Murray Chass on those newfangled numbers

Ridiculous column from Chass. But it represents the views of many baseball writers -- not to mention a (thankfully shrinking) number of baseball people.

 

Amen to what dooley said!

VORP is useless bullshit.

 

The "but the owners and GMs use numbers!" argument is meaningless. Those people are ultimately out to make as much money as possible, which is another number. When the value of their product can be quantified, it makes that process easier to understand. But it has nothing to do with the game itself. There are certainly important numbers in baseball, and while most of them are the 5X5 that we've grown to love, there are some newer statistics that help to understand the value of a player. However, If I want to understand the game of baseball better, I'm absolutely asking a beat writer, a Chass-type, someone who watches the game every day and understands the inner workings of players and managers. I'm not asking a stat freak who's going to spit 14 different numbers at me. Baseball is not a game, like basketball or football, that can be broken down into a series of numbers. There's so much more to it than that.

Oh, and I really don't understand VORP at all.

 

Well, first of all baseball, more than any other game, actually CAN be broken down into a series of numbers. That's because of the structure of the game. It's not as fluid as, say, basketball or football and hockey. There are a series of very measurable events and results.

The reason that saber people - along with front-office people - are digging inside the numbers is to get any inside edge they can on how the game functions. Sure, things like hangovers and the common cold can affect the day-to-day value of a player. But that's a very circular argument here - the same could be said about batting average, home runs, doubles, walks, strikeouts, etc., etc., etc. What these stats are intended to do is gauge not a single game on a single day, but the odds of player performance over 162 games, the longest season in sports and therefore the most predictable because it yields the most data.

But back to my original point - it is inexcusable for Chass, a Hall of Fame baseball writer for the nation's paper of record, to dismiss something front offices (and Sports Illustrated, by the way) are using simply because he thinks it sounds funny.

Is he employed to cover the game or protect it from perceived threats? That's the problem with long-time beat writers in any sport - they get too close to the game.

 

You're right, baseball can be broken down into a series of numbers. I misspoke. What I meant to say is that using complicated statistics doesn't actually explain much of anything to the outside observer. Why did Jeter get a double against the pitcher he's had little past success against? Not because of some ridiculous calculation, but because the idiot threw a waist-high fastball and Jeter was feeling pretty good that day. That's what baseball is all about. A matchup between two human beings, who over the course of the history of time have shown to be anything BUT calculable. I have no problem with you, Knute, or your Neyer-reading ilk enjoying the game via averages and ratios and whatnot. But your general attitude that anyone who doesn't bow at the altar of numbers is clearly an idiot, ignorant, or just a fuddy-duddy is just as pompous and wrong as you say Chass' opinion is.

 

Teams do not look at an average value of all stats when deciding if they want a player. They value specific things (like power or defense), and take a player based on that, as long as the team doesn't mind a dropoff in another area. And let's face it: On almost all teams, 6-7 of the lineup spots are set in stone. Other spots on the roster depend on filling roles, not picking players with a good average of values. So whether VORP is a solid calculation or not matters little; it's not one that is truly impactful in the real world.

And again, the thought that sabermetrics values Scott Hatteberg makes me take some of that stuff with a grain of salt.

 

Every team's "needs" are the same: To score runs and to prevent runs. A huge slugger who is a defensive liability at third base could well have the same value in scoring and preventing runs as a guy who hits less and fields more. Just because the team prefers a slugger doesn't mean he is contributing more runs.

 

Wow, none of that made any sense.

 

You've got me all wrong.

I'm somewhere in the middle.

But I think, from a journalist's point of view, Chass comes off like a cranky old man here. It's a bad column. That was my point.

 

I'm not getting into the "Why Sabermetrics Sucks" discussion with spnited for the 8,421st time, so ...

What bugs me here is Chass' attitude: I am proudly ignorant, and I am determined to remain ignorant.

He is not the only sports writer who has written a sports-related column with this attitude. Hockey and soccer get treated this way all the fucking time.

I'm sorry. If your job is to know about sports, and write about sports ... and instead, you write how proud you are that you don't know -- and worse, don't care -- about a particular sport or sports-related issue, then YOU ARE NOT DOING YOUR JOB.

You can write about anything in the world. So write about something you know, then. Don't waste my time telling me how you are so proud that you don't know. When did ignorance become such a fucking virtue?

 

If I had you wrong, I had you wrong, and I apologize. Maybe Murray did come off a little cranky, but I think calling his column (and opinion) "embarrassing" is a bit of a stretch. Not buying into some of the uber-nerdy stats like VORP doesn't seem like something a sportswriter should be ashamed of.

 

Explain to me how the NFL QB ratings are calculated.

Explain to me why RAC has a meaning in football.

Things like this are accepted in football all the time. How often do you watch a football game without seeing a chart which shows the QB's accuracy at throwing to different parts of the field, long, medium and short? That's the same type of stuff that Chass is railing against by cracking on VORP.

Of course, his column demonstrates the threat he feels by publications such as Baseball Prospectus, which have shown they can do the job and be profitable without the "ins" that Chass supposedly has.