Murray Chass on those newfangled numbers

Because Hatteberg is a slow stiff, middling hitter with neglible defensive skills who walks sometimes. Would rather have an outfielder who can field and hit for power like Matthews Jr. any day. So yes, it gives me pause. It give me more pause that people think everything can be broken down into pure mathematics in a world of marathon traveling, 24-hour-a-day interactions, changes in weather, injuries, etc., etc. Think about it: The bosses are the ones who know who to deal with people. The underlings are the ones who know how to run the spreadsheets.

 

Dooley,
the exact comparison of Hatteberg and Matthews is pretty moot since they are both middling players of little consequence anyway but Hatteberg has outhit Matthews .271-.263 in his career and Matthews has a grand total of 78 homers in 2,785 at-bats (compared to Hatteberg's 96 in 3,813 at-bats).

The rest of your post is nonsensical. The sports world is maybe the closest thing to a meritocracy as there is in our society, and is just about the most results-oriented field you can find. What does the interaction of bosses have to do with figuring out who's better at playing baseball?

 

Also, as you alluded to in your dismissal of QB rating (which I am no fan of), I think the problem you and Chass have with statistical analysis is that it takes away the romance of the old barroom banter. I'm sure it was wonderful back in the day to argue that Ty Cobb was better than Babe Ruth or that Phil Rizzuto was obviously better than goshdarn Vern Stephens. The fact that both statements are patently false kinda takes the fun out of it. The Internet is the new barroom for arguments about sports and the new discourse. while probably a lot less civil, is much better informed.

As Buck said, it is pretty irresponsible to be proudly ignorant when this is an obvious and important trend in sports. And it doesn't do any credit to our industry when someone of Chass' stature does this.

The No. 1 selling baseball book (behind only "Pistol Pete" among all sports books) on Amazon.com is the Baseball Prospectus 2007 Handbook. The articles are terribly written and unimaginative. But it gives sports fans something they want that they have a tough time getting anywhere elsewhere. The No. 4 baseball book is "Moneyball." The BP book is 219th among all books; Moneyball is 1,429.
By comparison, "The Best American Sportswriting 2006" is 65,722.

It used to be that few fans got to actually watch games, and the sportswriter was the most knowledgeable observer of the game. Now we're moving in the opposite direction. As the sports fan gets increasingly saber-aware and more educated about the inner-workings of the game, opinions like Chass' will be just another reason for them to ignore the print media.

From SI.com:

 

The biggest problem with quarterback rating to me is that it doesn't account for (in essence, it rewards) an action (taking a sack) that is much more destructive than another action that the rating takes away for (incomplete pass).

 

No, you'll learn what was happening in MLB in 1956.

 

Hell, I could make a good argument that you'd learn more about baseball in 1956 from Rob Neyer than from Murray Chass, too.

 

Doesn't a player's VORP vary depending on who the replacement is?
For instance, does Alex Rodriguez have one fixed VORP number or would his VORP change depending on whether the Yankees brought up JT Stotts to replace him or if they traded for Mike Lowell to replace him?

 

My quarrel with the new statistics, not with their validity, but with their use in actual writing. stems from the following sources.
1. Much of the time, they're just a more complicated way of saying something everyone already knows: David Ortiz=Good Hitter.
2. Even more of the time, and in fact why front offices use them, they are devices to attempt to quantify differences too small to be of general import. If there's one thing numbers nuts (who've been following baseball since before Ty Cobb) forget, it's the arithmetical principle that everything following a decimal point is an ever-smaller sum.
3. Most serious. Explaining the damn acronyms takes up huge chunks of vital space. Unless a piece is wholly on the subject of stats, I avoid 'em.

 

You can not learn anything about the actual game of baseball from Rob Neyer. You can only learn about the statistics of baseball -- some of which have no meaning -- from Rob Neyer.

 

Chass hasn't taught me a whole lot about the "actual game of baseball." In fact, I generally tune him out because of drivel like he wrote at the beginning of this thread. Anyone with a mind that closed, doesn't have a lot to offer someone who is truly passionate about the game.

 

Its a shame that the Times cannot offer a better national baseball columist. They should really give Jack Curry that job full time or try to lure Buster Olney back. Murray is still waiting for Curt Flood to come back.

 

Folks, you can criticize Mr. Chass all you want but keep one thing in mind. He has a job and must be doing it to the approval of editors or he wouldn't keep said job. So you're entitled to our opinions and, obviously, you don't have to read him. But then you'd have nothing to bitch about, would you?

As for the topic, all statistics are in the eye of the beholder. You make of them what you will. Murray decided this one wasn't worth the time to consider. End of story.