10-01-2009, 10:33 PM
I guess that there will always be room for both.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Gelf Magazine: I am always and everywhere for the advancement of things that help us understand the world better, but there's a stubborn <b>part of me that finds advanced stats kind of a bummer.</b> As the human element recedes from the broader sports narrative—the players become more guarded, journalists critical in new ways, the sports-media climate (and that of the culture in general) slipping perhaps into a crueler and angrier mode—the idea of reducing baseball-playing humans to ever-more-nuanced data points doesn't seem to solve the bigger problem in the discourse. (Doesn't mean I don't love me some OPS+, I'm just saying.) What do you think explains the mushrooming of new-style statistical analysis, especially at the pro bono/hobbyist level, as at such places as FanGraphs? Also, what do you think makes certain people so ridiculously unfriendly to this sort of thing?
Joe Posnanski: Well, we do love our myths.<b> I guess I can see why some people are averse to stats: Because they can pop balloons.</b> Stats can tell you that "clutch hitting" is awfully difficult to find in the numbers. Stats can tell you that starting pitchers cannot really pitch to the score. Stats can tell you that a hot streak may not be due to a player getting new contact lenses or the discovery of a hitch in his swing, but may instead be due to the vagaries of luck and chance.
But I love advanced stats because I think for every myth they pierce, there's a new, even more compelling theme they create. I don't need to believe in the consistency of clutch hitting to appreciate when a guy hits a two-run homer in the bottom of the ninth. I don't need to believe in some mystical talents of a pitcher to appreciate when he wins a game 1-0. I think the stats can get us a little closer to what's real, and I like what's real. I don't think there's any question that on-base percentage does a better job of capturing a player's contribution to his team than batting average. That doesn't mean I can't admire Joe Mauer's .370 average. It means that I constantly long for something that gets me closer to the heart of things.
But I also know some people disagree. Our myths are powerful and pleasant, and maybe we don't want to believe Derek Jeter has been a below-average shortstop. He looks good out there. Don't give me stats that tell me otherwise.
<b>The funny thing about people are who bothered by stats is that they (almost without fail) tend to use other stats as a battering ram</b>. They will rage about the lunacy of VORP while talking about how many RBIs a player has. They will rant about UZR while saying that Player X has only made three errors. And so on. For me, well, I've looked pretty closely at the stats (because I love that sort of thing), and I think the advanced stats tell a more complete and more enjoyable story. They have added to my enjoyment of the game, and I constantly try to use them to add to other people's enjoyment of the game.
I fully appreciate that for some people, the advanced stuff takes some of the humanity out of the game. It doesn't for me. People should enjoy baseball any way they want to enjoy baseball. But they should also appreciate that these advanced stats may tell a more complete and deeper story about the game, and that liking the stats doesn't make you dislike baseball or any less appreciative of the beauty of the game.<b> And of course any baseball team that does not make full use of the statistics and theories that are out there is simply fighting stealth bombers with clubs</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Gelf Magazine: I am always and everywhere for the advancement of things that help us understand the world better, but there's a stubborn <b>part of me that finds advanced stats kind of a bummer.</b> As the human element recedes from the broader sports narrative—the players become more guarded, journalists critical in new ways, the sports-media climate (and that of the culture in general) slipping perhaps into a crueler and angrier mode—the idea of reducing baseball-playing humans to ever-more-nuanced data points doesn't seem to solve the bigger problem in the discourse. (Doesn't mean I don't love me some OPS+, I'm just saying.) What do you think explains the mushrooming of new-style statistical analysis, especially at the pro bono/hobbyist level, as at such places as FanGraphs? Also, what do you think makes certain people so ridiculously unfriendly to this sort of thing?
Joe Posnanski: Well, we do love our myths.<b> I guess I can see why some people are averse to stats: Because they can pop balloons.</b> Stats can tell you that "clutch hitting" is awfully difficult to find in the numbers. Stats can tell you that starting pitchers cannot really pitch to the score. Stats can tell you that a hot streak may not be due to a player getting new contact lenses or the discovery of a hitch in his swing, but may instead be due to the vagaries of luck and chance.
But I love advanced stats because I think for every myth they pierce, there's a new, even more compelling theme they create. I don't need to believe in the consistency of clutch hitting to appreciate when a guy hits a two-run homer in the bottom of the ninth. I don't need to believe in some mystical talents of a pitcher to appreciate when he wins a game 1-0. I think the stats can get us a little closer to what's real, and I like what's real. I don't think there's any question that on-base percentage does a better job of capturing a player's contribution to his team than batting average. That doesn't mean I can't admire Joe Mauer's .370 average. It means that I constantly long for something that gets me closer to the heart of things.
But I also know some people disagree. Our myths are powerful and pleasant, and maybe we don't want to believe Derek Jeter has been a below-average shortstop. He looks good out there. Don't give me stats that tell me otherwise.
<b>The funny thing about people are who bothered by stats is that they (almost without fail) tend to use other stats as a battering ram</b>. They will rage about the lunacy of VORP while talking about how many RBIs a player has. They will rant about UZR while saying that Player X has only made three errors. And so on. For me, well, I've looked pretty closely at the stats (because I love that sort of thing), and I think the advanced stats tell a more complete and more enjoyable story. They have added to my enjoyment of the game, and I constantly try to use them to add to other people's enjoyment of the game.
I fully appreciate that for some people, the advanced stuff takes some of the humanity out of the game. It doesn't for me. People should enjoy baseball any way they want to enjoy baseball. But they should also appreciate that these advanced stats may tell a more complete and deeper story about the game, and that liking the stats doesn't make you dislike baseball or any less appreciative of the beauty of the game.<b> And of course any baseball team that does not make full use of the statistics and theories that are out there is simply fighting stealth bombers with clubs</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's nothing better than to realize that the good things about youth don't end with youth itself. It's a matter of realizing that life can be renewed every day you get out of bed without baggage. It's tough to get there, but it's better than the dark thoughts. -Lance