, Captain Literal) is not a sabermetrician at all, but just some dull-witted stathead.

Wouldn't use dull-witted, but I see what you're saying and would agree.

AF, realize you are referring to one extreme end of this so called spectrum. I think that there is a group, just beyond those who "rely solely on stats" who still rely on stats way too much. Maybe somewhere between 1/4 and 3/8 on the spectrum but closer to 1/4. That's fine. That's their thing. We can't have everyone meet in the middle. I'm certainly not. Don't know enough mathematically, to be. :noidea

[abolishthedh]

You are coming across as a math teacher who doesn't know the definition of proof. Evidence is not proof--why don't any of you get it?

.... and in baseball we can never have fully proven anything because as soon as we have identified how to prove a point and crunched the numbers, then the player gets hurt, his ability level changes, he is moved to a different spot in the lineup or dropped from the everyday lineup altogether. This is the reason the pursuit of proof as we would like to define it is a moving target, and thus, we have this debate. Evidence is all we'll ever have.:)

[four tool]

.... and in baseball we can never have fully proven anything because as soon as we have identified how to prove a point and crunched the numbers, then the player gets hurt, his ability level changes, he is moved to a different spot in the lineup or dropped from the everyday lineup altogether. This is the reason the pursuit of proof as we would like to define it is a moving target, and thus, we have this debate. Evidence is all we'll ever have.:)

Granted,so what's your point about Bill James, that his presence doesn't constitute evidence?

[Ubiquitous]

Almost everything constitutes evidence. The Greeks discovered this over a thousand years ago and it was again "rediscovered" in the age of enlightenment. What truly matters is whether or not you can prove your evidence actually matters in regards to the point being debated.

[four tool]

Almost everything constitutes evidence. The Greeks discovered this over a thousand years ago and it was again "rediscovered" in the age of enlightenment. What truly matters is whether or not you can prove your evidence actually matters in regards to the point being debated.

Almost everything constitutes evidence? Then this debate must be evidence of what happened in the hockey playoffs.

[abolishthedh]

I believe that sabermetrics is limited in how well the results of analyses can fit into a team's roster at a given point in time and for a given season. James had a lot to work with in Boston, but I have long suspected that the upper level management of the Red Sox were sticks in the mud over old-school biases. In order to tell you which biases, I would have to sit in the room with Red Sox GMs both past and present to sort that out. This makes me no different than the rest of Red Sox Nation, but I sensed that through Dan Duquette's tenure the team as a whole needed to think outside the box.

James' hiring was part of the team's makeover, post-Duquette. The credit for their turnaround should go to the individuals who saw how Bill James could help them out, and not James himself. Another team could have beaten the Red Sox to the punch... I think he could have helped out the Phillies or the Cubs or the Padres.... but not the Royals, the Pirates or the Rockies. The former group had talent to work with and still does, but the latter does not. Individual seasons may prove to be exceptions. Last year, the Rockies did well without him and this year the Padres might stink it up even with James' help. The effect of Bill James' presence could be minimal without management support.

[Ubiquitous]

Duquette was not an old school thinker. He was Moneyball before moneyball was ever written. He was the first sabermetric GM darling, before Billy, before Theo. Well I guess to be technical perhaps Tal Smith was the first but he came around before sabermetrics had really grown into something.

Duquette failed, not because of outdated thinking but because he just wasn't very good at what he was doing. Theo et al succeeded not because their thinking was new but because they were good at what they were assigned to do.

[AstrosFan]

Duquette was not an old school thinker. He was Moneyball before moneyball was ever written. He was the first sabermetric GM darling, before Billy, before Theo. Well I guess to be technical perhaps Tal Smith was the first but he came around before sabermetrics had really grown into something.

Duquette failed, not because of outdated thinking but because he just wasn't very good at what he was doing. Theo et al succeeded not because their thinking was new but because they were good at what they were assigned to do.

Wasn't Sandy Alderson sabermetric before Duquette?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Wasn't Sandy Alderson sabermetric before Duquette?

Yes, he was. Alderson introduced Billy Beane to the Bill James Abstracts when Beane retired as a player and began working as a scout for Alderson. I know Beane gets labeled a "saber guy" but he has a very traditional baseball background; former major leaguer, scout, assistant GM, etc.

[Ubiquitous]

Wasn't Sandy Alderson sabermetric before Duquette?


Yes he was sabermetric but he also had Tony LaRussa who called the shots for the major league team and wasn't really the darling. He tended to stay in the backgroun during his tenure in Oakland.