The stolen base example.  'The numbers' bear out that an acceptable rate of success is about 75-80% (using your numbers, since I don't want to thumb through Moneyball to get what's printed there; sounds right, though).  However, as is pointed out in that book (that I would like to rely less on for examples, but who really cares?) basestealers are hearalded even when their sucess rate is below an 'acceptable' rate.

Aha!  What is acceptable, though?  I make no claims to knowing this.  In Moneyball there is a part on the rate of scoring in the different 'situations' in a baseball game, but as I cannot recall them off the top of my head (and good for me; being able to do so would make me way too pathetic), but that doesn't make me scoff at every double steal attempt by the opposition.

These stats were/are a means to understand the game... differently, not necessarily better.  And with that different perspective, those that put together a baseball team for the BUSINESS purposes of winning games have found that they can help them in that endeavor.  To enjoy stats in a baseball game to the detriment of enjoying the game its self -from the fan's perspective- is missing the point and... well, a bummer.  In some instances I do enjoy using my limited seamhead-stathead knowledge to enjoy baseball from a different (again, not necessarily better) perspective.  But as I am not financially comitted to the team and they are for my ENTERTAINMENT purposes only, I do not get overly concerned with the stats.

So:  If you don't like stats, fine.  If you do, that's great, too.  Either way, enjoy baseball however and whenever you can as best you can and try not to let other's... perspectives and passions grate on you too much.  If either 'side' misses out on something you feel strongly about, oh well, their loss.

I'll take my peanuts, crackerjacks and an A's wins anyway I can.

Most "stat-heads" would agree with your general premise - that you can't just rely on stats any more than you can just rely on your eyes. Most would also say that there isn't one single stat that tells the whole story (although they keep working on compound stats that attempt to get close).

The issue I see is when proponents of using one's eyes hold it up as the only way. Of course, I see the same problem with people that offer stats as the only way. Among the bobble-heads that comment on baseball on television, there are far more of the former than the latter. Those people are what cause the stat heads to dial up their rhetoric. When Joe Morgan or John Kruk says something with absolute certainty and authority and it turns out to be utterly ridiculous based on the available stats, it pisses people off!

With that said, I think statistical analysis of the game is far more important for low budget teams like our A's. Teams with lots of money can afford to buy the best players available at every position (e.g. the Yankees, etc). The A's can't afford to do that. They have to pick their spots. To cite your example, I don't think anyone would argue the Kevin Youkilis is a better player than Eric Chavez, but look at their salaries. Youkilis is cheaper than Chavez - is his production good enough such that the difference in salary could buy the team another decent player? If so, would the combined production of those two players be better than the combined production of Chavez plus a replacement level player?

In this case, I think we can conclude that keeping Chavvy is preferable. What stats do is provide the A's with a method for having that conversation, and in so doing, they can have some level of security in thinking that their money is probably well spent. The A's have scouts that use their eyes to sanity check what the stats tell them. There will always be other factors as well that don't show up in the stats (injury history, ability to deal with pressure, etc), and again that is where the eyes come into play.

That's ludicrious.

At the end of the day, we like baseball.  I don't look up the stats for basketball because I don't like basketball.  I don't like watching basketball games.  I can barely stand playing it.

However, I watch pretty much every single A's game I can catch on TV.  I'll listen to the games I can't watch.  I'll Gameday the games I can't listen to.  Why?  Because I love the game.

I acknowledge the beauty of a well-turned double play.  I love sitting on the edge of my seat at the bottom of the ninth with the winning run at the plate.  I get ecstatic when I watch a pitcher get a batter so completely off-balance that he not only swings and misses, but turns himself around in the process.

None of us denies the beauty of the game.  It's why we watch it.  It's why we follow it.

What we do object to, however, is people having orgasms over watching Derek Jeter's "defense", when any objective analysis shows him as being one of the worst-fielding shortstops in the majors for his entire career.  What we don't like is when "analysts" scream about a batter's .300 AVG when it's accompanied by a .310 OBP.

We aren't some sort of weird nerd caricature that only looks at spreadsheets and never watches a game of baseball.  So please, stop calling us such.

------------------

It also doesn't take someone with a Ph.D in Statistics to tell you that Adrian Beltre isn't really that good of a hitter, despite his one great year playing for the Dodgers.  His swing is raw and he still regularly tries to pull pitches on the outer half, rolling over the top and creating routine groundouts.  Statistics would say that the season was an outlier, but that isn't hard to figure out if you didn't watch baseball on a regular basis.

The statheads were the ones who said that all signs pointed to Adrian Beltre's last year with the Dodgers being a fluke.  That's why DePodesta stuck with his guns and refused to overpay for Beltre's services.

Statistics to me are just common sense put in numerical format.  What really bothers me about some is that they pretend to predict the future based on statistics.  People try to extrapolate what will happen based on past stats.  That is not the point of statistics; statistics are useful to formulate probabilities for certain events to give confidence to hypotheses and predictions.  Using them as an end-all solution is not only crazy, it's incorrect.

Umm...you just contradicted yourself.  Twice.

And statistics, as a science, must necessarily be about using past data to predict future events.  That's the point.  There's no reason to do any science whatsoever if you aren't going to attempt to predict what will happen in the future based on what has happened in the past.

And I know I'm repeating myself here, but since you don't seem to be getting the message - none of us believes that the numbers are everything.  Only an idiot who had no notion of what statistics actually is would believe that the numbers tell you everything.

The only valid measurement for any business or MLB team is did we make money and how can we make more...
money?

As you break this down for a team you discern the effect winning will or won't have on reciepts;

1. Media money (yes = more viewers)
   
2. Revenue Sharing (no effect)
   
3. Gate (yes)
   
4. Concessions (yes)
   
5. Licensing; A's apparel, royalties, "MacAfee", joint ventures, etc (yes)
   
6. Stadium, homes, and "village" construction. (yes)

While all six items affect income/profits to some extent I would think #6 is the driving force for an ownership that has made it's profits this way for decades.

At ownership level: the stats of the profit/loss statement are keys to the A's roster being an asset or losing proposition, and what options are or are not used.

Tell me the dollars differences on income if the A's make the playoffs by a game, 10 games, or miss them by 2 games... Is there a carryover over to the next season? ...What ever those differences are they affect the strategy throughout the season and the following season. Adding a bat or starter or passing due to "costs" are all valid options.

Of larger effect; What will this ownership do if they DON'T contract on building a Stadium while enjoying the player salary subsidies their first 5 years as owners?

At team level: I have to think cumulative totals are sought. Obviously team average, obp, slg, Hrs, ERA, and omni-potent runs, all with an eye on wins is sought. At team roster level there is probably some concern over Perez's offense and much rejoicing over Frank's.

This years Runs totals indicate problems.

Take out the games Vs the lowly M's (1 loss), and we are lagging way behind our potential playoffs opponments. Regardless of the A's individual offensive, defensive, and pitching stats the only stat of meaning and consequence is did you win or lose?

How it happens can be magic, and as a spectator I much prefer magic to logic.

Go A's!

I honestly don't know how good or bad his defense is. And I can't see how your statement is common sense when it's very general and tells me almost nothing.

The numbers of baseball are a great way to butress or rebut my theories about different players and teams.  I like to think of each stat as offering a different perspective of a player; by trying to weave them together you can come up with a 3-D 360 degree view.

Particularly useful because I don't get to see every game by every player.

(I for one hate the stat showing how many career GS a battter has in that situation - talk about small sample size and stats so old they might not be relevant!)

So I will agree that casual stat usage often leads to incorrect presumptions, just like looking soley at physical form (ie nice swing) may miss important results (nice swing, but strikes out a ton.)