Bob Ryan: I don't think the "average" fan cares about advanced metrics in MLB

OK, I was just going by Rick's contention that it was. I figured he knew.

To return to Ryan's point -- and thus the point of the thread -- a telecast or discussion filled with numbers like these would be the most infuriating thing on TV besides "Girls." There is plenty of information presented to all levels of fandom, and for those that are overly interested in numbers there is always the opportunity to look something up on the phone or tablet, which there's a 90 percent chance you're sitting with anyway.

 

Couple things on the Ryan column:

1) He's overall point, that the "average fan" probably doesn't want to read about cutting-age statistics, at least not as part of his daily diet of coverage, is probably correct. Just like people don't want to read about complex policy metrics in their daily stories off the Congressional beat. Or the complex procedural history and legal reasoning of a 100-page Supreme Court antitrust decision.

2) Again: Just don't pass along bad information.

3) He is, as a matter of principle, against "judgment" being used in a statistic:

Though not yet as well-defined as the data concerning offense and pitching, defensive analysis is becoming increasingly sophisticated, although some of the defensive judgments are just that — judgments. Should so-and-so have caught that ball? Well, I don’t know. Was the wind blowing at that moment? Was it an opposite-field hit with the ball spinning away from the outfielder? That’s a judgment, isn’t it? And how can a judgment be incorporated fairly into creating a statistic?

That just means the data is dirty. That doesn't mean it's not useful, particularly because it all kind of comes out in the wash, since so much is collected. The bottom line is if the stats work, they'll stick. If they don't, they won't. The market, as it were, will determine that.

4) He goes off the rails here into cliche world:

I wonder if the New Breed Stat Guys ever actually enjoy a game, because they are so obsessed with what the manager is or isn’t doing, based on the data in front of them. They’re often upset before the game even starts, because the lineup isn’t sufficiently stat-based. And God forbid the skipper who doesn’t properly handle what they have termed “high leverage” situations. Sometimes lost in all this is an appreciation of the aesthetics, whether it’s a great play in the hole by a shortstop or a snappy inning-ending 5-4-3 double play or a base runner cleverly taking an extra base. Or even a game-winning hit in the ninth inning if it happens to be delivered by someone other than the guy they thought should have been up at the plate. Sometimes the New Breed Stat Guys aren’t so good about accepting the vagaries of a very complex game.

 

A game on TV "full of them" would be too much. A few times a game would be fine.

 

Because wOBA is correlates better with run scoring.

 

Yeah, to insinuate that people who spend all their free time watching baseball don't love the game is crazy town.

 

This ...

I wonder if the New Breed Stat Guys ever actually enjoy a game, because they are so obsessed with what the manager is or isn’t doing, based on the data in front of them. They’re often upset before the game even starts, because the lineup isn’t sufficiently stat-based. And God forbid the skipper who doesn’t properly handle what they have termed “high leverage” situations. Sometimes lost in all this is an appreciation of the aesthetics, whether it’s a great play in the hole by a shortstop or a snappy inning-ending 5-4-3 double play or a base runner cleverly taking an extra base. Or even a game-winning hit in the ninth inning if it happens to be delivered by someone other than the guy they thought should have been up at the plate. Sometimes the New Breed Stat Guys aren’t so good about accepting the vagaries of a very complex game.

... is a nice bit of writing. Old-school forever rules the day in Bob Ryan's Book of Baseball™ but with that said has he ever -- EVER -- sat next to a guy he describes in the paragraph?

 

The savviest stat guys know that 99% of a manager's decisions barely mean squat.

 

50% of the time they're 100% right

 

Did I read here or somewhere else that if you randomly choose a batting order, especially in the AL, that it does not hurt or help the runs scored by a team or it does not help or hurt as much as you would think?

I do think knowing when a pitcher is tired is a very good skill for a manager to have.

http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~mbodell/battingOrder2001.html

 

I think it's the latter.

What you do read is that you should, theoretically, have your best hitter bat first, second-best hitter bat second, etc., etc., to give them more chances to bat each game.

I have no idea how that would play out in reality, if for no other reason than these are human beings, conditioned to their roles. Imagine telling Miguel Cabrera he's the leadoff hitter now.

 

Last year there was a sabermetric school of thought that your best hitter should bat second or fourth, but not third.