Sabermetrics: Prepare to be destroyed

[davearm2]

It's hilarious how many folks posting in this thread have such a decisive and unambiguously critical review of a book they've never read.

 

And for the record, that's really the only point the one guy was making.

 

Why not read the darn thing, and then form an informed opinion rather than a laughably reflexive one?

 

It's conceivable that in the process you might actually learn something, or gain a new perspective.

[davearm2]

I like to think this has already come to a peaceful conclusion.

By this you mean the lone dissenting voice has been sufficiently mocked and shouted down.

 

It's been a while since we've had a groupthink meme post. I, for one, welcome it back.

 

Just so it can be shouted down. And mocked.

Oh groupthink is alive and well here at NSBB, and on full display in this thread.

[USSoccer]

It's hilarious how many folks posting in this thread have such a decisive and unambiguously critical review of a book they've never read.

 

And for the record, that's really the only point the one guy was making.

 

Why not read the darn thing, and then form an informed opinion rather than a laughably reflexive one?

 

It's conceivable that in the process you might actually learn something, or gain a new perspective.

 

The point that the people who can think critically were making is that the premise and central thesis of the book is completely stupid, and completely deserves to be mocked and ridiculed.

[davearm2]

It's hilarious how many folks posting in this thread have such a decisive and unambiguously critical review of a book they've never read.

 

And for the record, that's really the only point the one guy was making.

 

Why not read the darn thing, and then form an informed opinion rather than a laughably reflexive one?

 

It's conceivable that in the process you might actually learn something, or gain a new perspective.

 

The point that the people who can think critically were making is that the premise and central thesis of the book is completely stupid, and completely deserves to be mocked and ridiculed.

Unless you've read it, or at a minimum seen more than just one review of it, then you don't know what the premise and central thesis of the book is.

[Tarver]

It's hilarious how many folks posting in this thread have such a decisive and unambiguously critical review of a book they've never read.

 

And for the record, that's really the only point the one guy was making.

 

Why not read the darn thing, and then form an informed opinion rather than a laughably reflexive one?

 

It's conceivable that in the process you might actually learn something, or gain a new perspective.

 

The point that the people who can think critically were making is that the premise and central thesis of the book is completely stupid, and completely deserves to be mocked and ridiculed.

Unless you've read it, or at a minimum seen more than just one review of it, then you don't know what the premise and central thesis of the book is.

 

Fair point, but what could you really expect to learn from such a book?

 

Would you want the Cub's FO to adhere to it's tenets?

[Sammy Sofa]

Because it's obvious this book is going to be made up mostly of stupid meatball garbage just from the press release alone, so it would be a waste of time for anyone with any intelligence to read it. You can find endless variations of the same reactionary anti-sabrermetric crap on blogs and message board and sports media sites all over the internet. If you want to be one those guys, great, have fun. It should be exceedingly obvious you're in a tiny, tiny minority here, and it's refuge from that type of nonsense that was one of the main reasons this place was created and took off, so don't play the poor, put upon martyr when you support books like this.

[Sammy Sofa]

It's hilarious how many folks posting in this thread have such a decisive and unambiguously critical review of a book they've never read.

 

And for the record, that's really the only point the one guy was making.

 

Why not read the darn thing, and then form an informed opinion rather than a laughably reflexive one?

 

It's conceivable that in the process you might actually learn something, or gain a new perspective.

 

The point that the people who can think critically were making is that the premise and central thesis of the book is completely stupid, and completely deserves to be mocked and ridiculed.

Unless you've read it, or at a minimum seen more than just one review of it, then you don't know what the premise and central thesis of the book is.

 

Yeah, actually we do. What, you think the promotional blurbs and press release are just elaborate diversionary tactics to hide the real twist of what the book is about?

[Sammy Sofa]

The Beauty of Short Hops demonstrates that the Moneyball approach is doubly doomed. First, it fails on its own terms: it cannot make baseball a predictable game wholly understandable in numerical terms. Indeed, the teams which use this approach have not fared well. Second, the Moneyball approach blocks out what is most compelling about the sport – its relentless capacity to surprise. The authors watched all 162 Red Sox games in 2009, and catalog the crazy events (such as a game turning on a ball striking a pigeon in the outfield) that enrich baseball and defeat the best-laid plans of sabermetricians.

[USSoccer]

The point that the people who can think critically were making is that the premise and central thesis of the book is completely stupid, and completely deserves to be mocked and ridiculed.

Unless you've read it, or at a minimum seen more than just one review of it, then you don't know what the premise and central thesis of the book is.

 

So that press release thing where they flat out state the central thesis was/is a ruse?

[Tarver]

I wonder if all these people who pile on Beane even read Moneyball.

[USSoccer]

I like to think this has already come to a peaceful conclusion.

By this you mean the lone dissenting voice has been sufficiently mocked and shouted down.

 

It's been a while since we've had a groupthink meme post. I, for one, welcome it back.

 

Just so it can be shouted down. And mocked.

Oh groupthink is alive and well here at NSBB, and on full display in this thread.

 

Is the group "people with a brain"?

 

I'm comfortable being in that group.

[USSoccer]

The Beauty of Short Hops demonstrates that the Moneyball approach is doubly doomed. First, it fails on its own terms: it cannot make baseball a predictable game wholly understandable in numerical terms. Indeed, the teams which use this approach have not fared well. Second, the Moneyball approach blocks out what is most compelling about the sport – its relentless capacity to surprise. The authors watched all 162 Red Sox games in 2009, and catalog the crazy events (such as a game turning on a ball striking a pigeon in the outfield) that enrich baseball and defeat the best-laid plans of sabermetricians.

 

Wait, but what's it about, really?

[davearm2]

It's hilarious how many folks posting in this thread have such a decisive and unambiguously critical review of a book they've never read.

 

And for the record, that's really the only point the one guy was making.

 

Why not read the darn thing, and then form an informed opinion rather than a laughably reflexive one?

 

It's conceivable that in the process you might actually learn something, or gain a new perspective.

 

The point that the people who can think critically were making is that the premise and central thesis of the book is completely stupid, and completely deserves to be mocked and ridiculed.

Unless you've read it, or at a minimum seen more than just one review of it, then you don't know what the premise and central thesis of the book is.

 

Fair point, but what could you really expect to learn from such a book?

 

Would you want the Cub's FO to adhere to it's tenets?

Who knows what you might learn from such a book. Probably nothing if you go into it expecting it to suck.

 

And who said anything about front offices adhering to this book's tenets? That seems to miss this book's point badly.

[Sammy Sofa]

How do you know if it misses the book's point?

[Tarver]

I understand the book wants to romanticize the game for the casual fan. Problem is our current FO seems to be comprised of casual fans.

[davearm2]

Because it's obvious this book is going to be made up mostly of stupid meatball garbage just from the press release alone, so it would be a waste of time for anyone with any intelligence to read it. You can find endless variations of the same reactionary anti-sabrermetric crap on blogs and message board and sports media sites all over the internet. If you want to be one those guys, great, have fun. It should be exceedingly obvious you're in a tiny, tiny minority here, and it's refuge from that type of nonsense that was one of the main reasons this place was created and took off, so don't play the poor, put upon martyr when you support books like this.

I'm not supporting anything.

 

I'm laughing at all of the colossal leaps to judgement going on here.

 

Heck one person intimated that this book seeks to disprove sabermetrics because one time, a bird got hit with a baseball.

 

Seriously? That's what you expect this book is about?

[Sammy Sofa]

I understand the book wants to romanticize the game for the casual fan.

 

That's what makes this book even more ridiculous. There seems to be this perception that those that want more attention being paid to "new" stats somehow have no emotional connection or affection for the game. It's this childish, moronic "us vs. them" mentality that meatballs thrive on.

[Tarver]

Because it's obvious this book is going to be made up mostly of stupid meatball garbage just from the press release alone, so it would be a waste of time for anyone with any intelligence to read it. You can find endless variations of the same reactionary anti-sabrermetric crap on blogs and message board and sports media sites all over the internet. If you want to be one those guys, great, have fun. It should be exceedingly obvious you're in a tiny, tiny minority here, and it's refuge from that type of nonsense that was one of the main reasons this place was created and took off, so don't play the poor, put upon martyr when you support books like this.

I'm not supporting anything.

 

I'm laughing at all of the colossal leaps to judgement going on here.

 

Heck one person intimated that this book seeks to disprove sabermetrics because one time, a bird got hit with a baseball.

 

Seriously? That's what you expect this book is about?

 

Even if unintentional, it still propagates ignorance.

[MWV]

It's hilarious how many folks posting in this thread have such a decisive and unambiguously critical review of a book they've never read.

 

And for the record, that's really the only point the one guy was making.

 

Why not read the darn thing, and then form an informed opinion rather than a laughably reflexive one?

 

It's conceivable that in the process you might actually learn something, or gain a new perspective.

 

The point that the people who can think critically were making is that the premise and central thesis of the book is completely stupid, and completely deserves to be mocked and ridiculed.

Unless you've read it, or at a minimum seen more than just one review of it, then you don't know what the premise and central thesis of the book is.

The synopsis of the book offered in the original post is taken from the official website for the book. The authors' thesis--as stated in their synopsis--is a refutation of an argument they don't understand employing a series of non-sequiturs as evidence. That they composed an entire book without realizing this is laughable, thus people here are laughing at them. And we're not alone in doing so.

[Sammy Sofa]

Because it's obvious this book is going to be made up mostly of stupid meatball garbage just from the press release alone, so it would be a waste of time for anyone with any intelligence to read it. You can find endless variations of the same reactionary anti-sabrermetric crap on blogs and message board and sports media sites all over the internet. If you want to be one those guys, great, have fun. It should be exceedingly obvious you're in a tiny, tiny minority here, and it's refuge from that type of nonsense that was one of the main reasons this place was created and took off, so don't play the poor, put upon martyr when you support books like this.

I'm not supporting anything.

 

I'm laughing at all of the colossal leaps to judgement going on here.

 

Heck one person intimated that this book seeks to disprove sabermetrics because one time, a bird got hit with a baseball.

 

Seriously? That's what you expect this book is about?

 

It's clearly one of the things the book is about, unless, again, you think the stuff we're quoting are just lies.

 

Seriously, if you want to pretend that there's some amazing insight waiting to be discovered in the pages of this book, have fun with that. You're not going to find it, and this book is obviously just regurgitation the same anti-saber crap that we've seen countless times over. Please point to one thing in the links and quotes that indicate you think there's anything of value in this book.

[USSoccer]

 

Seriously, if you want to pretend that there's some amazing insight waiting to be discovered in the pages of this book, have fun with that. You're not going to find it, and this book is obviously just regurgitation the same anti-saber crap that we've seen countless times over. Please point to one thing in the links and quotes that indicate you think there's anything of value in this book.

 

Don't ruin his one man crusade against groupthink, or thinking, or whatever it is he's talking about.

[davearm2]

I like to think this has already come to a peaceful conclusion.

By this you mean the lone dissenting voice has been sufficiently mocked and shouted down.

 

It's been a while since we've had a groupthink meme post. I, for one, welcome it back.

 

Just so it can be shouted down. And mocked.

Oh groupthink is alive and well here at NSBB, and on full display in this thread.

 

Is the group "people with a brain"?

 

I'm comfortable being in that group.

No it's not. In fact the whole problem is you're *not* using your brain.

 

Instead you're engaging in the mindless, reflexive groupthink that says, "anything even vaguely anti-sabermetric must automatically be a big huge pile of rubbish that deserves unbridled scorn".

[USSoccer]

Because it's obvious this book is going to be made up mostly of stupid meatball garbage just from the press release alone, so it would be a waste of time for anyone with any intelligence to read it. You can find endless variations of the same reactionary anti-sabrermetric crap on blogs and message board and sports media sites all over the internet. If you want to be one those guys, great, have fun. It should be exceedingly obvious you're in a tiny, tiny minority here, and it's refuge from that type of nonsense that was one of the main reasons this place was created and took off, so don't play the poor, put upon martyr when you support books like this.

I'm not supporting anything.

 

I'm laughing at all of the colossal leaps to judgement going on here.

 

Heck one person intimated that this book seeks to disprove sabermetrics because one time, a bird got hit with a baseball.

 

Seriously? That's what you expect this book is about?

 

I think the book is about what the authors and publishers say its about. Which is everything we're mocking.

 

If you think you can learn something from a book that's basically going to read like a transcript of Mike and the Mad Dog, knock yourself out. All you're going to learn is that the author, and people like him, are colossally stupid

[USSoccer]

 

Is the group "people with a brain"?

 

I'm comfortable being in that group.

No it's not. In fact the whole problem is you're *not* using your brain.

 

Instead you're engaging in the mindless, reflexive groupthink that says, "anything even vaguely anti-sabermetric must automatically be a big huge pile of rubbish that deserves unbridled scorn".

 

Hold on, let me check with Mojo and imb to see what I should respond with...

[Sammy Sofa]

Instead you're engaging in the mindless, reflexive groupthink that says, "anything even vaguely anti-sabermetric must automatically be a big huge pile of rubbish that deserves unbridled scorn".

 

It's not "vaguely anti-sabermetric;" it's obviously anti-sabermetric. It's railing sabermetrics through the hoary old cliche of "stat geeks" and how they don't understand the REAL GAME, MAN.