Chass: Intangibles good! Stats bad!

[Dick Whitman]

In his latest column at MurrayChass.com, the veteran baseball writer makes Pat Gillick his unwitting mouthpiece, while ignoring the portion of the quote from Gillick that I have bolded:

Responding to reporters’ questions about his practices as a general manager, Gillick rejected the statistical analysis approach to player evaluation that has become the popular thing to do among younger general managers.

“I think you have to watch the game,” the 73-year-old Gillick said. “The statistics tell you one thing and they don’t want anything happening emotionally on the field or anything on the field to really tinker with those statistics sometimes. So I think you have to use both. I think you have to see the player and you have to see him on the field – how he plays the game. Is he intense? Does he have passion? Get his body language. See how he interacts with the other players on the team.”

Gillick’s words were music to my ears.

He continues:

In his 2006 book “Built to Win,” Schuerholz was critical of the popular baseball book “Moneyball” and the evaluation methods it espouses. That makes him good in my book, and now Gillick has inscribed his name in it.

Here's the thing.

Gillick did not say one word that any self-respecting sabermetrics utilizer would disagree with.

Not one.

Chass should realize that he is the one making this a binary, black-and-white, either/or debate, not the other side.

 

[poindexter]

These ****ing bloggers....

 

[Boomer7]

Yes, Murray, because the sabermetric guys don't watch the games...

From Sunday's Boston Herald:

"It’s fair to say that Epstein has been on Gonzalez for a long time — all the way back to when Gonzalez was tearing it up for Eastlake High outside San Diego.

Epstein was an assistant with the Padres in 1999 when he took a number of trips to watch Gonzalez, accompanied by scout Jason McLeod.

'I probably saw him more than I saw any high school player that year,' Epstein said. 'He had a real sweet swing. He would wait for his pitch and just flick it to the opposite field and hit these home runs that went over the trees in left. I was real impressed. I was like, "Man, I can’t believe this skinny little kid. He’s got incredible opposite-field power."'"

 

[Starman]

Go ahead and build your roster from gritty, gutty, savvy, seasoned, heady hardworking 'gamers.'

There are plenty available on the waiver wires.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Chass wrote a polemic recently about how C.C. Sabathia should win the Cy Young Award instead of Felix Hernandez because of all his wins.

Why does Chass get to cherry pick when statistics are valid (Sabathia) and when they aren't (Hernandez's ERA, strikeouts, innings pitched, and other various "new-fangled" numbers)?

 

[mb]

Why does Chass get to cherry pick when statistics are valid (Sabathia) and when they aren't (Hernandez's ERA, strikeouts, innings pitched, and other various "new-fangled" numbers)?

Because he's Murray****ingChass. And staythe**** off his lawn.

 

[spnited]

Chass wrote a polemic recently about how C.C. Sabathia should win the Cy Young Award instead of Felix Hernandez because of all his wins.

Why does Chass get to cherry pick when statistics are valid (Sabathia) and when they aren't (Hernandez's ERA, strikeouts, innings pitched, and other various "new-fangled" numbers)?

Because it's his blog, his opinion and he can write whatever he wants. And you're completely free to (a). not read it or (b.) completely disagree with it.
Instead you choose to make it an issue.

I've known Murray for more than 30 years. I've always liked Murray and I've respected his reporting, especially on the business end of baseball. But I don't read his blog because I really don't care about his now bitter opinions.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Chass wrote a polemic recently about how C.C. Sabathia should win the Cy Young Award instead of Felix Hernandez because of all his wins.

Why does Chass get to cherry pick when statistics are valid (Sabathia) and when they aren't (Hernandez's ERA, strikeouts, innings pitched, and other various "new-fangled" numbers)?

Because it's his blog, his opinion and he can write whatever he wants. And you're completely free to (a). not read it or (b.) completely disagree with it.
Instead you choose to make it an issue.

Come on.

When you are a former New York Times national baseball writer and a Hall of Famer, and you start a blog in which you write columns about baseball, those columns are meant to ignite discussion. Even criticism.

I understand why we don't rip apart the work of small newspaper writers around these parts. But anything Chass or someone of his ilk writes is more than appropriate fodder.

 

[spnited]

Never said it wasn't. I just don't understand why someone continually reads and rips someone he obviously hates.

 

[Bob Cook]

Chass is changing the name of his blog to HireJoeMorgan.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Never said it wasn't. I just don't understand why someone continually reads and rips someone he obviously hates.

I don't hate him. I don't know him.

Should I only read columnists I agree with?

 

[spnited]

And now that I've gone and read the blog you're ripping, I see you are as wrong as you say Chass is because you conveniently ignore that he wrote this:

they have to be viewed not by sets of statistics and charts and graphs alone.

 

[Dick Whitman]

And now that I've gone and read the blog you're ripping, I see you are as wrong as you say Chass is because you conveniently ignore that he wrote this:

they have to be viewed not by sets of statistics and charts and graphs alone.

I guess my question is: Who is saying that they should be? Who?

And look how he totally brushes off Branch Rickey's statistical inclinations: Rickey was far ahead of his time in his use of statistics, but he could not have been categorized as a statistical analyst general manager.

And why not? Because the data wasn't available to him at the time?

Who are these GMs who don't use scouts?

It just seems like he is battling windmills at times.

 

[spnited]

Murray has been battling windmills for as long as I've known him.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Chass wrote a polemic recently about how C.C. Sabathia should win the Cy Young Award instead of Felix Hernandez because of all his wins.

Why does Chass get to cherry pick when statistics are valid (Sabathia) and when they aren't (Hernandez's ERA, strikeouts, innings pitched, and other various "new-fangled" numbers)?

Chass voted for someone else.

According to baseball-reference.com, Ubaldo Jimenez was the best pitcher in the National League; he had the highest WAR. Is baseball-reference.com therefore a cranky old has been that should stop embarrassing itself?

 

[dooley_womack1]

I'd love to see the ****storm of debate when it comes time to consider a 130-120 pitcher with really good stats for the Hall.

 

[spnited]

Chass wrote a polemic recently about how C.C. Sabathia should win the Cy Young Award instead of Felix Hernandez because of all his wins.

Why does Chass get to cherry pick when statistics are valid (Sabathia) and when they aren't (Hernandez's ERA, strikeouts, innings pitched, and other various "new-fangled" numbers)?

Chass voted for someone else.

According to baseball-reference.com, Ubaldo Jimenez was the best pitcher in the National League; he had the highest WAR. Is baseball-reference.com therefore a cranky old has been that should stop embarrassing itself?

Having the highest WAR means you're the best pitcher in the league? I doubt it.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Chass wrote a polemic recently about how C.C. Sabathia should win the Cy Young Award instead of Felix Hernandez because of all his wins.

Why does Chass get to cherry pick when statistics are valid (Sabathia) and when they aren't (Hernandez's ERA, strikeouts, innings pitched, and other various "new-fangled" numbers)?

Chass voted for someone else.

According to baseball-reference.com, Ubaldo Jimenez was the best pitcher in the National League; he had the highest WAR. Is baseball-reference.com therefore a cranky old has been that should stop embarrassing itself?

Having the highest WAR means you're the best pitcher in the league? I doubt it.

It means that's how many more games your team would win with you than with the average pitcher. In any case, I think it shows that these award verdicts are not nearly as single-option as people want to make them seem.

 

[spnited]

I know what WAR is. I think it is indicative of absolutely nothing.

 

[LongTimeListener]

I know what WAR is. I think it is indicative of absolutely nothing.

Agreed.

Perhaps I am not making my point well enough. One more stab: People will accept VORP, WAR, win shares and the like at face value and even cite them as "proof" that a writer or announcer is wrong. But I see no difference between Chass voting for Sabathia and B-R.com ranking Jimenez above Halladay.