"You can keep your fancy stats"

[TGO]

Well, then he's goofy for not even knowing what basic stats are. How can you not count walks?

If you asked him, he would probably tell you walks are either unimportant or selfish. Hitters are supposed to hit, right?

Anyway, I don't have a problem with people who don't want to use the newer stats, but to be this antagonistic? Especially when you haven't even tried to understand what you're attacking, and haven't read the book you use as a symbol for what you're attacking? People like 66-70-83 go about it the right way, and I appreciate that. Articles like this drive me nuts.

[CrimsonTribe]

Granted it is a "Page 2" article, but it does have some truth to it.

QUALIFIER: I know some think that I hate new/translated stats because of some of the "debates" that I have engaged in over the years here. I am firmly stuck in the middle of this debate. I am a charter BP.com subscriber, read every Elias Analyst and Bill James Abstracts, etc.........

I often engage in these debates to try and learn more. I must be missing something if I can't just swallow every drop of KoolAid from BP, right?

I also simply feel the need to defend fans who are attacked when their only "sin" is not caring or wanting to be involved in the advanced stats. Why can't people just be allowed to enjoy the game their way? It doesn't mean they are morons.

It doesn't have to be an "either/or" debate. Why can't I appreciate Ecksteins "grittiness" AND BP.com's statistical analysis and articles ? Why should it always be an us (smart guys who "get it" vs old guys who are morons who "dont get it") ?

At the end of the day- the old guys who like to look at "tools" and the new guys with their "stats" will still identify the same players 95% of the time when identifying the best players.

Predicting future performace? The stat heads will identify a statistical diamond in the rough on occasion. Likewise, the scout will sometimes identify a diamond in the rough because of his intangibles or tools.

Stats are recording what actually happened. To ignore them would be foolish.

They are the players "report card". Some advanced stats can unearth some good stuff. But, some stats value is dubious.

Many on the one extreme (FJM crowd for ex) love to mock David Eckstein, or those who dare compliment him for some reason. I dont get it. It is obvious to me that he has something above and beyond the stats that has value to MLB teams or else he wouldn't be hired. And its wrong and arrogant to constantly say that the good ole boys of MLB just "don't get it".

Imo, it isn't nonsense to suggest that there is value in intangibles that don't show up on the stat sheet.

As long as human beings play the game, intangibles will play a role on the team in the dugout, clubhouse, and on the field.

All the new/translated type stats would only be perfect if robots played the game. We could build robots with specific skill sets and measure them perfectly. We could then figure out to the 4th decimal point the likelyhood of every play in baseball, BEFORE it happened.

That would be fun, wouldn't it?

Good post. It's amazing how people just want to be on one "side" of a debate rather than appreciating the middle ground. I'm always leery of those who are too extreme one way or the other.

That said, I love FJM. They're just entertaining even if they pick on the same targets over and over.

[RShack]

If the article isn't satire, the guy suggests that anyone who uses advanced stats to seek refined analysis is brain-dead or drug-addled...

Well, that's clearly the kind of fight he's trying to start... but that's not what he actually said.

What he said was, "If you can't tell how good a player is from those basic stats, then [insert insults here]". If you remove all the other junk, and just look at that assertion, it's right. I'm not sticking up for the way the guy is trying to start silly arguments, but what he actually said in that statement is correct. If you take the basic, standard stats, then you *can* tell whether or not a guy is any good, and if you can't tell without somebody twisting the numbers around for you into different formats, then you don't know baseball much.

So, you captured the spirit of what he was conveying, but the letter of what he said isn't nearly as goofy as the fight he's trying to start.

[NewMarketSean]

I guess this guy thinks Tony Batista is a good player then.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Well, that's clearly the kind of fight he's trying to start... but that's not what he actually said.

What he said was, "If you can't tell how good a player is from those basic stats, then [insert insults here]". If you remove all the other junk, and just look at that assertion, it's right. I'm not sticking up for the way the guy is trying to start silly arguments, but what he actually said in that statement is correct. If you take the basic, standard stats, then you *can* tell whether or not a guy is any good, and if you can't tell without somebody twisting the numbers around for you into different formats, then you don't know baseball much.

So, you captured the spirit of what he was conveying, but the letter of what he said isn't nearly as goofy as the fight he's trying to start.

Which is the whole point, really.

[scOtt]

I guess this guy thinks Tony Batista is a good player then.

Isn't he? Tony had 100 RBIs. He must be good!

[byrdz]

If you can't tell how good a player is from those basic stats, there's something seriously wrong with you -- I mean brain-damage wrong...

Most stats beyond that are for trying to predict how a player will play in the future and/or if they will sustain a certain level of performance. Sure you can look at the ones listed by the writer as to how good the player currently "is" but it won't necessarily give you an idea of sustainability. Plus, in a day and age where making every dollar count (like in the A's case) microanalysis's of every investment you make is not a choice you can make, it HAS to be done to succeed and is just good business. Not every team is the MFY's!!!

By the way, how can you criticize something you haven't even read?? (to the page 2 writer) The book is not only about advanced stats so much as it is about one under budgeted team winning in this crazy spending market. Going out and getting the players that get overlooked because they don't have the great batting averages but can maybe take a walk for instance. This has got to be one of the most ignorant articles I've read in some time, assuming it's not satire. Again, not everyone is the MFY's idiot!!! Not every team can just go out and buy the players that hit the most HR's and hit for the best averages. The teams with the most money already do that...

.

[BaltimoreTerp]

By the way, how can you criticize something you haven't even read?? (to the page 2 writer) The book is not only about advanced stats so much as it is about one under budgeted team winning in this crazy spending market. Going out and getting the players that get overlooked because they don't have the great batting averages but can maybe take a walk for instance. This has got to be one of the most ignorant articles I've read in some time, assuming it's not satire. Again, not everyone is the MFY's idiot!!! Not every team can just go out and buy the players that hit the most HR's and hit for the best averages. The teams with the most money already do that...

.

This is the other big problem.

It's like saying, "I've never read the Bible, but I don't want to waste time reading about 3,000 years of people wandering around the desert talking to the air and doing whatever they think they are being told."

It misses the point a little, you know?

[byrdz]

This is the other big problem.

It's like saying, "I've never read the Bible, but I don't want to waste time reading about 3,000 years of people wandering around the desert talking to the air and doing whatever they think they are being told."

It misses the point a little, you know?

I understand, but how can you criticize a philosophy when you ignore the reason it's being used? I'm not a religious person but if someone has an terrible thing happen to them in their lives that makes them religious and that helps them cope with it, who am I to judge? The A's among other teams have proven that these stats work for them, so how can you ignore that?

.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I understand, but how can you criticize a philosophy when you ignore the reason it's being used? I'm not a religious person but if someone has an terrible thing happen to them in their lives that makes them religious and that helps them cope with it, who am I to judge?

.

That's my point.

[byrdz]

That's my point.

So, you're saying the writer is a MFY's fan. I think we are agreeing but I wasn't smart enough to pick it up until now.

[DrungoHazewood]

This is satire. If you look at "Art Garfamudis"'s other articles, they include one on the Hall of Fame where he suggests that Brady Anderson doesn't go in because he's good looking, Rod Beck does because he died, and his comment on Tim Raines was "Just this once, I'm gonna level with you here: I don't remember ever seeing him play. He was on Montreal? Played half his games where they don't even speak the English? Next."

He's a pseudonym for somebody who's poking fun at guys like Bill Plaschke, Woody Paige, and Joe Morgan.

[DrungoHazewood]

He's been outed! Art Garfamudis is none other than Baseball Prospectus author, ESPN Page 2 contributor, historian, stathead, and long-time Bill James collaborator Jim Baker.

For a while Baker has been on my short list of folks I'd like to have dinner with. Rarely have I found someone whose sense of humor matches mine so well.

[byrdz]

He's been outed! Art Garfamudis is none other than Baseball Prospectus author, ESPN Page 2 contributor, historian, stathead, and long-time Bill James collaborator Jim Baker.

Nice, had me fooled!

[Dipper9]

Forgive me, but every time I scan the page and only see the beginning of this title thread, all I can think of is "You can stuff your sorries in a sack Mister!"