Salon's Kaufman accuses Kindred of 'ignorance'

i watched "god" himself manipulate the numbers to turn maz into the second coming of jesus christ. man can fuck up plenty ... but you know that.

i think there's room in baseball for both because neither system is infallible.

 

Dusty Baker would be a lousy example no matter which side of the argument he was on.

Do you need statistical analysis to determine that your significant other gives good or poor head? No, you go by feeling. This is a sport played by carbon-based individuals, it always will be. And the stat guys were just as grievously wrong about Jeremy Brown as the scouts were about Roger Salkeld.

 

Bubbler,

It's a nice argument, but that's not what the VORP or WARP stats are for. It's not to predict how Bill Batter will do against Pete Pitcher. It's to determine whether Bob Batter would have a better season than Bill if they switched teams, or how much more valuable Bob is to his team than Bill. It obviously isn't intended to predict the result of any given at-bat, which even the beloved "lifers" will tell you is more or less random.

 

Sorry, but no dad-son convo at the ballpark will ever have the following: "Well, son, Jones has a great VORP, but Smith has more Win Shares, so that's why he's playing tonight. If this were in Philly, tho, Jones' Ballpark-Adjusted Numbers would favor him. Wanna hot dog?"

 

Things like "win shares" are kind of a sabermetricians' pet project to find one stat that valuates a player, instead of a numbers stew of batting average, RBIs, runs, OBP, doubles, home runs, etc., etc., etc. It's kind of like their Holy Grail, a quest to be able to compare, say, Rickey Henderson to Ted Williams.

 

And GMs holding the check books should give a shit why?

Joe Sixpack and son may not care about the underlying numbers. But he sure is going to care when his ticket prices go up because the team committed a long-term deal to the next Chris Carpenter.

 

LJB,

Sure, but far too many of the carbon-based individuals in front offices and scouting departments undervalue things that are demonstrably GOOD, like hitting home runs and walking a lot. Scouts who want to tell you that Adam Dunn, for example, isn't a desirable player because he strikes out a bunch -- and nevermind those 100 walks and the 40 dingers -- are simply wrong.

And dools,

Your point? The VORP stat isn't for the father and the son. It's for front-office types, and extremely dedicated fans who really want a (presumably) reliable way to settle arguments.

 

But... the game hasn't changed. Outs are still bad. Drawing walks is good. Preventing home runs is key for pitchers. Etc.

All these numbers do is try to sift through stuff out of the players' control (stuff like size of the park, quality of the competition, fluctuations in luck) and emphasize what they can control (quality of contact, ability to avoid making outs, hitting more than singles, keeping the ball in the park for pitchers).

It's not like Andre Dawson was playing in an era where making outs actually helped the team, and thus his on-base percentage was a plus. It was bad. Historically bad for Hall of Fame outfielders. And since the walk rate hasn't risen since he played, the plain truth is that he was a productive hacker. There's no shame in that, but outs hurt. Maybe his glove made up for it, and that's the debate -- which numbers help to sort out.

I disagree with Kaufman (whom I like and read often) when he names the specific stats people need to know, since Win Shares is faulty and VORP is behind a pay wall. But select the right other numbers, and they tell the story just as well. To completely disregard deeper stats in favor of a revisionist narrative like TEH FEAR!!111 (somehow, it took 15 years after his retirement for people to remember how scary Rice allegedly was) is the easy way out.

 

That's because when son brought it up, Dad would say "that's crazy talk" because he was too lazy to learn something new.

 

or the father, who was much smarter than his son, refused to waste his time on bullshit.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with your premise, but with one exception:

Players absolutely adjust to different situations, ballparks and opponents all the time. Some right-handers will make a conscious effort to try to pull the ball more at Fenway Park, because The Wall is so inviting. Managers used to try to avoid pitching their lefty starters there, too ("Summer of '49" explains this strategy in detail.)

There's a long history of players -- especially great ones -- "adjusting their approach" based on any number of factors. Week to week, game to game, even at-bat to at-bat.

 

I know these measures. I just think for the most part they're digital masturbation. There is no way in hell you're going to reasonably predict that someone will win more games for you than someone else. It's all averaging, and I dare you to find too many "average" situations.