Murray Chass, Baseball Dinosaur

[wekse]

Len is a leader among men.

[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.

 

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.

 

I think this is a great post-I would put as the combination of statistics and observation that will give you the most understanding, but I really like the rest of your post.

[goonys evil twin]

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.

 

Slowly and carefully sure. One stat at a time with sufficient adjustment period? That sounds like somebody advocating for the continuance of conventional wisdom over actual knowledge. There's no reason why it has to be one stat at a time. Why couldn't a broadcaster discuss 3-4 different stats in any given game? We're talking about 3-4 hour telecasts, with 1-2 hours of pre and post game. And 24/7 sports talk all over the place. There's plenty of space to include something more than a one stat at a time mandate. Again, we're not talking about going all stats all the time. We're talking about replacing some of the nonsense from yesteryear with some actual intelligent analysis. We're talking about maybe 5 minutes of total airtime when all is said and done in a given game. The key is to have an intelligent, thoughtful and well-spoken advocate making the changes, not keeping progress as slow as humanly possible.

[CuseCubFan69]

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.

 

Meaningless details? I disagree that the game has those. I love the little nuances that the game brings that numbers do not even come close to seeing.

[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.

 

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.

 

Look at how slowly OBP and OPS are coming into the game and are being used by the common fan, even with things like WGN actually putting OBP in their graphic. Even with that in the graphic and Len explaining it at times, I bet you that at least half of the fans out there still couldn't tell you what a good OBP was or how to calculate it.

[TruffleShuffle]

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

 

Actually, Jeter was an MVP caliber player last year.

[CuseCubFan69]

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

 

Actually, Jeter was an MVP caliber player last year.

 

I'd love him if he were a Cub.

[fromthestretch]

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.

 

I don't agree with that at all. Just like QB rating, someone doesn't need to know how to calculate a stat to understand its importance. As long as it's explained that a high number is good and a low number is bad and possibly show leaderboards to give some context, people will get used to it over time.

 

Take OBP for example. It is becomming more widely accepted. It may be a relatively simple stat, but there are people who accept it - even on this forum - that couldn't tell you exactly how to calculate it.

 

The important thing is how it's presented. If you start forcing new stats on people, it probably will turn a few people away. However, if you gradually ease some new stats in and explain their use, most people will begin to at least recognize their presence. You'll always have people that will resist change for one reason or another, and the traditional stats such as batting average, home runs, RBI, SB, etc. will always have their place. However, if some of the newer stats get more exposure, younger fans will grow up knowing these stats as part of the game.

[USSoccer]

 

Look at how slowly OBP and OPS are coming into the game and are being used by the common fan, even with things like WGN actually putting OBP in their graphic. Even with that in the graphic and Len explaining it at times, I bet you that at least half of the fans out there still couldn't tell you what a good OBP was or how to calculate it.

 

Because the vast majority of the media continue to mock stats like OBP, to say nothing of more advanced metrics.

 

One more time: The biggest reason for the "fear" of stats amongst fans is the way SABR inclined analysis is mocked by 95% of the mainstream baseball media.

[goonys evil twin]

I think it's because a lot of them are uneducated about the subject themselves.

 

 

The people who are in charge of bringing us the game are generally the people who have always been in charge, and those people don't have any use for progress. They like being in charge, and they know what they know, so they keep feeding us the same stuff. The key is getting more and more people like Bruce and Len into the situation. There are also old guard types like Peter Gammons who have given these stats much deserved recognition.

 

The biggest problems are the people like Chass, and those who automatically respect the opinion of "baseball people" who continually bash the "stat mongers".

 

There are people who don't talk about the stats much, but they don't bash them either. That's fine. But when idiots like these keep coming out with rant after rant against knowledge, it's quite disconcerting.

[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

 

Actually, Jeter was an MVP caliber player last year.

 

He was in the conversation, but certainly not the best player.

 

The bigger point is that some of these writers (particularly in New York) choose to ignore even the most basic statistics if it hurts their argument. Big example being "A-Rod sucks in the playoffs", which is true the last 2 years, but his career post season numbers are very good.

 

At this point, I would take people using OPS in general conversation and be fine with it. Frankly, when analyzing just your own team (which is what most play by play/color guys do day to day) stats like EqAvg and VORP are less useful. Those stats are better served when comparing players across the league, or figuring out who to trade for/sign in the off season.

[TruffleShuffle]

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

 

Actually, Jeter was an MVP caliber player last year.

 

I'd love him if he were a Cub.

 

Seriously. I think Jeter is overappreciated by people like Murray Chass, but underappreciated by a lot of the SABR community. The guy has a career OBP of .388, OPS+ of 123, and WARP3 of 92. That's really good for a shortstop. No, he's not as good as A-Rod, but he's consistently been one of the five best shortstops in the game for more than 10 years, and some of those years has been among the top 2 or 3.

 

Also, in 1999 Jeter finished 6th in MVP voting, but looking at it again, I think he should have either won or placed second.

[Chocolate Milk]

I don't agree with that at all. Just like QB rating, someone doesn't need to know how to calculate a stat to understand its importance. As long as it's explained that a high number is good and a low number is bad and possibly show leaderboards to give some context, people will get used to it over time.

 

Take OBP for example. It is becomming more widely accepted. It may be a relatively simple stat, but there are people who accept it - even on this forum - that couldn't tell you exactly how to calculate it.

 

The important thing is how it's presented. If you start forcing new stats on people, it probably will turn a few people away. However, if you gradually ease some new stats in and explain their use, most people will begin to at least recognize their presence. You'll always have people that will resist change for one reason or another, and the traditional stats such as batting average, home runs, RBI, SB, etc. will always have their place. However, if some of the newer stats get more exposure, younger fans will grow up knowing these stats as part of the game.

 

Exactly. QB rating is a really good example. I'd say that almost no football fans know how it's calculated but they do understand how to use it and what it signifies.

 

OPS+ and ERA+ are also good examples. I'm not exactly sure how they go about adjusting it but I understand that it takes into account league and park effects and is a better tool to compare players.

 

A commentator wouldn't need to explain how OPS+ or ERA+ is calculated they would just have to explain what it means. I think these two stats are something the casual fan would understand the importance of quite easily. It's intuitive. It's also easy to understand what is good what is bad with the average being 100.

[CubColtPacer]

 

Look at how slowly OBP and OPS are coming into the game and are being used by the common fan, even with things like WGN actually putting OBP in their graphic. Even with that in the graphic and Len explaining it at times, I bet you that at least half of the fans out there still couldn't tell you what a good OBP was or how to calculate it.

 

Because the vast majority of the media continue to mock stats like OBP, to say nothing of more advanced metrics.

 

One more time: The biggest reason for the "fear" of stats amongst fans is the way SABR inclined analysis is mocked by 95% of the mainstream baseball media.

 

I disagree-a large part of the nation is not in a baseball market. Those people do not read these articles or hear usually the mocking of these stats-if you put the initials SABR in front of them or even the word sabermetrics, most of them would say they have never heard of it. Some of these stats will make their way in (as they should)-it will just take time though-the biggest impetus to the stats coming in is the general fan's glossing over it-it may be on the screen, but the fan sees it as meaningless data, just like the general fan only looks to see a pitcher's ERA when they come in as a relief pitcher. To get them to realize the importance of these stats will take time and patience.

[CubColtPacer]

I don't agree with that at all. Just like QB rating, someone doesn't need to know how to calculate a stat to understand its importance. As long as it's explained that a high number is good and a low number is bad and possibly show leaderboards to give some context, people will get used to it over time.

 

Take OBP for example. It is becomming more widely accepted. It may be a relatively simple stat, but there are people who accept it - even on this forum - that couldn't tell you exactly how to calculate it.

 

The important thing is how it's presented. If you start forcing new stats on people, it probably will turn a few people away. However, if you gradually ease some new stats in and explain their use, most people will begin to at least recognize their presence. You'll always have people that will resist change for one reason or another, and the traditional stats such as batting average, home runs, RBI, SB, etc. will always have their place. However, if some of the newer stats get more exposure, younger fans will grow up knowing these stats as part of the game.

 

Exactly. QB rating is a really good example. I'd say that almost no football fans know how it's calculated but they do understand how to use it and what it signifies.

 

OPS+ and ERA+ are also good examples. I'm not exactly sure how they go about adjusting it but I understand that it takes into account league and park effects and is a better tool to compare players.

 

A commentator wouldn't need to explain how OPS+ or ERA+ is calculated they would just have to explain what it means. I think these two stats are something the casual fan would understand the importance of quite easily. It's intuitive. It's also easy to understand what is good what is bad with the average being 100.

 

I agree-those two stats should be able to have a pretty smooth transition, because it's easy for people to understand what's good and what's bad.

[Derwood]

I don't agree with that at all. Just like QB rating, someone doesn't need to know how to calculate a stat to understand its importance. As long as it's explained that a high number is good and a low number is bad and possibly show leaderboards to give some context, people will get used to it over time.

 

Take OBP for example. It is becomming more widely accepted. It may be a relatively simple stat, but there are people who accept it - even on this forum - that couldn't tell you exactly how to calculate it.

 

The important thing is how it's presented. If you start forcing new stats on people, it probably will turn a few people away. However, if you gradually ease some new stats in and explain their use, most people will begin to at least recognize their presence. You'll always have people that will resist change for one reason or another, and the traditional stats such as batting average, home runs, RBI, SB, etc. will always have their place. However, if some of the newer stats get more exposure, younger fans will grow up knowing these stats as part of the game.

 

Exactly. QB rating is a really good example. I'd say that almost no football fans know how it's calculated but they do understand how to use it and what it signifies.

 

OPS+ and ERA+ are also good examples. I'm not exactly sure how they go about adjusting it but I understand that it takes into account league and park effects and is a better tool to compare players.

 

A commentator wouldn't need to explain how OPS+ or ERA+ is calculated they would just have to explain what it means. I think these two stats are something the casual fan would understand the importance of quite easily. It's intuitive. It's also easy to understand what is good what is bad with the average being 100.

 

I would bet that a lot of baseball fans couldn't tell you how batting average or ERA are calculated either

[CuseCubFan69]

I think it's because a lot of them are uneducated about the subject themselves.

 

 

The people who are in charge of bringing us the game are generally the people who have always been in charge, and those people don't have any use for progress. They like being in charge, and they know what they know, so they keep feeding us the same stuff. The key is getting more and more people like Bruce and Len into the situation. There are also old guard types like Peter Gammons who have given these stats much deserved recognition.

 

The biggest problems are the people like Chass, and those who automatically respect the opinion of "baseball people" who continually bash the "stat mongers".

 

There are people who don't talk about the stats much, but they don't bash them either. That's fine. But when idiots like these keep coming out with rant after rant against knowledge, it's quite disconcerting.

 

I agree. I also think that it goes both ways when the fans that love stats rant against the "baseball people" they sound as ignorant. Both are useful and the mocking of either method is what makes them dig their heels in and keeps them ignorant of the other belief.

[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.

 

I don't agree with that at all. Just like QB rating, someone doesn't need to know how to calculate a stat to understand its importance. As long as it's explained that a high number is good and a low number is bad and possibly show leaderboards to give some context, people will get used to it over time.

 

Take OBP for example. It is becomming more widely accepted. It may be a relatively simple stat, but there are people who accept it - even on this forum - that couldn't tell you exactly how to calculate it.

 

The important thing is how it's presented. If you start forcing new stats on people, it probably will turn a few people away. However, if you gradually ease some new stats in and explain their use, most people will begin to at least recognize their presence. You'll always have people that will resist change for one reason or another, and the traditional stats such as batting average, home runs, RBI, SB, etc. will always have their place. However, if some of the newer stats get more exposure, younger fans will grow up knowing these stats as part of the game.

 

I think we're on different wavelengths, but I agree with you that gradually easing in new stats will be the best thing for the game, and a synthesis between the new stats and the old stats will be the way to go.

 

I think another failure of the stats community is to automatically say that their stats are better than or there to replace the traditional stats. While it's true that many of them are more accurate, for people to accept something they have to be receptive to it from the beginning. When they hear their traditional stats have to be downplayed in order to accept the new stats, they get defensive and would just try to shut out the new stats. So just present the stats as another help in evaluating players that's not there to do anything but provide another perspective on the old stats (as QB rating has done). Let the people decide over time which one is more accurate-they'll get used to some of the metrics that better understand aspects of the game and would be ready to accept it as the better statistic eventually.

[BigbadB]

Also, in 1999 Jeter finished 6th in MVP voting, but looking at it again, I think he should have either won or placed second.

 

Nomar did just as much as Jeter in 1999 in 100 less at bats. An argument could be made for any one of the top 7 or 8 guys to have won the MVP that year. Personally, I would have given it to Pedro.

[CuseCubFan69]

Also, in 1999 Jeter finished 6th in MVP voting, but looking at it again, I think he should have either won or placed second.

 

Nomar did just as much as Jeter in 1999 in 100 less at bats. An argument could be made for any one of the top 7 or 8 guys to have won the MVP that year. Personally, I would have given it to Pedro.

 

Come on BbB...vote for Pedro is so 2005.

[Magnetic Curses]

Meaningless details? I disagree that the game has those. I love the little nuances that the game brings that numbers do not even come close to seeing.

 

okay, i was using hyperbole there. but you get the idea. and i disagree that numbers cannot catch nuance. in fact, the title of the book i quoted pretty much captures the point i'm trying to make. baseball must be looked at in perspective--the perspective of a 162 game season. numbers catch the invisibility of what actually is going on.

Edited February 28, 2007 by Stannis

[CuseCubFan69]

Meaningless details? I disagree that the game has those. I love the little nuances that the game brings that numbers do not even come close to seeing.

 

okay, i was using hyperbole there. but you get the idea.

 

I do now!

[Magnetic Curses]

Meaningless details? I disagree that the game has those. I love the little nuances that the game brings that numbers do not even come close to seeing.

 

okay, i was using hyperbole there. but you get the idea.

 

I do now!

 

check the edit to get my full opinion.

[CubinNY]

There are people who don't talk about the stats much, but they don't bash them either. That's fine. But when idiots like these keep coming out with rant after rant against knowledge, it's quite disconcerting.

 

I agree. A statistic is simply a way to measure some portion of the game. A stat neither necssarily detracts nor enhances any part of baseball. If a stat is meanigful (i.e., useful) then why not use it?

 

It's like arguing that learning something new about baseball is a bad thing, which Joe Morgan does every chance he gets.

[CuseCubFan69]

Meaningless details? I disagree that the game has those. I love the little nuances that the game brings that numbers do not even come close to seeing.

 

okay, i was using hyperbole there. but you get the idea. and i disagree that numbers cannot catch nuance. in fact, the title of the book i quoted pretty much captures the point i'm trying to make. baseball must be looked at in perspective--the perspective of a 162 game season. numbers catch the invisibility of what actually is going on.

 

So a number can tell me that an ump just called a ball when it was a strike? It can tell me the pitchers arm is sore? A hitter has a bad back? The SS slept with 4 hookers the night before and is exhausted and couldn't get to a slow roller up the middle? It's raining and the ball and field are wet?