Murray Chass, Baseball Dinosaur

[Balsa]

As Season Approaches, Some Topics Should Be Off Limits

 

Statistics mongers promoting VORP and other new-age baseball statistics.

 

I receive a daily e-mail message from Baseball Prospectus, an electronic publication filled with articles and information about statistics, mostly statistics that only stats mongers can love.

 

To me, VORP epitomized the new-age nonsense. For the longest time, I had no idea what VORP meant and didn’t care enough to go to any great lengths to find out. I asked some colleagues whose work I respect, and they didn’t know what it meant either.

 

Finally, not long ago, I came across VORP spelled out. It stands for value over replacement player. How thrilling. How absurd. Value over replacement player. Don’t ask what it means. I don’t know.

 

I suppose that if stats mongers want to sit at their computers and play with these things all day long, that’s their prerogative. But their attempt to introduce these new-age statistics into the game threatens to undermine most fans’ enjoyment of baseball and the human factor therein.

 

People play baseball. Numbers don’t.

 

To which Fire Joe Morgan fires back with pure brilliance.

[Outshined_One]

FJM had a quality line which I agree with in full:

 

Saying that VORP undermines "enjoyment" and the "human factor" is like creationists saying that evolution takes away the "wonder" and "mystery" of the universe. It doesn't. It makes it awesomer.

[CubColtPacer]

As Season Approaches, Some Topics Should Be Off Limits

 

Statistics mongers promoting VORP and other new-age baseball statistics.

 

I receive a daily e-mail message from Baseball Prospectus, an electronic publication filled with articles and information about statistics, mostly statistics that only stats mongers can love.

 

To me, VORP epitomized the new-age nonsense. For the longest time, I had no idea what VORP meant and didn’t care enough to go to any great lengths to find out. I asked some colleagues whose work I respect, and they didn’t know what it meant either.

 

Finally, not long ago, I came across VORP spelled out. It stands for value over replacement player. How thrilling. How absurd. Value over replacement player. Don’t ask what it means. I don’t know.

 

I suppose that if stats mongers want to sit at their computers and play with these things all day long, that’s their prerogative. But their attempt to introduce these new-age statistics into the game threatens to undermine most fans’ enjoyment of baseball and the human factor therein.

 

People play baseball. Numbers don’t.

 

To which Fire Joe Morgan fires back with pure brilliance.

 

I'm going to disagree with Outshined here. There is only one sentence in this article that makes sense to me-and that the pushing on too many statistics on the game does threaten most fan's enjoyment. It happens in all sports-most fans want to be able to sit back and enjoy the game, not know exactly how it is played. For example, there is plenty to football that is rarely ever explained-someone on a Colts board posted an article that went through a process of one play in the Colts-Denver game this season, and it was a fascinating thing to read. However, I know that many of my friends wouldn't care to read it-they don't want to think about how complicated the game is, but rather they would just like to make it simple and enjoy it. That doesn't mean that the use of statistics doesn't make understanding the game more accurate-it does. Most fans only want to hear about it though in a limited fashion.

 

The rest of his article? Simply ridiculous-you're supposed to be a baseball writer that caters to all types of fans-to ridicule the ones who love the game so deeply that they want to understand better how the game is played, and to dismiss a stat that he hasn't even looked at is just irresponsible. He doesn't have to completely accept it or even accept it at all-but if he doesn't, he at least has to have an informed decision on why he can't accept it, and at least try to figure out what it is and how it is calculated. I can't believe to state how silly the article was except for that one sentence.

[MPrior]

I'm going to disagree with Outshined here. There is only one sentence in this article that makes sense to me-and that the pushing on too many statistics on the game does threaten most fan's enjoyment. It happens in all sports-most fans want to be able to sit back and enjoy the game, not know exactly how it is played. For example, there is plenty to football that is rarely ever explained-someone on a Colts board posted an article that went through a process of one play in the Colts-Denver game this season, and it was a fascinating thing to read. However, I know that many of my friends wouldn't care to read it-they don't want to think about how complicated the game is, but rather they would just like to make it simple and enjoy it. That doesn't mean that the use of statistics doesn't make understanding the game more accurate-it does. Most fans only want to hear about it though in a limited fashion.

 

The rest of his article? Simply ridiculous-you're supposed to be a baseball writer that caters to all types of fans-to ridicule the ones who love the game so deeply that they want to understand better how the game is played, and to dismiss a stat that he hasn't even looked at is just irresponsible. He doesn't have to completely accept it or even accept it at all-but if he doesn't, he at least has to have an informed decision on why he can't accept it, and at least try to figure out what it is and how it is calculated. I can't believe to state how silly the article was except for that one sentence.

 

I'm gonna disagree in turn. Stats don't threaten anybody's enjoyment of the game. If people don't want to know about them, they don't have to; they can choose not to pay them any mind. Introducing them, however, certainly adds to the enjoyment of many, as it broadens the overall scope of baseball as a whole, thus attracting more people and appealling to a wider spectrum of types of enjoyment.

[Laura]

I haven't heard of any broadcasters shoving VORP down the throats of an unwilling audience.

[BigSlick]

Exactly, stats don't inherently ruin anyones enjoyment of the game. Fans should be allowed to know what is exactly going on during a game, and thats what statistics allow you to do. (Actually they are just one facet of knowledge in a game, but everyone knows that)

 

Can some people get carried away? Certainly. But people basing their opinions off of concrete evidence is much better than people screaming their heads off on whether A-rod is "clutch" or not, when such a quality in a ball player might not exist at all.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

What stats do ruin is the idiotic notions by some of what makes a good baseball player.

[soapy]

hahaha...what a tool. The whole premise is, he doesn't know what VORP is, just that it's stupid. Brilliant!!

[CuseCubFan69]

I don't understand why anyone that's involved in the game doesn't want to continue learning more about the game they love. I enjoy reading the numbers that are put out here. Do I think they they are the end all and answer, no. Do I think they help evaluate and make the game more interesting, heck yes. Hey, I hate fantasy baseball but I have no problem with people enjoying the game and if that's one of the ways they have fun that's great. I enjoy the traditionalist view to the VORPites and I think there is value in those and everything in-between. Edited February 28, 2007 by CuseCubFan69

[Derwood]

guys like Chass hate "new stats" because these stats prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the players that writers like him esteem (Eckstein, Jeter, Erstad) are, in fact, crap, while players they like to rail on (A-Rod) are miles better in every way. Okay, Jeter isn't crap, but isn't an MVP caliber player

[David]

Oh, man. Reading crap like this annoys the hell out of me.

[CubColtPacer]

I'm going to disagree with Outshined here. There is only one sentence in this article that makes sense to me-and that the pushing on too many statistics on the game does threaten most fan's enjoyment. It happens in all sports-most fans want to be able to sit back and enjoy the game, not know exactly how it is played. For example, there is plenty to football that is rarely ever explained-someone on a Colts board posted an article that went through a process of one play in the Colts-Denver game this season, and it was a fascinating thing to read. However, I know that many of my friends wouldn't care to read it-they don't want to think about how complicated the game is, but rather they would just like to make it simple and enjoy it. That doesn't mean that the use of statistics doesn't make understanding the game more accurate-it does. Most fans only want to hear about it though in a limited fashion.

 

The rest of his article? Simply ridiculous-you're supposed to be a baseball writer that caters to all types of fans-to ridicule the ones who love the game so deeply that they want to understand better how the game is played, and to dismiss a stat that he hasn't even looked at is just irresponsible. He doesn't have to completely accept it or even accept it at all-but if he doesn't, he at least has to have an informed decision on why he can't accept it, and at least try to figure out what it is and how it is calculated. I can't believe to state how silly the article was except for that one sentence.

 

I'm gonna disagree in turn. Stats don't threaten anybody's enjoyment of the game. If people don't want to know about them, they don't have to; they can choose not to pay them any mind. Introducing them, however, certainly adds to the enjoyment of many, as it broadens the overall scope of baseball as a whole, thus attracting more people and appealling to a wider spectrum of types of enjoyment.

 

It depends on how far they go. Right now, they are a pretty good balance. Those who want to find the stats can find them easily, and the others just don't hear them. I think the pendulum should swing a little bit further and have more analysts and commentators using stats more than they actually are-if it becomes where most of the analysts are using the more complicated stats as a large part of their argument, then I think that threatens a large part of the enjoyment for fans (although not the enjoyment for me).

[goonys evil twin]

it becomes where most of the analysts are using the more complicated stats as a large part of their argument, then I think that threatens a large part of the enjoyment for fans (although not the enjoyment for me).

 

Frankly I find that to be a baseless assertion.

[USSoccer]

it becomes where most of the analysts are using the more complicated stats as a large part of their argument, then I think that threatens a large part of the enjoyment for fans (although not the enjoyment for me).

 

Frankly I find that to be a baseless assertion.

 

Not only baseless, but a big reason that the "casual fan" can't/won't embrace new metrics is articles like this from journalists like Chass that deride and mock the metrics, rather than simply integrating them into conversation.

[CubColtPacer]

it becomes where most of the analysts are using the more complicated stats as a large part of their argument, then I think that threatens a large part of the enjoyment for fans (although not the enjoyment for me).

 

Frankly I find that to be a baseless assertion.

 

People don't like to hear stats they don't understand mentioned on screen. Most of the people are not going to take the time to look it up either. Occasionally the common fan will let a stat like that slide (such as QB rating, where the common fan knows what is good and what is bad, but has no idea how to calculate it)-but most of the time, it turns people off to hear things that they don't get mentioned. I see it as very reasonable that if these more complicated stats are being heavily used in shows that the common fan watches (their teams telecasts and Baseball Tonight, for example) they will be turned off by the amount of material that they really don't understand, and they will just stop watching.

[CuseCubFan69]

it becomes where most of the analysts are using the more complicated stats as a large part of their argument, then I think that threatens a large part of the enjoyment for fans (although not the enjoyment for me).

 

Frankly I find that to be a baseless assertion.

 

Not only baseless, but a big reason that the "casual fan" can't/won't embrace new metrics is articles like this from journalists like Chass that deride and mock the metrics, rather than simply integrating them into conversation.

 

I think it might help if the metrics are explained and not just thrown out there to overwhelm the viewer. If you just throw out the term VORP and assume everyone knows what it is isn't the best way to go about it IMO.

[USSoccer]

it becomes where most of the analysts are using the more complicated stats as a large part of their argument, then I think that threatens a large part of the enjoyment for fans (although not the enjoyment for me).

 

Frankly I find that to be a baseless assertion.

 

Not only baseless, but a big reason that the "casual fan" can't/won't embrace new metrics is articles like this from journalists like Chass that deride and mock the metrics, rather than simply integrating them into conversation.

 

I think it might help if the metrics are explained and not just thrown out there to overwhelm the viewer. If you just throw out the term VORP and assume everyone knows what it is isn't the best way to go about it IMO.

 

That's my point. No attempt has been made to expose the general fan to these metrics other than to mock them at every opportunity.

 

Think about the beat writers and show hosts in this city. Only Bruce Miles talks about advanced metrics, and I can't think of any radio hosts in the city that consistently bring up metrics like VORP. No wonder people can't embrace them and feel that they "ruin" the game. They have no idea what they are because the media doesn't properly educate people about them.

[goonys evil twin]

it becomes where most of the analysts are using the more complicated stats as a large part of their argument, then I think that threatens a large part of the enjoyment for fans (although not the enjoyment for me).

 

Frankly I find that to be a baseless assertion.

 

People don't like to hear stats they don't understand mentioned on screen. Most of the people are not going to take the time to look it up either. Occasionally the common fan will let a stat like that slide (such as QB rating, where the common fan knows what is good and what is bad, but has no idea how to calculate it)-but most of the time, it turns people off to hear things that they don't get mentioned. I see it as very reasonable that if these more complicated stats are being heavily used in shows that the common fan watches (their teams telecasts and Baseball Tonight, for example) they will be turned off by the amount of material that they really don't understand, and they will just stop watching.

 

Not only do I believe that to be nonsense, but it's pretty much a defense of the continuation of conventional ignorance.

 

Don't talk about stats because John Doe will stop watching. Bunk. First off, if you're so closed minded that you'd stop watching baseball games because the analysts had the audacity to actually analyze the game, then too freaking bad. But I don't think the average fan would do anything of the sort. Nobody is going to make every telecast a baseball prospectus symposium. But discussing the advancement in statistical analysis, and throwing some stuff out there, with reasonable explanations, should be a major factor in every broadcast. There's no reason to stay stuck in the dark ages because you're afraid some dinosaurs will be offended.

[CubColtPacer]

it becomes where most of the analysts are using the more complicated stats as a large part of their argument, then I think that threatens a large part of the enjoyment for fans (although not the enjoyment for me).

 

Frankly I find that to be a baseless assertion.

 

Not only baseless, but a big reason that the "casual fan" can't/won't embrace new metrics is articles like this from journalists like Chass that deride and mock the metrics, rather than simply integrating them into conversation.

 

I think it might help if the metrics are explained and not just thrown out there to overwhelm the viewer. If you just throw out the term VORP and assume everyone knows what it is isn't the best way to go about it IMO.

 

That's my point. No attempt has been made to expose the general fan to these metrics other than to mock them at every opportunity.

 

Think about the beat writers and show hosts in this city. Only Bruce Miles talks about advanced metrics, and I can't think of any radio hosts in the city that consistently bring up metrics like VORP. No wonder people can't embrace them and feel that they "ruin" the game. They have no idea what they are because the media doesn't properly educate people about them.

 

That's certainly a good point, and I think a few of the advanced metrics will eventually bleed through and become a part of the game-it would have to be done very slowly and carefully though, and that would include only introducing one new stat at a time and giving a sufficient adjustment period before having a new one.

[CubColtPacer]

it becomes where most of the analysts are using the more complicated stats as a large part of their argument, then I think that threatens a large part of the enjoyment for fans (although not the enjoyment for me).

 

Frankly I find that to be a baseless assertion.

 

People don't like to hear stats they don't understand mentioned on screen. Most of the people are not going to take the time to look it up either. Occasionally the common fan will let a stat like that slide (such as QB rating, where the common fan knows what is good and what is bad, but has no idea how to calculate it)-but most of the time, it turns people off to hear things that they don't get mentioned. I see it as very reasonable that if these more complicated stats are being heavily used in shows that the common fan watches (their teams telecasts and Baseball Tonight, for example) they will be turned off by the amount of material that they really don't understand, and they will just stop watching.

 

Not only do I believe that to be nonsense, but it's pretty much a defense of the continuation of conventional ignorance.

 

Don't talk about stats because John Doe will stop watching. Bunk. First off, if you're so closed minded that you'd stop watching baseball games because the analysts had the audacity to actually analyze the game, then too freaking bad. But I don't think the average fan would do anything of the sort. Nobody is going to make every telecast a baseball prospectus symposium. But discussing the advancement in statistical analysis, and throwing some stuff out there, with reasonable explanations, should be a major factor in every broadcast. There's no reason to stay stuck in the dark ages because you're afraid some dinosaurs will be offended.

 

Television shows are still about ratings, and yes, they do have to be worried if people will get offended and stop watching, especially if they view that as a large part of their viewing audience. Anything that reduces their ratings is a bad thing to television, even if it better explains the game.

[goonys evil twin]

it becomes where most of the analysts are using the more complicated stats as a large part of their argument, then I think that threatens a large part of the enjoyment for fans (although not the enjoyment for me).

 

Frankly I find that to be a baseless assertion.

 

Not only baseless, but a big reason that the "casual fan" can't/won't embrace new metrics is articles like this from journalists like Chass that deride and mock the metrics, rather than simply integrating them into conversation.

 

I think it might help if the metrics are explained and not just thrown out there to overwhelm the viewer. If you just throw out the term VORP and assume everyone knows what it is isn't the best way to go about it IMO.

 

That's my point. No attempt has been made to expose the general fan to these metrics other than to mock them at every opportunity.

 

Think about the beat writers and show hosts in this city. Only Bruce Miles talks about advanced metrics, and I can't think of any radio hosts in the city that consistently bring up metrics like VORP. No wonder people can't embrace them and feel that they "ruin" the game. They have no idea what they are because the media doesn't properly educate people about them.

 

I think Len has touched on some things.

[Magnetic Curses]

I'm going to disagree with Outshined here. There is only one sentence in this article that makes sense to me-and that the pushing on too many statistics on the game does threaten most fan's enjoyment. It happens in all sports-most fans want to be able to sit back and enjoy the game, not know exactly how it is played. For example, there is plenty to football that is rarely ever explained-someone on a Colts board posted an article that went through a process of one play in the Colts-Denver game this season, and it was a fascinating thing to read. However, I know that many of my friends wouldn't care to read it-they don't want to think about how complicated the game is, but rather they would just like to make it simple and enjoy it. That doesn't mean that the use of statistics doesn't make understanding the game more accurate-it does. Most fans only want to hear about it though in a limited fashion.

 

The rest of his article? Simply ridiculous-you're supposed to be a baseball writer that caters to all types of fans-to ridicule the ones who love the game so deeply that they want to understand better how the game is played, and to dismiss a stat that he hasn't even looked at is just irresponsible. He doesn't have to completely accept it or even accept it at all-but if he doesn't, he at least has to have an informed decision on why he can't accept it, and at least try to figure out what it is and how it is calculated. I can't believe to state how silly the article was except for that one sentence.

 

I'm gonna disagree in turn. Stats don't threaten anybody's enjoyment of the game. If people don't want to know about them, they don't have to; they can choose not to pay them any mind. Introducing them, however, certainly adds to the enjoyment of many, as it broadens the overall scope of baseball as a whole, thus attracting more people and appealling to a wider spectrum of types of enjoyment.

 

this reminds me of a quote from "The Secret Game of Baseball".

 

"You don't need to look at stats to enjoy baseball, but you need them to understand baseball."

 

for fans who simply want to enjoy the game, stats don't mean much, and i wouldn't begrudge them that. but i don't want those fans to come back from a game and try to debate with me based on what their eyes told them on that particular day. even if said fans want to go to every single game and never miss a single monent of baseball, you can still learn more about the game from statistics.

 

the human tendency, from an observer's perspective, is to make the game more dramatic than it is--to pay attention to the meaningless details as if they're of the utmost importance. if someone makes a baserunning error once, they must do it all the time. if someone scores a runner from third on a bunt one time, it must be effective all of the time, no matter how many times the observer witnesses the opposite.

[USSoccer]

it becomes where most of the analysts are using the more complicated stats as a large part of their argument, then I think that threatens a large part of the enjoyment for fans (although not the enjoyment for me).

 

Frankly I find that to be a baseless assertion.

 

Not only baseless, but a big reason that the "casual fan" can't/won't embrace new metrics is articles like this from journalists like Chass that deride and mock the metrics, rather than simply integrating them into conversation.

 

I think it might help if the metrics are explained and not just thrown out there to overwhelm the viewer. If you just throw out the term VORP and assume everyone knows what it is isn't the best way to go about it IMO.

 

That's my point. No attempt has been made to expose the general fan to these metrics other than to mock them at every opportunity.

 

Think about the beat writers and show hosts in this city. Only Bruce Miles talks about advanced metrics, and I can't think of any radio hosts in the city that consistently bring up metrics like VORP. No wonder people can't embrace them and feel that they "ruin" the game. They have no idea what they are because the media doesn't properly educate people about them.

 

That's certainly a good point, and I think a few of the advanced metrics will eventually bleed through and become a part of the game-it would have to be done very slowly and carefully though, and that would include only introducing one new stat at a time and giving a sufficient adjustment period before having a new one.

 

You've got to be kidding me. I don't necessarily think very highly of the general population's ability to absorb information, but you're talking about integrating stats like spoon feeding an infant. It doesn't have to be that way.

 

Metrics like VORP, ERA+ and OPS along with OBP aren't all that complex to understand. There's no reason not to utilize them along with the "conventional" numbers. People can handle getting acclimated to more than one at a time.

[USSoccer]

.

 

Think about the beat writers and show hosts in this city. Only Bruce Miles talks about advanced metrics, and I can't think of any radio hosts in the city that consistently bring up metrics like VORP. No wonder people can't embrace them and feel that they "ruin" the game. They have no idea what they are because the media doesn't properly educate people about them.

 

I think Len has touched on some things.

 

That's true. Len has made attempts to bring SABR type metrics into the broadcasts, and I think it's fantastic that he does so.

[CuseCubFan69]

it becomes where most of the analysts are using the more complicated stats as a large part of their argument, then I think that threatens a large part of the enjoyment for fans (although not the enjoyment for me).

 

Frankly I find that to be a baseless assertion.

 

Not only baseless, but a big reason that the "casual fan" can't/won't embrace new metrics is articles like this from journalists like Chass that deride and mock the metrics, rather than simply integrating them into conversation.

 

I think it might help if the metrics are explained and not just thrown out there to overwhelm the viewer. If you just throw out the term VORP and assume everyone knows what it is isn't the best way to go about it IMO.

 

That's my point. No attempt has been made to expose the general fan to these metrics other than to mock them at every opportunity.

 

Think about the beat writers and show hosts in this city. Only Bruce Miles talks about advanced metrics, and I can't think of any radio hosts in the city that consistently bring up metrics like VORP. No wonder people can't embrace them and feel that they "ruin" the game. They have no idea what they are because the media doesn't properly educate people about them.

 

I think it's because a lot of them are uneducated about the subject themselves. Plus, if they start to use numbers like this it opens up a new genre if you will of an area that they won't have any pull. Their strength over you and I is their contact with the players/management but if numbers are thrown in there that evens out the playing field and the nerds have a chance to take over the industry. I've said this before and I'll say it again, I just do not understand why people that do this for a career just do not try to improve and educate themselves as much as possible. This is where I give Bruce credit. heck, they don't have to pretend to know everything but to out and out refuse something like this is just plain ignorance or lazy to the nth degree.