Salon's Kaufman accuses Kindred of 'ignorance'

Again, no one will ever, ever make the Hall of Fame on Win Shares or VORP, or even OPS. And no one ever should. Making the Hall requires much more than numbers.

 

I understand your concerns about win shares and Vorp but OPS, really?

 

But aren't the best players decided on the numbers they put up? I see your side, but the problem is guys won't vote for players because they snubbed them in an interview or because no one should get in with 100 percent of the vote.
As much as everyone hates Bill Simmons, his idea for a Hall of Fame Pyramid would be great for baseball and the museum itself.

 

Jumping in mid-stream here...

I've always been one of those writers who tries to appreciate both camps, and I think the dumbest thing Kaufman did here is get upset that Kindred isn't interested in evaluating players in ways that King Kaufman deems essential to understanding baseball. Dave Kindred has earned the right to evaluate players however he chooses. He's under no obligation to learn VORP simply because it has been declared extremely relevant by a handful of very smart people who often have trouble articulating why it's so important. Kindred didn't even dismiss that line of thinking, he just said it wasn't for him. And frankly, that's a dumb reason to go all bitchcakes.

I do like sabermetrics, and I think the cheap shots about nerds who would rather see robots playing baseball is idiotic. There is something beautiful and finite about numbers, and nothing was more fun this election season than watching Nate Silver get stuff right again and again when people who knew "in their gut" that he didn't know what he was talking about. That turned out to be as true in politics as it is in baseball. And I love that there are people out there like Silver who are smart enough to enhance my love of both with the way they understand statistics.

But I'm forever going to be a big believer in the mysteries of the human heart and mind. James used to argue forever that clutch hitting did not exist. A batter who had a history of performance was just as likely to get a hit 298 times out of 1,000 in the playoffs or World Series as he was during the regular season. Then he changed his mind. Then, he wasn't so sure.

I find that whole discussion to be almost laughable. Of course human beings are going to react differently in situations where they feel more pressure to perform. To me, that human element is the bedrock that supports everything I believe about sports. Some people are able to remain calm and sharpen their focus when the stakes are high, and some people cannot do it as well. It's not absolute. Jeter or Big Papi aren't always going to come up with a big hit when their team needs it, especially as their abilities are slowed by age, but it's silly to suggest A-Rod has just as much of a chance of coming up with a big hit in those situations because he has shown proven performance over a larger statistical sample. To break it down like that is to take all the poetry out of life. You might as well be suggesting that any man with a history of noteable archery skills could have strung Odysseus' bow and fired and arrow through all 12 axes at the end of the Odyssey. Bollocks to that. Some men rise to the moment, and some men cannot. You can't, and shouldn't, use this theoretical "IF" to construct an entire baseball team, but courage under fire is not something to be dismissed with equations.

I love examining on-base percentage, OPS, OPS-plus, and numerous others, but VORP has always kind of baffled me. Perhaps I just don't understand it properly, but it seems like there are entirely too many variables to quantify such a thing. What if the shortstop for the Reds hits poorly in day games on the road because it just so happens that the Reds sit on their charter alphabetically and his name is late in the alphabet so he has to sit near the back where he never gets any sleep because the engines are humming and bathrooms are always being used, and maybe an average replacement player, whose statistics are measured by calculating all the other National League shortstops, would perform better in a vacuum. But maybe he'd also get that shitty seat on the plane and always be tired the first day of the road trip. Or maybe the hitting coach for the Reds is an idiot and keeps tweaking with the shortstop's swing. And the hitting coach would just fuck up the theoretical replacement shortstop's swing too. Maybe there is a Reds groupie who keeps giving everyone syphilis and so a replacement player would just get syphilis too if he slept with her.

Unless, or course, this theoretical replacement player was a devout Christian who didn't cheat on his wife and therefore he suddenly performed better than the last guy, not because he was more talented but because he really connected with the team chaplain, who finally got him to relax with two strikes because it's all in god's hands. And the manager, who tends to use his gut more than spreadsheets -- which annoys the hell out of the front office -- is pretty good at making the the actual player, a Spanish-speaking 23-year-old from Santo Domingo, feel comfortable because he speaks fluent Spanish and tells him not to listen to the goddamn hitting coach anymore.

There is beauty, and fallacy, in both approaches to the game. The seamheads are pissed that not enough of their voices are being heard in the Hall of Fame voting, which is understandable, but isn't going to last forever. Look at the MVP race this year. Balance is coming. Just not overnight.

 

Then everyone who wants it that way should start a push for a Hall of Fame Pyramid, find a place to house its memorabilia and encourage people to visit and check it out.


Great post, Double Down.

 

Wait a second DD.
Your post contains logic. Please delete it immediately.

 

You're right ... and perhaps using Fenway and Dodger Stadium -- two extreme stadiums in how they affect the game -- was a bad example for ballpark adjusted stats on my part.

Most stadiums are closer to the middle. So when you start seeing people making ballpark adjusted arguments based on someone who played at County Stadium versus someone who played at Royals Stadium, well, I think the analysis is well beyond the pale of paralysis at that point.

 

actually, dog, i have all the friends i need. but thanks.

and just because somebody dismisses asinine stats it doesn't make them ignorant nor lazy. embracing stupidity on the other hand, reeks of low IQ.

 

As usual, DD says it better than most of the rest of us could.

The only problem is the Trekkies are now going to invent a new stats category centred around syphilis-based performance.

Kidding. ;D

 

Why do we need anything? Why do I need MLB radio on my phone, which allows me to listen to every single game, every single day? I don't. But I sure as hell like it, because it allows me to access more baseball than I ever thought possible when I was 6 years old. That's an advancement of technology, and it never would have happened if not for "nerds" tinkering with established formuas in order to improve the way we understand the radio.

What's the point of evolution if we don't try things out, see what works, what doesn't, and keep tinkering until we find something we like? And then, what's wrong with tinkering some more to see if we can improve that, too?

How does that affect your enjoyment of the game? You still have all the ways you used to enjoy it there for you -- there's still a Saturday game of the week and box scores in the newspaper and Triple Crown stats on baseball cards and on scoreboards at the ballpark. None of those things have gone away. But now, if you want them, you also have a whole lot more. What's so bad about that?

The fundamentals of the game haven't changed -- but our way of looking at it has improved immeasurably. It will continue to improve, as long as some people out there aren't content with R-H-E and wish to see what else is out there.

But you can still enjoy the game however you like, just like you did when you were 6 years old. That's the beauty of it.

 

And as usual, TP resorts to personal attacks to show off his intelligence.

TP, dismissing something without fully understanding it is ignorance at its finest, whether it be baseball stats, new forms of energy or ways to make this business better. It's why newspapers are struggling.
And if you can show me where I embraced stupidity, I'll fess up to a low IQ.

EDIT: Buck, great post ...

 

um, you might want to quote the correct post