Stat-friendly and stat-unfriendly baseball writers

As with anything in life, you cannot be to one extreme (BA, RBI, wins only) or to one extreme only (ERA+, WAR, whatever crap they will come up with next). The middle ground is where the correct answer sits.

I like a mix of it, but I also think what Radd's dad is seeing is very important. I also think using numbers helps you to find actual physical reasons why something is happening.

 

Honest question, also from a journalistic standpoint:

Baseball front offices use this stuff, too. Heavily. It sometimes can explain why deals are and aren't made.

So is this perhaps an "everything in moderation" thing?

 

Absolutely. I'll have a beer with you at a ballgame any day. And I won't mention WAR once. Not once!

I also agree with this. If you work for any newspaper, or ESPN, or Yahoo, or CBS, etc., you're not going to get far with readers using acronyms in your copy. Explain the concepts instead. It's really not hard for most stats — for instance, that ERA+ article Moddy mentioned. Rather than writing, "Pedro Martinez's ERA+ was an all-time best 291 in 2000," just say "Pedro Martinez's 1.74 ERA in 2000 was 191% better than the American League's average, the highest in baseball history." Sure, it's slightly less concise, but in the first sentence only half the readers understand your point and in the second, everyone does. And not to mention, you're also turning people on to the idea of ERA+ without telling them. Win-win.

That said, if you work for FanGraphs or BP or Hardball Times or Beyond the Box Score ... go to town. Different audiences, different expectations.

 

Mostly, tart.

I won't have people believe what you wrote in the second graf.

What I said is that I wonder if the true seamhead can ever turn off the SABR -- to enjoy the movie for the movie, as you put it -- or is the calculating baseball brain always calculating baseball?

 

well, tart *did* have a post there a few minutes ago ...

 

That line tripped me up as well. Xan, you make more arguments with your gut, and against statistics, than just about anyone I can think of. I don't mean that in a disparaging way at all, but more as a plain fact. You love arguing your gut thoughts, which often go against what statistical analysis says.

 

Sorry. I decided it's a subject I'm not competent enough in to make pronouncements.

I obviously don't understand sj ground rules. ;D

 

What you wrote, dre, has nothing to do with what I posted about wondering about SABR freaks.

Here's what waterytart wrote before deleting it:

So no, I won't have people believe what she wrote in the second graf.

What I said is that I wonder if the true seamhead can ever turn off the SABR -- to enjoy the movie for the movie, as tart put it -- or is the calculating baseball brain always calculating baseball?

That has zero to do with your assertion I argue my gut (which is pretty large these days) over statistics.

I rarely do that. In the Other Outstanding Place I did indeed post with great conviction that I thought this felt like 2000 again and had a feeling Romney might win. But I was wrong because I did not think Obama's ground army was as devastating as it was. But that's neither here nor there. Let's not use one example as me being someone who gut-argues more than anyone you know.

If a stat says something, I go with the stat 98 percent of the time.

 

There are other examples as well, Xan. There are many of them. One I can remember is you argued for some journeyman big man as being better than Bosh and it was completely because of your gut. I can't even remember the guy's name, but you argued quite vigorously for it. If I cared to think on it, more, I could think of others (Roy Halladay way back when comes to mind). I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing, but it's definitely the case.

 

I remember the Bosh thing but I don't remember the player I argued. I'd like to know who it was so I can say that I'd still take that player or say I was wrong on him.

I never argued that Halladay wouldn't dominate the NL but I thought it would take at least one season to get his bearings. There were reports like this http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/fantasy/article/the-statistical-impact-of-switching-leagues-for-pitchers/ but my big thing was that he'd have to hit on a regular basis and that it could have an effect on his pitching. I was wrong, obviously.

The other thing is gut and opinion aren't the same. I didn't have a gut feeling Halladay would struggle his first year in the NL. As I said, there were factors I based my opinion on.

But I've been right about everything else I've ever said, except for when I've been wrong.

 

Songbird, I enjoy your posts. But they come from the gut, always. You said this was the worst Southern Cal team in 30 years. You said Florida would make the title game.

I'm sure I could find other examples if I looked.