Dick Whitman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2009
- Messages
- 45,703
A story in the Chicago Tribune today serves as a rudimentary introduction to Theo Epstein's use of advanced statistical analysis in team-building, and to sabermetrics in general:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-1030-theo-epstein-cubs-chicago--20111029,0,2370401.story
I'm sure that those who inhabit sits like Hardball Times and Baseball Think Factory would find the article laughably simplified, as well as about two decades too late. That is no knock against the writer. In fact, it leads me into my question.
Baseball writers like Dave van Dyck are paid to cover the clubhouse and the front office, along with the action on the field. They aren't economists. They aren't data analysts. They should have some familiarity with advanced stats, but should no more be expected to be fluent in them than the guys at BTF should be expected to be working clubhouse sources.
For years, the argument has raged in here and other places about whether statistical analysis bloggers were making traditional access-drive reporters irrelevant. I think the answer is yes and no. I think access is still necessary to break stories, write features, etc., etc. On the other hand, I feel like there are often too many inches wasted on banal day-to-day feed-the-beast coverage, when there is some sharp insight and analysis being neglected - or, worse, conceded to independent Web sites.
It's funny. A few days ago, I was rummaging through some of my old h.s. journalism workshop handouts. One was on sports writing. In bold print, it said: "Use statistics very, very judiciously. Avoid them whenever possible. The focus should be on people and events, not statistics!" That was a drumbeat I heard throughout high school, college, and my years in the business. And I think it ended up biting us all in the ass, and continues to.
Particularly in big baseball markets like Chicago, is it time for papers to start devoting space to sabermetric-fluent writers as a complement to traditional reporting? Full-time staffer? Freelance basis? Advisory role to traditional reporters? In the alternative, should sports editors start demanding that their baseball guys acquaint themselves with this stuff and convey it to readers to a greater degree than they have?
What think you?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-1030-theo-epstein-cubs-chicago--20111029,0,2370401.story
I'm sure that those who inhabit sits like Hardball Times and Baseball Think Factory would find the article laughably simplified, as well as about two decades too late. That is no knock against the writer. In fact, it leads me into my question.
Baseball writers like Dave van Dyck are paid to cover the clubhouse and the front office, along with the action on the field. They aren't economists. They aren't data analysts. They should have some familiarity with advanced stats, but should no more be expected to be fluent in them than the guys at BTF should be expected to be working clubhouse sources.
For years, the argument has raged in here and other places about whether statistical analysis bloggers were making traditional access-drive reporters irrelevant. I think the answer is yes and no. I think access is still necessary to break stories, write features, etc., etc. On the other hand, I feel like there are often too many inches wasted on banal day-to-day feed-the-beast coverage, when there is some sharp insight and analysis being neglected - or, worse, conceded to independent Web sites.
It's funny. A few days ago, I was rummaging through some of my old h.s. journalism workshop handouts. One was on sports writing. In bold print, it said: "Use statistics very, very judiciously. Avoid them whenever possible. The focus should be on people and events, not statistics!" That was a drumbeat I heard throughout high school, college, and my years in the business. And I think it ended up biting us all in the ass, and continues to.
Particularly in big baseball markets like Chicago, is it time for papers to start devoting space to sabermetric-fluent writers as a complement to traditional reporting? Full-time staffer? Freelance basis? Advisory role to traditional reporters? In the alternative, should sports editors start demanding that their baseball guys acquaint themselves with this stuff and convey it to readers to a greater degree than they have?
What think you?