Athletics Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: MLB Hot Stove: blogging the rumors, trades, signings Bar-right-arrows



SABERMETRICIANS AND MONEYBALLERS MORE OF A THREAT TO GAME THAN STEROIDS

Baseball is immortal, isn't it?

The intrinsic beauty and balance of the game--played in a 90 ft, 9 inning, 9 man, 27 out perfect world--has always sustained it in tough times.

Seemingly undaunted by the ills of real life, including the constant waves of gambling and booze and performance enhancers that the diamond has witnessed since the origin of Organized Baseball in the nineteenth century, the game has steadfastly continued marching ahead.

In spite of its many ups and downs, it has provided us with unbroken memories and endless comparisons of its greats from era to era. And it was able to do so by speaking to us in a timeless and language of sound and picture--the crack of the bat, a cap flying off in the outfield, a crowd's voice soaring in unison as the runner rounds third--backed by a universal dictionary of revered definitions: W-L (won-lost), HRs (home runs), RBIs (runs batted in), BA (batting average), and ERA (earned run average).

It was always about what was happening between the foul lines. We didn't really care about anything else.

Even McGwire and Sosa couldn't spoil the main event, in spite of their apparently drug-induced side show in 1998.

Neither could Canseco, Giambi, Bonds, Palmiero, Caminiti, Bagwell, Clemens, Pettitte, or Vaughn. Nor Rose or Ford, Koufax or Grove, Cobb or Speaker, for that matter. We looked at their legendary performances and statistics, their excesses and frailties, which were nearly universal. We tried to understand them in terms of their eras. And, ultimately, we can accept and embrace them.

We could question its stars, but nothing could permanently undermine the game itself. Nothing could stop it from bouncing back. Not racism, drugs, wars, depressions, or earthquakes, not even the designated hitter.

Now it faces a challenge once again.

I'm not sure when it started. But we started looking at the game differently. Attention began shifting away from the field, away from the distinctive way a guy would routinely dive head first into second with dirt and spikes flying.

Instead, we started looking at his SB% (stolen base %), and then, before we knew it, his VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) or TPR (Total Player Rating).

One day we were out in the bleachers arguing with our friends about how many people were in the park, or how many home runs Boog Powell hit in 1967, and eagerly waiting for the scoreboard to announce the actual figures. How did that blundering simplicity change into a smug fluency with win shares, radar guns, ACL injuries, payrolls, contracts, and territorial rights?

Something dark and distracting now seemed to be underway, beneath the giddiness of new attendance records, the promise of a building boom of glossy stadiums, and a bevy of talented young players today that very well may exceed the skills of any previous era.

Even with all this to look forward to, something was wrong.

Rather than simply watch the game, the new fans now wanted to be at the center of attention. Selling them a new identity as baseball "experts," and pumping them up with myriad new stats and "insider" knowledge, could make them feel important and superior to those who didn't "get it," and, most importantly, create new markets and mallparks that would be designed to satisfy this need for self-importance, trendiness, and exclusivity.

Give them their own little electronic world in which to feel special, their own language, their own statistics, their own products, their own personal interactive device--and leave the clunky, grimey, low-tech fans back in Oakland.

Thus, the gentrification of baseball and the birth of Crisco Field.  

Could Bill James, a friendly enough sort, and the father of sabermetrics, be the unwitting Dr. Frankenstein of an electronic plague of redundant calculus-like statistics descending over baseball. Could the sabermetricians and the Moneyballers, SABR's more sinister intellectual beneficiaries, do what even the 1919 Black Sox could not?

Could they ruin baseball?

Maybe. The Moneyballers seem to have hijacked the SABR (Society for American Baseball Research) ship with the help of an affluent, internet-based, business model-saavy fan base that identifies more with money and management than with our communities or the game itself.

An army of stat geeks and closet accountants is turning the Grand Old Game into a world of dubious numbers and formulas for greed-posing-as-sensible baseball management. We are now seeing the merging of this pseudo way to evaluate on-the-field performance--sabermetrics--with the quality control and profits-over-everything mentality of modern corps., banks, and baseball execs.

It's called Moneyball. But do these new stats work? What kind of bargain-hunting arithmetic results in hiring a decidedly declining Mike Piazza for $8M to replace a near MVP Frank Thomas, who is getting $9M from the Jays?

No wonder the real fans are scratching their heads about Ex-A Jermaine Dye--one of the game's best all-around players--getting $7M in 2007, after $5M in 2005 and 2006 from the White Sox, while the Pirates and A's team up to give Jason Kendall $13M in 2007. And, does Jason Kendall's OPS tell you something you don't already know--that he is wildly over-priced--after watching him strand two runners again in the late innings?

Does Bill James' personal favorite, "little stats," really make Craig Biggio the best player in the game--as James claims--or just the best bargain at moving runners from first to second? And do SABR icons like VORPs and "range factors" really enhance watching the game, or will they just send the fans to their nearest Cisco kiosk in 2011, or keep them glued to their pop-up-laden personal interactive device?

The epidemic of saber-stats contrivances--like fielding runs and ERA+ and home park adjustments--has resulted in a fantasy league parallel universe where the fantasy manager's salary cap and budgetary considerations, and all manner of showy calculations and pretentious formulas, are more valued than simply watching--and understanding--the game itself.

It's moneyball vs. baseball. It's Rotisserie League vs. Hot Stove League. It's trendy fans of the trendy ballpark and the esoteric stat vs. fans of the timeless hook slide and the basic hit-and-run.

We may have already seen the beginning of the end of our beloved game as we know it. Even the most traditional fans helplessly find themselves discussing OPS (the sum of on base % and slugging %). And the most popular baseball blogs are dominated by shrewdly calculated actuarial presentations on player payrolls and contracts that more resemble financial analysis in the Wall Street Journal than a baseball story.

Now the fan--the new, smug baseball business-saavy fan who identifies with the owners, not the traditional fan of teams and the ooh-and-ah watching of baseball--can discuss the merits of a three year contract for a middle reliever with the competence and dispassion of a general manager.

But the same fan doesn't know when a throw should be cut off or allowed to go through to the plate on a bang-bang play.

This may be fine with Wall Street, which cares about only its money and investments, and which is comfortable with the way these new age fans identify with wealth and management.

But on Main Street, which has traditionally cared less about profits and more about its hits-and-runs-and-errors, its hot dogs, and a lazy day at the ballpark, embracing the bottom line hasn't taken hold among the fans to the extent giants like Citicard and Safeco would prefer.

We're not rooting hard enough yet for their profit margin. We need to get on board with Cisco's happy vision of a perpetual profit machine in Silicon Valley. This identity with corporate interests would make us more compliant and consumptive.

Is this writer paranoid? Then, tell me, whoever heard of fans rooting for baseball executives, rather than outfielders, the way we do today. Some of us depend on Billy Beane's "shrewdness" to win the pennant and pay more attention to his Macha-vellian madness than we do to the box score.

Just wait, there's more to come. This is where we can see how promotion of the bland Moneyball efficiency model--which sees players as interchangeable parts--is blazing the way for this new kind of fan, one that identifies with annual reports more than scouting reports, and salary caps more than hometeam caps.

The natural result of this shift of loyalty from the game to the bottom line is our acceptance and even approval of the heartlessness and "inevitablity" of moving to Fremont and the creation of the marketing mosh pit called Cisco Field.

Not far behind will be hors d'ouevres like $169 jerseys with "CISCO" proudly emblazoned across the chest. To be followed by a sumptuous menu of Cisco networking devices for our corporate client-fans.

We are immersed in a new world of endless stat-infused chatter over nothing, a constant marketing/Rotisserie League culture in which the fan, no longer just an observer, becomes a player.  Surrounded by extraneous gadgets like ever-present radar guns and personal interactive monitors and endless statistics and commercials "at every seat," ala Cisco Field, we will be ready to buy.

We are now seeing the advent of mallparks, which are designed more for shopping than for watching the game. In fact, the idea is for the customers to NOT watch the game. Get 'em in the gate, then get 'em on line. Forces are at work here which are making modern baseball stadiums begin to feel like your local Best Buy, and these same pressures are encouraging the front offices to operate with all the passion of Goldman Sachs.  

Jason Marquis, a really dreadful pitcher, has  signed with the Cubs for more than $20M for three seasons of ineptitude and three run homers. All the Cubs needed to know about his numbers are a 6.02 ERA in 2006. Instead, whatever fixation with innings and adjusted ERA led the A's to give the same deal to Esteban Loaiza last winter has just made another obvious mediocrity a rich man.

Ironically, today's ever-more frantic emphasis on profits and the bottom line--combined with a lot of silly stat-talk from MBA General Managers, offered in place of the lost ability to know who is good and who is not good--has actually ended up raising the price of these kinds of players.

So, who is more of a threat to the "integrity" and quality of the game--the players who, since time immemorial, have tried to cut corners in any way they could in the course of giving us our greatest memories, or the moneyballers, MBAs (Masters of Baseball Analysis), and accountants, who would rather have us calculate over a spreadsheet than let us settle back and watch the mastery of a two-hitter?

0 recs | Comment 200 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

This diary is going to be popular.
"Look its either batman or batman and robin not robin w/o batman robin isn't sh@#."--cchefz71

by jeepers on Dec 14, 2006 11:47 AM PST   0 recs

Meh
This guy is dead! We'll list him as day-to-day for possible reincarnation.
A's Medical Staff, 2006

by grover on Dec 14, 2006 11:56 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Popular...
with readers of firejoemorgan, should they find it.

by mikeA on Dec 14, 2006 11:59 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Firejoemorgan rawks
I love how they dig and massacre a lot of logical fallacies and non-facts that people put in their writing.

by tomoyo on Dec 14, 2006 3:17 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Um
I think there is a No Plaschke rule on this site.
Signatures? We don't need no stinking signatures.

by jubjub on Dec 14, 2006 11:55 AM PST   0 recs

or should I say
a No de la Fuente rule
Signatures? We don't need no stinking signatures.

by jubjub on Dec 14, 2006 11:59 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Easterbrook? Is that you?
A.  Some fans are understanding baseball using more modern and precise stats.
B.  Owners are targeting a more affluent fan through boutique ballparks and controlling ticket supply.
C.  Therefore A is causing B.

What to say about this...post hoc ergo propter hoc?  Or perhaps we should invoke the underpants gnomes.

"Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?" --Johnny Rotten

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Dec 14, 2006 12:02 PM PST   0 recs

you could
throw in that more and more owners made their money in analytical ventures and, staying with what they know best, select GM's and support staff who will look for inefficencies to exploit.  
Signatures? We don't need no stinking signatures.

by jubjub on Dec 14, 2006 12:14 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Or you could say that...
..because I'm only ever drunk at night, either my drinking causes the sun to go down, or the sun going down makes me drunk.

What the diarist needs to do is go out to a batting cage and swing a little.

And while he's there, if someone tries to show him how to fix his stance, he needs to try to avoid cracking that person over the head with the bat for their temerity in actually using intelligence and knowledge and analysis to improve performance.

I mean, heck, we should just close our eyes and swing, right?

"Kotsay is 31... Kotsay's back is 127." - Jeepers

by Ozzz on Dec 15, 2006 12:25 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

cut to ribbons
This thread will be cut to ribbons if it anyone takes the time to. I predict no one will. The argument was fleshed out 6 years ago.
80% of the success of a baseball team, like a 80% of the success of a marriage is based on how well you manage your money.

by apilgrim on Dec 14, 2006 12:02 PM PST   0 recs

Excellent use of a Strawman
This guy is dead! We'll list him as day-to-day for possible reincarnation.
A's Medical Staff, 2006

by grover on Dec 14, 2006 12:02 PM PST   0 recs

You mention that all any body
cares about is the bottom line which is true ever since the advent of free agency.  With $60-200 million payrolls somebody better look at the bottom line.  In the '88 season the A's payroll was $12 million, then the collusion issue and look what we have now.  Fans seem to think that rich owners pay for the players, instead in reality it is the fans and the prices they now pay.  Moneyball was a direct result of this, the need to find a cheaper player for a team that cannot compete economically.
By the way in answer to your question Bill James is the guy who started all this, I have all of his books from the beginning, a most delightful read, a treasure in my library.

by china bob on Dec 14, 2006 12:05 PM PST   0 recs

We went over this in your diary on Big Mac...
"Does Bill James' personal favorite, "little stats," really make Craig Biggio the best player in the game--as James claims--"

Bill James never claimed this.  He said he was incredibly undevalued, even with many good statistics, because of these little things.  He has never claimed that he was anywhere near the best player in baseball.

Again, we went over this in your last thread, so I'm not sure if you're not listening, just trying to start an argument, or simply don't care to get your facts right.

by SuperBean on Dec 14, 2006 12:15 PM PST   0 recs

Yes he did
Read the updated Historical Abstract, which I believe was written in 1999.

by yarky on Dec 14, 2006 4:24 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

He's right ...
it's under the Barry Bonds article:

The ten best players of the 1990s:

  1. Barry Bonds
  2. Craig Biggio
  3. Frank Thomas
  4. Ken Griffey Jr.
  5. Jeff Bagwell
  6. Rafael Palmeiro
  7. Barry Larkin
  8. Roberto Alomar
  9. Mark McGwire
  10. Greg Maddux
The number two man, Biggio, is closer in value to the number 10 man than he is to Bonds. Biggio passed Bonds as the best player in baseball in 1997.

Keep in mind when this was written and that he is specifically talking about the 90s:

OPS+
1997 Biggio 143 Bonds 170
1998 Biggio 139 Bonds 177
1999 Biggio 118 Bonds 162

Massive difference there.

It was ameliorated slightly by Biggio's 125 stolen bases compared to Bonds' 80.

But what it fails to take into account is that Biggio was a high end defensive player at a premium defensive position.

Bonds was a good defensive player (he had started to slow by then and won his last couple of GGs based mostly on rep) at arguably the easiest defensive position.

So what does VORP have to say?
1997 Biggio 80.1 Bonds 86.4
1998 Biggio 80.5 Bonds 83.8
1999 Biggio 48.3 Bonds 45.6

So, according to VORP, during the period in question in the 90s, Biggio's bat was worth 7 runs less than Bonds'.

I find it impossible to imagine that Biggio's glove didn't make up the difference and then some (though I have no data to back it up).

Even without getting into his small ball contributions, a very plausible argument can be made that from 1997-1999 Biggio was better than Bonds.

by devo on Dec 14, 2006 4:56 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Hmm...
I took that as Biggio was the best player in 1997, in which looking at WARP3 numbers, he was.  You could very well be right that he actually meant for that three year period, but with that very not great 99 season it seems strange and out of place.  So I dunno.

And also, he is realistic in pointing out that over the decade, Biggio was closer to tenth place then he was to first(Bonds), cause Bonds was so out of everyone elses league.

by SuperBean on Dec 14, 2006 7:36 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Lamar was injured in 99 ...
limiting his totals ...

I'm not sure that either Barry nor Biggio was the best of those three years.

In terms of VORP, they were 8th and 11th in the league.

Nomar Garciaparra, Ken Griffey Jr., Mark McGwire, Larry Walker, Derek Jeter and Mike Piazza all had solid leads on the pair.

by devo on Dec 14, 2006 9:05 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Let's also not forget...
...Craig Biggio = most plunked player in baseball history.

That's gotta be worth something.

"Kotsay is 31... Kotsay's back is 127." - Jeepers

by Ozzz on Dec 15, 2006 12:28 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Let's also not forget . . .
That not only was a I basically "right," SuperBean, about what James said and you need to be a little less snooty, but your whole coterie (sp?) of sabermetricians needs to laugh at yourselves a little for trying to make this Biggio assertion sound reasonable.  C'mon!

by froggiethegremlin on Dec 15, 2006 10:46 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

It is reasonable
Biggio was a hell of a player back then. Barry Bonds was too, but it wasn't until 2000 that the results of his poofy cheeks really kicked in.

Do you have an actual argument to make ... or are you just going with "c'mon"?

You're right, I know what is implied by "c'mon" -- Barry Bonds is Barry Bonds, Craig Biggio is just a little second baseman.

Well Joe Morgan was a little dude too, so were Eddie Collins and Rogers Hornsby.

I do think that James overstates Biggio's talents a bit.

But, I suppose this just proves his actual point -- that Biggio was a terribly underappreciated superstar. If folks who do their best to tell the difference between a .280 and .300 hitter based on looking at their swings instead of their stats don't realize Biggio's brilliance, it's no wonder he has been quite underappreciated.

by devo on Dec 15, 2006 11:26 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

I will give in on the first part...
I was wrong, as the part I thought you were pointing(The Biggio article on "little stats") did not include what you stated, but it was elsewhere.  I have never had trouble admiting my mistakes, and this one I was definitely mistaken.  I apologize for sounding "snooty," but its a little hard to take from someone who said "But the same fan doesn't know when a throw should be cut off or allowed to go through to the plate on a bang-bang play," or "No wonder the real fans are scratching their heads."  Nice insinuation that you're a better fan with more 'true' baseball knowledge than supposed "stat-heads."

Regardless, I think we have placed a reasonable argument that Biggio was the best player in 1997, and one of the most valuable from 1997-1999.  You have stated nothing, other than that it is laughable.

Offer some insight, why was he bad?  Who was better?  You seem to be very good at brushing off others facts and information without providing anything of an argument yourself.

by SuperBean on Dec 15, 2006 6:44 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

how exactly are the stat head and cell phone fan
the same person?
"The future's like, who cares?" ~Eric Chavez

by rebus on Dec 14, 2006 12:17 PM PST   0 recs

Fascinating.
Is there a point?
"[Frank's] a big battler. He's the mother of battleships."

-Nick Swisher

by kaweahkaweah on Dec 14, 2006 12:18 PM PST   0 recs

{checks top of head}
"You know, Mark Ellis is the all-time home run leader from South Pecota." ~ jeepers

by Poppy on Dec 14, 2006 12:21 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

sal is ruining baseball
"San Jose A's of Fremont" is embarassing

by ArakSOT on Dec 14, 2006 12:26 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

<tries to engineer end of baseball>
"San Jose A's of Fremont" is embarassing

by ArakSOT on Dec 14, 2006 1:09 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

<sells tickets to watch>
Five dollah BART bridge hats for Christmas this year! ~ FSU @('.')@

by monkeyball on Dec 14, 2006 1:20 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Rolex?
"You know, Mark Ellis is the all-time home run leader from South Pecota." ~ jeepers

by Poppy on Dec 14, 2006 1:28 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

<makes graph to analyze sales data>
"San Jose A's of Fremont" is embarassing

by ArakSOT on Dec 14, 2006 1:45 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

You're ruining scalping.
"You know, Mark Ellis is the all-time home run leader from South Pecota." ~ jeepers

by Poppy on Dec 14, 2006 1:57 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

</Custer>
Five dollah BART bridge hats for Christmas this year! ~ FSU @('.')@

by monkeyball on Dec 14, 2006 1:58 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

<reads graph on cellphone at ballpark>
<flogs peasant>
Five dollah BART bridge hats for Christmas this year! ~ FSU @('.')@

by monkeyball on Dec 14, 2006 1:57 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

<twirls mustach>
<laughs evily>
"San Jose A's of Fremont" is embarassing

by ArakSOT on Dec 14, 2006 2:51 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

<ties indigent A's fan to monorail track>
Five dollah BART bridge hats for Christmas this year! ~ FSU @('.')@

by monkeyball on Dec 14, 2006 3:07 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

<eats puppy casserole>
<sells soul to devil>

<becomes sports agent>

"San Jose A's of Fremont" is embarassing

by ArakSOT on Dec 14, 2006 3:12 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Wait. Now I'm confused.
If you sell your soul to the devil, then wouldn't Boras both own your soul and get a commission on the transfer fee?
Five dollah BART bridge hats for Christmas this year! ~ FSU @('.')@

by monkeyball on Dec 14, 2006 3:57 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

And does god
get a posting fee?

by sslinger on Dec 14, 2006 4:08 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Too answer your question
I read this over a second time, thanks for taking the time to write it.
Now to answer the spirit of the question:
"So, who is more of a threat to the "integrity" and quality of the game--the players who, since time immemorial, have tried to cut corners in any way they could in the course of giving us our greatest memories, or the moneyballers, MBAs (Masters of Baseball Analysis), and accountants, who would rather have us calculate over a spreadsheet than let us settle back and watch the mastery of a two-hitter?"

The high cost of going to baseball games is ruining it for me-the $8 beers and $20 T-shirts, that and the ticket scalpers, and the fact that the Red Sox, Yankees, Cubs, Dodgers, Mets can pretty much get whatever player they want.
I guess that would make the 2nd group as ruining the game for me.

by apilgrim on Dec 14, 2006 12:32 PM PST   0 recs

edit
*In answer to your question

by apilgrim on Dec 14, 2006 12:35 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

You know...
...you could not bother buying a T-shirt.

And a hip flask is a great beer substitute.

I never quite understand people who go to events that should, by themselves, be plenty enjoyable, and then complain about how expensive the unnecessary extras are.

"I can't believe they charge $6 for popcorn at this theater!"
"So why did you buy it?"

"Kotsay is 31... Kotsay's back is 127." - Jeepers

by Ozzz on Dec 15, 2006 12:31 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

hip flask
I dont think I would bring bourbon/whiskey into a stadium-its got such a distinctive smell that carries pretty far away.
Not sure what else you would put in a hip flask-bourbon/whiskey are the only things that hold up well at normal temps. I do admit it does sound appealing on an April night game though.

[quote]
"...you could not bother buying a T-shirt."
[/quote]

true-I have been experimenting with a some green and gold markers and a plain white hanes T-Shirt. I am pretty happy with the results, plus I can wear the number of whatever player I like.

by apilgrim on Dec 15, 2006 1:06 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Only $20?
T-shirts for only $20? I had to pay over $30 at the stadium for the last A's t-shirt I bought. ('Course, it had the word "Blanton" on it, which has to at least double its value....) :P

by BerkeleyDawg on Dec 15, 2006 2:20 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Everything changes or is left behind.
baseball has changed because we have changed.

by Billy Ball 2005 on Dec 14, 2006 12:43 PM PST   0 recs

What has changed here?
To paraphrase a widely respected Bay Area baseball observer--and I'm not referring to Joe Morgan--we don't need sabermetrics to be able to watch the game and know who can catch, run, throw, and hit. The thing that has changed, besides the players being better than ever, is that we now have another contrived, specialized market which allows a lot of money to be made through maketing, rotisserie leagues, snobby seson tickets in Fremont, etc. I don't think any of us, including this writer, fully understand the importance of this aura of exclusivity and "getting it" is to the modern market place, where the consumer is not only buying the material product but buying a feeling of being an insider . . . you can connect the dots here, becaue I'm a little tired of talking about it, and I can use some help anyway

by froggiethegremlin on Dec 14, 2006 12:55 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

big mutant hybrid strawman
Don't have time to answer your post in great detail, mainly because your post combines three groups of people that are different, oversimplifying things into meaninglessness:
  1. people who like the new stats
  2. people who obsess over fantasy baseball
  3. people who are casual affluent fans
I don't like fantasy baseball (it warps my enjoyment of the games). I am affluent but not a casual fan.  I like the new stats and am bored of attacks on them by people who don't understand them.

I have no problem who want to ignore new stats, but people who resent them really protest too much. If you understand what a batting average is, you really have no excuse to resent OBP (yeah you know me), SLG, and OPS, etc.

And yes, you DO need stats to know how well people run, throw and hit. No one can tell by eye the difference between a .300 hitter and a .280 hitter. Knowing these subtle differences shapes and enhances the pleasure of seeing the game unfold.

by Apricot on Dec 14, 2006 1:08 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

You can tell the difference . . .
Not only can some people tell the differnce between a .280 hitterand a .300 hitter with their eye, but they can tell which one will hit when it matters . . . .

by froggiethegremlin on Dec 14, 2006 1:12 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

and the difference between 103mph and 99mph
"The future's like, who cares?" ~Eric Chavez

by rebus on Dec 14, 2006 1:19 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

or at the very least ...
they say they can. That counts too, right?

Truthfully, though, at the beginning of this season, I predicted Derek Jeter and Ichiro Suzuki would each bat .300. I did it only based on looking at their swings. I knew but made this pick while ignoring the fact that they both have well above .300 career batting averages.

Aren't you impressed with me?

by devo on Dec 14, 2006 1:19 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Who are 3 people who've never been
in my kitchen?
"Look its either batman or batman and robin not robin w/o batman robin isn't sh@#."--cchefz71

by jeepers on Dec 14, 2006 1:22 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

No
That one is, "Who are two people who can't speak English, and one who can?"
"Look its either batman or batman and robin not robin w/o batman robin isn't sh@#."--cchefz71

by jeepers on Dec 14, 2006 1:37 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

I knew you would say that
Not because I analyzed your history of snark.

I could just feel it.

by mikeA on Dec 14, 2006 1:24 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

gee ... that sucks
your analysis of my posting is ruining AN, baseball and generally society as a whole.

by devo on Dec 14, 2006 1:33 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

now that i come to think of it,
i don't much appreciate the analysis of analysis going on here, but that's just my analysis.
"The future's like, who cares?" ~Eric Chavez

by rebus on Dec 14, 2006 1:39 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

"You have anal sis?"
</borat>
"Kotsay is 31... Kotsay's back is 127." - Jeepers

by Ozzz on Dec 15, 2006 12:33 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

gee
and here i thought the "business of baseball" was ruining AN, baseball and society in general.
"Where you start is not as important as where you finish."- Zig Ziglar

by bigelephant on Dec 14, 2006 3:00 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

I do ...
and I'm glad to see that someone is reading my articles ...

The corporatization of baseball will infect your soul, curve your spine and keep the country from winning the war.

But no one has yet to make an even remotely sensible argument linking SABRmetrics with the business of baseball.

by devo on Dec 14, 2006 3:05 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

sometimes
you make my head hurt.
"Where you start is not as important as where you finish."- Zig Ziglar

by bigelephant on Dec 14, 2006 3:08 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

I'm a workout for your brain ...
no pain, go gain ... lets go, two more reps, come on, get it up.

by devo on Dec 14, 2006 3:23 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Devo, my response on SABR and business
Sabermetrics, which began innocently enough and is a sincere and fun tool for a lot of good baseball fans (I should have been more careful to show respect for them earlier) is just a prop for the marketers, who spam-like infect everything now like a virus. Advertising and marketing tries to create a feeling of exclusivity and I-get-it-ness, and the moneyball-suburbmetrics audience is a great conduit and target, with the emphasis on sophisticated formulas, knowledge, esoteric language. At the same time, the proliferation of rotisserie stuff and the nomadic and selfish outlook of the players has detached a lot of fans from the game of teams and coincidently made the fans themslves players. We are all now "experts." Believe me, this is a fundamental change, and the corps play to this sense of "expertness."  That is the main conection of sabemetrics to baseball business. This is a society where you have to be the center of attention and activity to feel validated. No longer to people go to games(I know this is a generality) to WATCH someone else. Now we have to be the event ourselves, with our uniforms and need for luxury and ostentatious behavior. We may not understand how all this works, but Madison Avenue does . . .  

by froggiethegremlin on Dec 14, 2006 3:26 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Then why make SABR/value the boogeyman?
If those are just interesting ideas which are being co-opted by the mallparketeers as examples of the larger trends in American life, then you seem to have your villians mixed up in you diary, and especially in your title.  The bad guys are the commodifiers, not the fantasy baseball playing BP reading statheads (of which I am neither).

It's the puppet masters who are the Grinch, not a handful of modern fans.

And how amusing is it that the statheads have become the hipsters and the old school fans the geeks in your construction?

"Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?" --Johnny Rotten

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Dec 14, 2006 3:42 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

That kind fo runs in the face of most marketing
efforts. You don't generally get rich by appealing to the highest common denominator.

They are specifically not targeting the SABR crowd it's members and followers are already huge devotees of the game and are already spending more or less what it is they are going to spend. SABRmetrics are complicated -- they require time, thought and mental energy -- I can understand why many folks who could get it choose not to expend that kind of effort on a pursuit of leisure.

The corporatization movement is designed to encourage 6 figure income individuals and families who aren't really baseball fans as much as they are simply in need of leisure activities to choose a ball game as the evening's leisure as often as possible. They want folks who will drop $20