Murray Chass is back

[Elliotte Friedman]

Mike/Johnny,

No risk of overstaying your welcome. Nothing wrong with contributing to the debate.

cranberry,

You'll be waiting for awhile.

 

[Boom_70]

Mike/Johnny,

No risk of overstaying your welcome. Nothing wrong with contributing to the debate.

cranberry,

You'll be waiting for awhile.

Thanks Elliot as usuaul you add nothing to discussion. Why not stay in form and lock up the thread and ruin another good one.

 

[Singapore Slim]

refusal to become informed on ubiquitious trends in the game today

What do you mean?

I think he meant to say ubiquitous

Yes, I did. Mea culpa on the typo. And yeah, cranberry, it's just his whole attitude toward modern statistical analysis. If stats like VORP and EqA don't interest you, I completely respect that. But he admits that he doesn't know what it means and won't be bothered to look it up, as if being uninformed is a badge of honor.
These aren't meaningless stats - there's a reason why the Red Sox hired Bill James. And yeah, the Sox have a gazillion dollars to spend - but so do the Mets, Yankees, Mariners, etc. Two WS titles in the past four years has to be attributed to something other than money. And other front offices are catching on.
But Murray still wants to perpretate the notion that these "stat-mongers," as he calls them, are ruining the enjoyment of the game. If he doesn't want to get bogged down in numbers, don't write about them. Denigrating those who look at what are proven to be useful tools just makes him seem like a bitter asshole.

I wasn't pointing out your typo, I didn't understand what trends you were talking about that he's missed.

I don't think it's fair to say he's missed any trends. I mean, I was buying and reading Bill James' stuff more than 20 years ago and SABR has been around since the early 1970s. I think Chass made a conscious decision about who his audience is. As James did his -- James wrote a book called "This Time Let's Not Eat The Bones/Bill James Without Numbers," but his primary audience is all about numbers and he knows that, or he wouldn't have resumed primarily writing about numbers. And when he did, that's when I stopped reading. I couldn't tell you if he's written one book or a hundred books since 1990. And I do not care.

I read James in the 1980s because it was vogue at the time, and while I acknowledge that it interests some people, I don't find it interesting, nor do I think that it's a smart use of newspaper resources to fixate on it. There are plenty of people who are willing to crunch numbers (for free), but not a lot of people who have the sources to do the kind of reporting that Chass did. I don't think he "missed" any trends. I think he made a smart choice about what he'd focus on and for whom.

It may have been a smart choice, nobody's quibbling with that. Different columnists have different roles, and if he feels he isn't comfortable with that territory, then it is fine if he doesn't work toward it.

But to put together an entire column bashing it, for no reason? To create a website with a description that goes out of its way to slam that entire community, for no reason?

There are hundreds of baseball scribes out there who have no idea what these stats mean, what they're used for, and why people want to learn more. These incurious sorts stay in their little tent, though, and don't make much noise.

Chass, proudly incurious and ignorant, revels in his lack of education about a subject that shouldn't take a whole lot of time to learn about. He brought this on himself. He filed that column. He started that website, and put together that "About" page. Nobody put a gun to his head.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

refusal to become informed on ubiquitious trends in the game today

What do you mean?

I think he meant to say ubiquitous

Yes, I did. Mea culpa on the typo. And yeah, cranberry, it's just his whole attitude toward modern statistical analysis. If stats like VORP and EqA don't interest you, I completely respect that. But he admits that he doesn't know what it means and won't be bothered to look it up, as if being uninformed is a badge of honor.
These aren't meaningless stats - there's a reason why the Red Sox hired Bill James. And yeah, the Sox have a gazillion dollars to spend - but so do the Mets, Yankees, Mariners, etc. Two WS titles in the past four years has to be attributed to something other than money. And other front offices are catching on.
But Murray still wants to perpretate the notion that these "stat-mongers," as he calls them, are ruining the enjoyment of the game. If he doesn't want to get bogged down in numbers, don't write about them. Denigrating those who look at what are proven to be useful tools just makes him seem like a bitter asshole.

I wasn't pointing out your typo, I didn't understand what trends you were talking about that he's missed.

I don't think it's fair to say he's missed any trends. I mean, I was buying and reading Bill James' stuff more than 20 years ago and SABR has been around since the early 1970s. I think Chass made a conscious decision about who his audience is. As James did his -- James wrote a book called "This Time Let's Not Eat The Bones/Bill James Without Numbers," but his primary audience is all about numbers and he knows that, or he wouldn't have resumed primarily writing about numbers. And when he did, that's when I stopped reading. I couldn't tell you if he's written one book or a hundred books since 1990. And I do not care.

I read James in the 1980s because it was vogue at the time, and while I acknowledge that it interests some people, I don't find it interesting, nor do I think that it's a smart use of newspaper resources to fixate on it. There are plenty of people who are willing to crunch numbers (for free), but not a lot of people who have the sources to do the kind of reporting that Chass did. I don't think he "missed" any trends. I think he made a smart choice about what he'd focus on and for whom.

It may have been a smart choice, nobody's quibbling with that. Different columnists have different roles, and if he feels he isn't comfortable with that territory, then it is fine if he doesn't work toward it.

But to put together an entire column bashing it, for no reason? To create a website with a description that goes out of its way to slam that entire community, for no reason?

There are hundreds of baseball scribes out there who have no idea what these stats mean, what they're used for, and why people want to learn more. These incurious sorts stay in their little tent, though, and don't make much noise.

Chass, proudly incurious and ignorant, revels in his lack of education about a subject that shouldn't take a whole lot of time to learn about. He brought this on himself. He filed that column. He started that website, and put together that "About" page. Nobody put a gun to his head.

Look, if the stat freaks kept within their "community" (oh for crissakes), you'd have a point. But they infringe on other people's enjoyment with their incessant yammering about their stats. They have some haughty notion that they enjoy the game on a higher level than the rest of us. They ought to change the rules at the stadium: Along with being kicked out if you throw anything on the field, you ought to be ejected for spoiling other fans' nights out by yapping endlessly about obscure stats or your fantasty team in public. I paid to see a baseball game, not a math class.

 

[Van Lingle Mungo]

On the subject of his Spink Award, I remember reading this a while ago:

Without getting into the whole Chass vs. SABR debate, I think there's some cosmic justice here. This is the same Murray Chass who tried to prevent his colleague at the Times, Joseph Durso, from receiving the Hall of Fame's Spink Award several years back. When it appeared that Durso would receive the award, Durso (my note: I assume he means Chass) and at least two other writers led a campaign to try to make sure that Durso did not win the award. It struck me as one of the most mean-spirited things that someone could ever do, especially to someone representing the same newspaper.

Durso ended up winning the award, as did Chass several years ago. Well, I guess they got one of the selections right.

Anybody know anything more about this?

 

[cranberry]

I think it's a fitting tribute that Frank is getting cranky in honor of Murray!

 

[Boom_70]

OK, Cranberry, so let's make it nice and simple: What if Reggie had said, "These new batch of Yankees, they may think they're good, but they have no idea what it is to be a real Yankee."

Is that better?

And is that any better?

That would be about equivalent. And while I'd agree that Murray picked the wrong forum to express those thoughts about the industry, I also happen to agree with those thoughts.

Stat guys, I would never read nor care about Bill James' or Rob Neyer's insight on baseball business, either, but that doesn't mean their statistical analysis isn't terrific stuff.

And Boom, I'm still waiting for the examples of when Murray wasn't fair and objective in labor matters.

Here is one example of many Cranberry where Murray is in the tank for the players union - A column during '94 baseball strike which Murray cites report from Stamford economist Roger Noll.

What Murray fails to tell readers was that report was commisioned by the players union.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E4DE1038F935A3575AC0A962958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

 

[buckweaver]

Look, if the stat freaks kept within their "community" (oh for crissakes), you'd have a point. But they infringe on other people's enjoyment with their incessant yammering about their stats. They have some haughty notion that they enjoy the game on a higher level than the rest of us. They ought to change the rules at the stadium: Along with being kicked out if you throw anything on the field, you ought to be ejected for spoiling other fans' nights out by yapping endlessly about obscure stats or your fantasty team in public. I paid to see a baseball game, not a math class.

God, I hope my blue font is broken.

 

[Boom_70]

refusal to become informed on ubiquitious trends in the game today

What do you mean?

I think he meant to say ubiquitous

Yes, I did. Mea culpa on the typo. And yeah, cranberry, it's just his whole attitude toward modern statistical analysis. If stats like VORP and EqA don't interest you, I completely respect that. But he admits that he doesn't know what it means and won't be bothered to look it up, as if being uninformed is a badge of honor.
These aren't meaningless stats - there's a reason why the Red Sox hired Bill James. And yeah, the Sox have a gazillion dollars to spend - but so do the Mets, Yankees, Mariners, etc. Two WS titles in the past four years has to be attributed to something other than money. And other front offices are catching on.
But Murray still wants to perpretate the notion that these "stat-mongers," as he calls them, are ruining the enjoyment of the game. If he doesn't want to get bogged down in numbers, don't write about them. Denigrating those who look at what are proven to be useful tools just makes him seem like a bitter asshole.

I wasn't pointing out your typo, I didn't understand what trends you were talking about that he's missed.

I don't think it's fair to say he's missed any trends. I mean, I was buying and reading Bill James' stuff more than 20 years ago and SABR has been around since the early 1970s. I think Chass made a conscious decision about who his audience is. As James did his -- James wrote a book called "This Time Let's Not Eat The Bones/Bill James Without Numbers," but his primary audience is all about numbers and he knows that, or he wouldn't have resumed primarily writing about numbers. And when he did, that's when I stopped reading. I couldn't tell you if he's written one book or a hundred books since 1990. And I do not care.

I read James in the 1980s because it was vogue at the time, and while I acknowledge that it interests some people, I don't find it interesting, nor do I think that it's a smart use of newspaper resources to fixate on it. There are plenty of people who are willing to crunch numbers (for free), but not a lot of people who have the sources to do the kind of reporting that Chass did. I don't think he "missed" any trends. I think he made a smart choice about what he'd focus on and for whom.

It may have been a smart choice, nobody's quibbling with that. Different columnists have different roles, and if he feels he isn't comfortable with that territory, then it is fine if he doesn't work toward it.

But to put together an entire column bashing it, for no reason? To create a website with a description that goes out of its way to slam that entire community, for no reason?

There are hundreds of baseball scribes out there who have no idea what these stats mean, what they're used for, and why people want to learn more. These incurious sorts stay in their little tent, though, and don't make much noise.

Chass, proudly incurious and ignorant, revels in his lack of education about a subject that shouldn't take a whole lot of time to learn about. He brought this on himself. He filed that column. He started that website, and put together that "About" page. Nobody put a gun to his head.

Look, if the stat freaks kept within their "community" (oh for crissakes), you'd have a point. But they infringe on other people's enjoyment with their incessant yammering about their stats. They have some haughty notion that they enjoy the game on a higher level than the rest of us. They ought to change the rules at the stadium: Along with being kicked out if you throw anything on the field, you ought to be ejected for spoiling other fans' nights out by yapping endlessly about obscure stats or your fantasty team in public. I paid to see a baseball game, not a math class.

Frank your discription of statheads seems to match your haughty discription of the typical Times reader. I am surprised that you are not more of an advocate for new age stats.

 

[Singapore Slim]

refusal to become informed on ubiquitious trends in the game today

What do you mean?

I think he meant to say ubiquitous

Yes, I did. Mea culpa on the typo. And yeah, cranberry, it's just his whole attitude toward modern statistical analysis. If stats like VORP and EqA don't interest you, I completely respect that. But he admits that he doesn't know what it means and won't be bothered to look it up, as if being uninformed is a badge of honor.
These aren't meaningless stats - there's a reason why the Red Sox hired Bill James. And yeah, the Sox have a gazillion dollars to spend - but so do the Mets, Yankees, Mariners, etc. Two WS titles in the past four years has to be attributed to something other than money. And other front offices are catching on.
But Murray still wants to perpretate the notion that these "stat-mongers," as he calls them, are ruining the enjoyment of the game. If he doesn't want to get bogged down in numbers, don't write about them. Denigrating those who look at what are proven to be useful tools just makes him seem like a bitter asshole.

I wasn't pointing out your typo, I didn't understand what trends you were talking about that he's missed.

I don't think it's fair to say he's missed any trends. I mean, I was buying and reading Bill James' stuff more than 20 years ago and SABR has been around since the early 1970s. I think Chass made a conscious decision about who his audience is. As James did his -- James wrote a book called "This Time Let's Not Eat The Bones/Bill James Without Numbers," but his primary audience is all about numbers and he knows that, or he wouldn't have resumed primarily writing about numbers. And when he did, that's when I stopped reading. I couldn't tell you if he's written one book or a hundred books since 1990. And I do not care.

I read James in the 1980s because it was vogue at the time, and while I acknowledge that it interests some people, I don't find it interesting, nor do I think that it's a smart use of newspaper resources to fixate on it. There are plenty of people who are willing to crunch numbers (for free), but not a lot of people who have the sources to do the kind of reporting that Chass did. I don't think he "missed" any trends. I think he made a smart choice about what he'd focus on and for whom.

It may have been a smart choice, nobody's quibbling with that. Different columnists have different roles, and if he feels he isn't comfortable with that territory, then it is fine if he doesn't work toward it.

But to put together an entire column bashing it, for no reason? To create a website with a description that goes out of its way to slam that entire community, for no reason?

There are hundreds of baseball scribes out there who have no idea what these stats mean, what they're used for, and why people want to learn more. These incurious sorts stay in their little tent, though, and don't make much noise.

Chass, proudly incurious and ignorant, revels in his lack of education about a subject that shouldn't take a whole lot of time to learn about. He brought this on himself. He filed that column. He started that website, and put together that "About" page. Nobody put a gun to his head.

Look, if the stat freaks kept within their "community" (oh for crissakes), you'd have a point. But they infringe on other people's enjoyment with their incessant yammering about their stats. They have some haughty notion that they enjoy the game on a higher level than the rest of us. They ought to change the rules at the stadium: Along with being kicked out if you throw anything on the field, you ought to be ejected for spoiling other fans' nights out by yapping endlessly about obscure stats or your fantasty team in public. I paid to see a baseball game, not a math class.

Are you serious, or was that a joke?

I can't recall overhearing a single stat beyond the odd, "what's he hitting? .270?" in decades of going to baseball games.

And thousands of keen baseball fans have disabused themselves of reading Chass because, as Boom noted, he hasn't offered them anything new recently. The only time this guy has even crossed their minds is because he went out of his way to yap endlessly about THEM.

 

[PopeDirkBenedict]

refusal to become informed on ubiquitious trends in the game today

What do you mean?

I think he meant to say ubiquitous

Yes, I did. Mea culpa on the typo. And yeah, cranberry, it's just his whole attitude toward modern statistical analysis. If stats like VORP and EqA don't interest you, I completely respect that. But he admits that he doesn't know what it means and won't be bothered to look it up, as if being uninformed is a badge of honor.
These aren't meaningless stats - there's a reason why the Red Sox hired Bill James. And yeah, the Sox have a gazillion dollars to spend - but so do the Mets, Yankees, Mariners, etc. Two WS titles in the past four years has to be attributed to something other than money. And other front offices are catching on.
But Murray still wants to perpretate the notion that these "stat-mongers," as he calls them, are ruining the enjoyment of the game. If he doesn't want to get bogged down in numbers, don't write about them. Denigrating those who look at what are proven to be useful tools just makes him seem like a bitter asshole.

I wasn't pointing out your typo, I didn't understand what trends you were talking about that he's missed.

I don't think it's fair to say he's missed any trends. I mean, I was buying and reading Bill James' stuff more than 20 years ago and SABR has been around since the early 1970s. I think Chass made a conscious decision about who his audience is. As James did his -- James wrote a book called "This Time Let's Not Eat The Bones/Bill James Without Numbers," but his primary audience is all about numbers and he knows that, or he wouldn't have resumed primarily writing about numbers. And when he did, that's when I stopped reading. I couldn't tell you if he's written one book or a hundred books since 1990. And I do not care.

I read James in the 1980s because it was vogue at the time, and while I acknowledge that it interests some people, I don't find it interesting, nor do I think that it's a smart use of newspaper resources to fixate on it. There are plenty of people who are willing to crunch numbers (for free), but not a lot of people who have the sources to do the kind of reporting that Chass did. I don't think he "missed" any trends. I think he made a smart choice about what he'd focus on and for whom.

It may have been a smart choice, nobody's quibbling with that. Different columnists have different roles, and if he feels he isn't comfortable with that territory, then it is fine if he doesn't work toward it.

But to put together an entire column bashing it, for no reason? To create a website with a description that goes out of its way to slam that entire community, for no reason?

There are hundreds of baseball scribes out there who have no idea what these stats mean, what they're used for, and why people want to learn more. These incurious sorts stay in their little tent, though, and don't make much noise.

Chass, proudly incurious and ignorant, revels in his lack of education about a subject that shouldn't take a whole lot of time to learn about. He brought this on himself. He filed that column. He started that website, and put together that "About" page. Nobody put a gun to his head.

Look, if the stat freaks kept within their "community" (oh for crissakes), you'd have a point. But they infringe on other people's enjoyment with their incessant yammering about their stats. They have some haughty notion that they enjoy the game on a higher level than the rest of us. They ought to change the rules at the stadium: Along with being kicked out if you throw anything on the field, you ought to be ejected for spoiling other fans' nights out by yapping endlessly about obscure stats or your fantasty team in public. I paid to see a baseball game, not a math class.

Frank,

If you don't like stats, that's fine. There is no law of journalism that mandates that you have to like newfangled stats or that you have to write about them or cite them as authority to back up any points you made. But if you are going to write about a sport and highly successful franchises are using sophisticated statistics to make decisions about their lineup and their roster, willful ignorance is negligence for the sake of negligence.

 

[shockey]

you know i love ya, vac, but this geezer had no problem with anything murray said during his induction speech. it was his time and he earned the right to say what he did about the turn the industry had taken during his later years as a seamhead reporter at the times. he didn't name names, just noted a trend.

you're still da best, though, my brother. the best read in n.y., bar none.