Sabermetrics are a bunch of malarkey . . .

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

One of the first responders, and now Charley, made the excellent point that it is more realistic not to allow the computer to select awards based on VORP and RC/27. Why? Because I cannot ever, EVER, recall anybody talking about VORP in terms of baseball award winners and hall of fame members in real life.

That is a good point. However, can see the case being made that in reality, the most valuable player is not necessarily who people vote for. Basically, you're saying "MVPs are selected using old outdated tools and that's the way the game has to do it if it wants to be realistic", but others could very well say "In reality, the MVP is not who people vote for, it's who's actually the most valuable, and RBI offer little insight."

[Jestre]

What all of these VORP and RC followers don't seem to understand is that baseball is simply a matter of which team scores the most runs. VORP is completely divorced from that equation. You don't walk away from a game saying wow we outvorped them 7-3 we kicked their butt. To borrow from the above example that player that walked twice and doubled with the bases empty and contributed nothing to their teams score is unfortunately of no impact to their teams success, the hitter that struck out 4 times and then hit a homerun that plated several runs did have an impact and a critical one in determining the winner of the game. Who is more valuable in a "REAL" sense??? VORPists will take the loser, Counters will take the winner.

Since RBI's are a direct method of measuring success then yes RBI is an important stat. Sure there are team effects that have an impact in RBI production on an individual basis, but it isnt as pervasive as the VORPist would have us believe. If that were the case then the Redsox could stick Julio Lugo in the 4 spot and expect similar results as Manny and that just isnt gonna happen in the real world.

But those last three words in the previous paragraph is the dividing line between VORPist and RC'ers and us traditional stat'ers. The former are buried in theory and the latter are results based.

VORP may very well be the best tool to measure a players future value and expected value etc but it is not the best tool to measure past value and that is what this thread is about.

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

That is a good point. However, can see the case being made that in reality, the most valuable player is not necessarily who people vote for. Basically, you're saying "MVPs are selected using old outdated tools and that's the way the game has to do it if it wants to be realistic", but others could very well say "In reality, the MVP is not who people vote for, it's who's actually the most valuable, and RBI offer little insight."

I agree, LLN. Recall from my OP that what I said was only my opinion, that I did not mean to debate the finer points of sabermetrics with people, and above all,

I don't mean to offend any Bill James fans

Thankfully, this game can accommodate various styles of play, and if VORP, RC/27, and other various acronyms that I have not even looked at yet (and probably won't now) are your thing, then have at it, I say!

This thread (and particularly its title) came from frustration in trying to wrap my small head around sabermetrics and failing. Out of it, though, has come the realization that I was also using it to crystallize my own style of play. That I have shared this with the community is my right, of course, and in line with many another thread that I have seen here. Perhaps it will also give some support to people who feel the same way that I do.

So, until the time that I do hear about VORP and Willie Mays, or Alex Rodriguez's RC/27, as mainstream topics, I choose the traditional approach which, through 2007 at least, is the more realistic as well. I choose realism over the science which may be the wave of the future in baseball, but not today and not yesterday.

[andymac]

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

My mind just rebels at the thought of a Bill James coming up with some weird formula and saying, "I'm brilliant, therefore you must believe in this" and the rest of us just following along and nodding our heads.

I think this is where you are completely missing the boat when it comes to sabermetrics. These guys are their own toughest audience. Bill James, etc. don't come up with these formula's and then declare their brilliance. They publish them and discuss them, they admit what their shortcomings are and do more research to try to make them better. Sure, they like them better than the stats you like because they have done the research that shows they are more reliable. Statements like the following are ridiculous and uninformed.

Originally Posted by Charley575

I mean, when I think of the people who come up with these formulas, I see a lot of Captain Kirk posters on the wall, if you know what I mean. I'll bet most of these guys have never seen a real girl naked. And that's just sad...

They even have statistics like Win Probability Added for people like Jestre who don't want the best player but the player who was lucky enough to get a higher percentage of their production in important game situations. Of course, he can't specifically see the teams' win probability go up so he probably would trash that one as well.

[rudel.dietrich]

Why arn't some of these people in my online leagues

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

Why arn't some of these people in my online leagues

Who, me or Andy? Choose!

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Charley575

I mean, when I think of the people who come up with these formulas, I see a lot of Captain Kirk posters on the wall, if you know what I mean. I'll bet most of these guys have never seen a real girl naked. And that's just sad...

Bill James, the grandmaster of these formulas, is married with kids, never used a computer during his Baseball Abstract days, worked dozens of arbitration cases personally, and now works for the Red Sox.

Billy Beane, the grand disciple of these formulas/stathead supreme and author of numerous in-house formulas the Oakland A's never let out of the house, was a number one draft pick, won a World Series ring with the A's, and then joined the A's front office. Seven years later, he was the general manager. He's the father of several children.

They've "seen a real girl naked." What I want to know is where a self-admitted physics gets off dissing other people about having seen real girls naked. I mean, I used to room with some physics majors and knew lots more of them, and trust me, none of them had ever seen a real girl naked. Or even in their underwear.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

Why arn't some of these people in my online leagues

I was thinking the same thing. But I do get to compete with people who have almost no knowledge of modern analytical techniques. I just do it at work. The bad news is that eventually we (and the other efficient competitors) drive the inefficient ones right out of business so they tend not to last very long.

[Charley575]

Originally Posted by andymac

Statements like the following are ridiculous and uninformed.

Actually, the above statement was "humor", used to make the point that the overwhelming majority of people don't know what all these formulas mean and don't want to. That's their right. I mentioned previously that I have some scientific training myself, and I understand the usefulness of these formulas. Numbers don't lie. When properly analyzed, the numbers can dissect past performance and in many cases predict future outcomes to a high level of reliability. Whether the subject is baseball statistics, or the existence of black holes, THE MATH DOESN'T LIE. That having been said, my point that I'm trying to drive home in this thread is this... the majority of baseball fans are not fascinated with Sabermetrics. Most of them have never heard of it, and if you try to convert them, they'll either walk away from you or punch you in the face, or at least threaten to. Maybe it's an idea that just hasn't caught on yet. I tend to think, however, that the reason it hasn't caught on, and most likely won't ever be popular, is because it sort of takes the fun out of the game. It IS still a GAME, after all. People just want to enjoy it. Most of them don't want to dig that deep. So, you Sabermetric folks out there are technically correct. Sabermetrics tell the story in the stats much better than traditional stats. It's just not something that Joe Average, with his 80-100 I.Q. can relate to in a tangible way. In a country that still stubbornly refuses to adopt the metric system after everyone else has done so, your battle will be even tougher. Sorry.

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

Why arn't some of these people in my online leagues

I guess your league wouldn't be as fun, then .

[Charley575]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Bill James, the grandmaster of these formulas, is married with kids, never used a computer during his Baseball Abstract days, worked dozens of arbitration cases personally, and now works for the Red Sox.

Billy Beane, the grand disciple of these formulas/stathead supreme and author of numerous in-house formulas the Oakland A's never let out of the house, was a number one draft pick, won a World Series ring with the A's, and then joined the A's front office. Seven years later, he was the general manager. He's the father of several children.

They've "seen a real girl naked." What I want to know is where a self-admitted physics gets off dissing other people about having seen real girls naked. I mean, I used to room with some physics majors and knew lots more of them, and trust me, none of them had ever seen a real girl naked. Or even in their underwear.

I'm married with a child myself.
Humor, guys. Humor.

[andymac]

Originally Posted by Charley575

I'm married with a child myself.
Humor, guys. Humor.

It is an overused stereotype, which I guess tells us about your sense of humor. Are you going to reference pocket-protectors in your next one?

[Charley575]

Originally Posted by Charley575

Actually, the above statement was "humor", used to make the point that the overwhelming majority of people don't know what all these formulas mean and don't want to. That's their right. I mentioned previously that I have some scientific training myself, and I understand the usefulness of these formulas. Numbers don't lie. When properly analyzed, the numbers can dissect past performance and in many cases predict future outcomes to a high level of reliability. Whether the subject is baseball statistics, or the existence of black holes, THE MATH DOESN'T LIE. That having been said, my point that I'm trying to drive home in this thread is this... the majority of baseball fans are not fascinated with Sabermetrics. Most of them have never heard of it, and if you try to convert them, they'll either walk away from you or punch you in the face, or at least threaten to. Maybe it's an idea that just hasn't caught on yet. I tend to think, however, that the reason it hasn't caught on, and most likely won't ever be popular, is because it sort of takes the fun out of the game. It IS still a GAME, after all. People just want to enjoy it. Most of them don't want to dig that deep. So, you Sabermetric folks out there are technically correct. Sabermetrics tell the story in the stats much better than traditional stats. It's just not something that Joe Average, with his 80-100 I.Q. can relate to in a tangible way. In a country that still stubbornly refuses to adopt the metric system after everyone else has done so, your battle will be even tougher. Sorry.

...but can you argue with this?

[Jestre]

Lot of panties getting twisted on this thread....

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by Jestre

Lot of panties getting twisted on this thread....

Yes, but I don't feel bad. All in all, it's good for the board and OOTP.

[Charley575]

Yeah, you see how I'm taking the brunt now? It's okay. I have broad shoulders. If I seem to have taken a side, well, I haven't. I said in my first post and I'll reiterate, I see both arguments. Both sides have a valid point.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Charley575

I'm married with a child myself.
Humor, guys. Humor.

I got it.

Boy you did push some hot buttons though.

To me there is always a struggle between objective knowledge and subjective reasoning. I've read and completely understand Baseball Prospectus' analysis of Joe Carter vs Dave Kingman. Kingman was a better player, more productive according to their analysis. That is an objective fact by analysis. However would anyone, given access to a time machine, seriously put Dave Kingman at age 33 as cleanup hitter in the WAMCO lineup of the 1993 Blue Jays? If so I admire your objectivity.

[Neags23]

Originally Posted by Charley575

Yeah, you see how I'm taking the brunt now? It's okay. I have broad shoulders. If I seem to have taken a side, well, I haven't. I said in my first post and I'll reiterate, I see both arguments. Both sides have a valid point.

If the "RBIs are great!" side has any valid point, it's only that this is the method real world writers most often use to vote for MVP.

That's not necessarily a good thing, though. If you want the game to model that stupidity, I suppose you could... but why would you want to?

[andymac]

Originally Posted by Charley575

...but can you argue with this?

I have never tried to convert anyone. I didn't start this thread, just responded to the complaints about the stats and the attacks on the guys who created them (just because a thread is started off by saying "I'm not attacking" or whatever doesn't mean what follows doesn't attack, nor does hiding under the veil of humor). I could not care less how many people want to stick with the "traditional" stats, I'll just feel that I am better informed than they are. It isn't like by using the "non traditional" stats, I no longer understand the "traditional" ones.

What you guys either don't remember or weren't around to witness, is that the reason the game chooses the MVP the way it does now is because there were many posters complaining that the game was obviously choosing the wrong guy using the "traditional stats". So, Markus changed the formula (I don't remember exactly what version this happened with).

[Charley575]

Originally Posted by Neags23

If the "RBIs are great!" side has any valid point, it's only that this is the method real world writers most often use to vote for MVP.

That's not necessarily a good thing, though. If you want the game to model that stupidity, I suppose you could... but why would you want to?

I think you've entirely missed my point, and I'm not going to restate it in it's entirety. Go back and read what I wrote, please, about the appeal of traditional stats vs. Sabermetric ones to the average baseball fan.