Quote:
Originally Posted by ctorg
I've been struggling to find a way to explain the viewpoint of people who go for traditional stats to others like me who go more for sabermetric measures. I have a sort of intuitive understanding of it that I can't seem to put into words correctly. That is, I understand it on some level, but my attempts to communicate that understanding fall short.
|
I think it's because sabermetrics add a layer of statistical analysis at a level the casual fan or those most familiar with traditional stats aren't generally equipped to, or care to, understand. For example, they'll look at .52 per stolen base and .26 per walk in the RC formula and say, "Where do those numbers come from? I'm not sure I trust/buy into this." The conventional stats have a long tradition of encoded value, e.g. .300 batting average is a benchmark, as are 30 HRs, 100 RBI, etc. Sabermetric stats take numbers that traditional fans feel close to and chop them up and regurgitate them into something foreign. .300/30/100 means something to the traditional fan, while 50 VORP has no mythical or emotional associations.
I didn't know what regression analysis or statistical correlation was before I began to investigate sabermetrics, so I can see where the unwillingness to accept the new stats at face value come from. However, I also think that fans that chain themselves solely to traditional stats are doing themselves a disservice by not inquiring into the new stats thoroughly and seeing what they have to offer. At least seek to understand the methodology so you can take the next step whether to assign value to or dismiss what researchers come up with. And to claim you have understanding of how they work while at the same time displaying evidence of the contrary is a disservice to those who seek clarity and depth in knowledge about baseball, which, at root, is just what sabermetrics strives to accomplish.