Should newspapers employ a statistical analysis person?

[LongTimeListener]

No, I think reason #1 is cheap ownership, and I think reason #2 is that Billy is (or was) so dogmatic about walks and not stealing bases that he ran guys like Carlos Gonzalez and Andre Ethier out of the organization. That would be a pretty nice outfield.

I do think it would fit somewhere in the top 10, though.

In 2007, Shannon Stewart was coming off consecutive seasons below .725 OPS -- hardly a Moneyball type of player, but someone who was once considered a good defensive outfielder. They didn't pay him a lot, so that was the primary reason he fit into their strategy, but I think he also is someone where they tried to buy on the cheap for defense. And since then they have continued to invest in players who are no great shakes offensively -- Cliff Pennington to name one -- and who wouldn't have been in their plans eight or nine years ago.

When was Stewart ever considered a good outfielder? He may have had the worst arm I ever seen.

If you're a Canuckistani you'd know better, but I thought the thought on him early was always that he played left field but had the speed and instincts of a center fielder. (And those guys usually don't have very good arms.)

 

[JC]

No, I think reason #1 is cheap ownership, and I think reason #2 is that Billy is (or was) so dogmatic about walks and not stealing bases that he ran guys like Carlos Gonzalez and Andre Ethier out of the organization. That would be a pretty nice outfield.

I do think it would fit somewhere in the top 10, though.

In 2007, Shannon Stewart was coming off consecutive seasons below .725 OPS -- hardly a Moneyball type of player, but someone who was once considered a good defensive outfielder. They didn't pay him a lot, so that was the primary reason he fit into their strategy, but I think he also is someone where they tried to buy on the cheap for defense. And since then they have continued to invest in players who are no great shakes offensively -- Cliff Pennington to name one -- and who wouldn't have been in their plans eight or nine years ago.

When was Stewart ever considered a good outfielder? He may have had the worst arm I ever seen.

If you're a Canuckistani you'd know better, but I thought the thought on him early was always that he played left field but had the speed and instincts of a center fielder. (And those guys usually don't have very good arms.)

That's fair, I just can't get the vision of him 8 hopping the ball back to the infield out of my head.

 

[lcjjdnh]

The contortions of those who want sabermetrics to explain everything are far more entertaining than anything emanating from the Murray Chasses of the world who think they explain nothing. I particularly love how Billy Beane and the A's can't be used as evidence of sabermetrics' shortcomings, while Theo Epstein -- who has always had $150 million at his disposal -- can be used as evidence that it's the only good way to run a franchise.

Feel free to use the A's as evidence of sabermetrics' shortcomings. But please do so by making a well-reasoned argument. If all you're arguing is that the A's performance--measured in absolute terms--demonstrates the uselessness of defensive sabermetrics, there is a huge logical gap, as I pointed out. If not and you have a more detailed argument, I'd love to hear it.

They started to use defensive stats to find "undervalued" players and they turned into a 75-win team. Is that not evidence that it didn't work?

Did you even read my response? Do you understand correlation =/=causation?

By your "logic" the following is true: Jim has $15,000 buys a Kia Sorento. Pat has $350,000 and buys a Lamborghini. Jim knows a ton about racing and drives in a way that he feels best optimizes the strengths of his vehicle. Pat knows nothing about racing and, in Jim's mind, drives in a way that does not optimize the strength his vehicle. Pat beat Jim in a race. Therefore, Jim is a bad driver.

Again, I am amused by your contortions. My point on this page was that defensive sabermetrics are not "better" simply because someone came up with a fancy name for them. And yes, Billy Beane has tried to play the defensive sabermetric game, and his team is not doing well, while other teams with similar payrolls have been very competitive in recent years.

Rick's point, that there isn't enough value in defense to make investing in it worthwhile, is a good one. But BB Bobcat noted that the stats themselves are of highly questionable value.

There is as much dogma from the statheads that any "advanced metric" is good as there is from the supposed dinosaurs that any "advanced metric" is useless.

What contortions am I making? I have no idea whether defensive sabermetrics are good or bad, and haven't argued such. All I said was that your "proof" that the A's did not replicate past success by focusing on defense did not prove the argument you were making. I'm on the side good logic and reasoning, not defensive sabermatrics.

 

[buckweaver]

Yup. heck, there's no need to even talk about the stats themselves, if you think acronyms will lose readers.

No need to mention FIP. Just emphasize how a pitcher has a great ERA, but he's walking a lot of guys, which often spells trouble down the road.

No need to mention wOBA or WAR. All you have to do is talk about whether or not a batting average is empty, and it goes a long way towards those ends.

The valuable and generally accepted advanced stats are built off numbers everybody knows -- they just emphasize which elements play a bigger role in scoring or preventing runs.

Understanding what is weighted more heavily with those stats is all that's necessary. Throw in a couple other concepts -- run expectancy, to understand the break-even rate for stealing bases and the value (or lackthereof) of sacrifice bunts, and BABIP for streaks and slumps -- and you're most of the way there.

This amounts to a couple hours of reading. No journalist should pout over doing a couple hours of reading about the field they're covering. None of these things have to change the way anybody writes, but the quick analysis that's already being done (He's the team's best hitter! He's been a victim of bad luck!) will come from a much stronger base.

This is the best response to the original question I've read so far. Well done.

And among writers, Bill James is a master at breaking down stats and ideas like this in a reasonable, readable way.

 

[Versatile]

Yup. heck, there's no need to even talk about the stats themselves, if you think acronyms will lose readers.

No need to mention FIP. Just emphasize how a pitcher has a great ERA, but he's walking a lot of guys, which often spells trouble down the road.

No need to mention wOBA or WAR. All you have to do is talk about whether or not a batting average is empty, and it goes a long way towards those ends.

The valuable and generally accepted advanced stats are built off numbers everybody knows -- they just emphasize which elements play a bigger role in scoring or preventing runs.

Understanding what is weighted more heavily with those stats is all that's necessary. Throw in a couple other concepts -- run expectancy, to understand the break-even rate for stealing bases and the value (or lackthereof) of sacrifice bunts, and BABIP for streaks and slumps -- and you're most of the way there.

This amounts to a couple hours of reading. No journalist should pout over doing a couple hours of reading about the field they're covering. None of these things have to change the way anybody writes, but the quick analysis that's already being done (He's the team's best hitter! He's been a victim of bad luck!) will come from a much stronger base.

This is the best response to the original question I've read so far. Well done.

And among writers, Bill James is a master at breaking down stats and ideas like this in a reasonable, readable way.

I made my point poorly because, in part, I was particularly irascible yesterday. But VLM makes the point beautifully. Rob Neyer is also particularly good at breaking down concepts in digestable ways for baseball fans to understand.

Steve Campbell of the Houston Chronicle, Adam Kilgore of The Washington Post and Sam Mellinger of The Kansas City Star are guys who execute this well for newspapers. There are others, too. But there remain writers who spit on sabermetrics and others who just haven't given them the time of day.