Why I'm so sick of sabermetrics!

[futurehalloffamer]

OK, let me start off by saying that I do believe that sabermetrics are important in determining whether or not someone belongs in the Hall or not. However, it seems like now that's all that anyone pays attention to! I hate reading people criticize players they probably never even got to see play by just pointing out their statistics. There is a lot more to it than just looking at the statistics. Personality, classiness, popularity, FAME...those are other factors I find important in judging. No, I don't think its so important that every player with a great personality belongs in...I wouldn't ever claim Mickey Hatcher belongs in because he was well liked by his teammates, but I can't believe some of the players who get criticized for not being Hall worthy. Just look at ElHalo...OK, let me say this: I like ElHalo and enjoy reading his posts, but he is one of those examples of a person who judges by sabermetrics. He criticizes players like Robin Yount and say they don't belong in the Hall because their stats are unspectacular for their positions. I don't see how 3,000 hits is unspectacular for any position! Yount was one of those very well liked players who stuck with the same team his entire career (which started at age 18, btw) and put up big numbers in the process. I just don't understand how sabermetrics have gotten so out of control.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Don't hate the game. Hate the players. Some choose to spin numbers toward their view, and a lot just use the numbers as a starting point.

[Mike D.]

There's a balance in there somewhere. I agree saying a player is worthy or unworthy solely on stats (especially just offensive stats) doesn't give you the whole picture, it gives you a starting place.

Of course, the other side of the same coin is saying that someone isn't worthy while ignoring the statistics (say, Frank Thomas), is just as bad...maybe worse, since they're not based on objectivity or reason. :D

[RuthMayBond]

I hate reading people criticize players they probably never even got to see play by just pointing out their statistics.

Like people who only go by eyewitness accounts that may be biased?

<Personality, classiness, popularity, FAME...those are other factors I find important in judging.>

That's why you're not on the HOF selection committee

[Pine Tar]

Like people who only go by eyewitness accounts that may be biased?

<Personality, classiness, popularity, FAME...those are other factors I find important in judging.>

That's why you're not on the HOF selection committee
Actually, they are not on the committee because they are not a baseball writer. What are you talking about?

[digglahhh]

El Halo?

EH, is probably on the short list of guys who go to war with the SABR crowd more than I do.

I have heard some ridiluous arguments from both sides, IMO. Dave McNally for the Hall, Mickey Lolich and then on the other side, Jimmy Wynn. However, the person who began this thread is responsible for the most unsubstantiated case I think I've seen here- Frank Thomas not for the Hall. It is an acheivement to make "Wynn for" seem like the epitome of reasoning.

I'm not crazy about all the numbers, but I don't think the traditionalistis are necessarlily right any more often.

Its all about baseball knowledge, perspective and being able to relate a variety of circumstances. Neither traditional cliches or fancy numbers are a substitute.

[abacab]

Robin Yount actually looks much better using sabermetrics than he does using traditional stats.

[jalbright]

El Halo?

EH, is probably on the short list of guys who go to war with the SABR crowd more than I do.

I have heard some ridiluous arguments from both sides, IMO. Dave McNally for the Hall, Mickey Lolich and then on the other side, Jimmy Wynn. However, the person who began this thread is responsible for the most unsubstantiated case I think I've seen here- Frank Thomas not for the Hall. It is an acheivement to make "Wynn for" seem like the epitome of reasoning.

I'm not crazy about all the numbers, but I don't think the traditionalistis are necessarlily right any more often.

Its all about baseball knowledge, perspective and being able to relate a variety of circumstances. Neither traditional cliches or fancy numbers are a substitute.

To build on one theme I see in this post, one can make idiotic arguments about baseball with sabermetrics or without them. Sabermetrics is simply a specific set of tools. I happen to think those tools make it easier to get a clear view of a player--but true craftsmen can get there without those tools. Remember, the results from best of these tools should square fairly well with most "common wisdom" about players--and where they don't, there should be identifiable reasons for the disparity (for example, people until recently haven't paid much attention to walk totals--so guys who are high or low in those areas could easily have been misevaluated).

Jim Albright

[RuthMayBond]

Remember, the results from best of these tools should square fairly well with most "common wisdom" about players.Except that I'm not sure some "common wisdom" is wise (Billy Cox the best defensive 3B, no one was as good as Koufax in the 60s, Snider/JDiMaggio were among the best defensive CF ever ...

[barzilla]

Incidentally, I have a book coming out hopefully before the end of 2006 about the Hall of Fame called "On the Outside Looking In." I use a sabermetric model, but I think with all models you have to ask yourself a queston: what do you do with the borderline cases? No model can completely answer that question and every voter has biases that help them make the decision. So, the ultimate question is whether you agree with their biases.

[jalbright]

Except that I'm not sure some "common wisdom" is wise (Billy Cox the best defensive 3B, no one was as good as Koufax in the 60s, Snider/JDiMaggio were among the best defensive CF ever ...

Agreed as to the principle of your post--but you chopped off the part in my post about where there are disagreements, one using sabermetric methods should be able to explain why the differences exist--and I should add, be able to do so in a persuasive manner that the methods capture reality better.

Jim Albright

[538280]

However, the person who began this thread is responsible for the most unsubstantiated case I think I've seen here- Frank Thomas not for the Hall. It is an acheivement to make "Wynn for" seem like the epitome of reasoning.


Maybe you disagreed about Wynn, but I can't believe you'd call it unsubstantianted. At least I made it extremely clear why I believed Wynn was HOF worthy, and gave reasons (countless ones, so much I was almost sick at the end of it).. The case against Frank Thomas was more like "I saw him and he didn't look like a HOFer, and he didn't hit as many home runs as this guy or this guy."

[torez77]

Billy Cox the best defensive 3B

This was a real beaut, and as I recall, there was a consensus of only Dodger fans that he was the greatest defensive 3B ever.

[futurehalloffamer]

I admit I have no idea what I'm talking about here.

[barzilla]

I do think Jimmy Wynn is an interesting case. When you translate his numbers it is really interesting. For myself, I just chalk him up as someone that could have been recognized as a great player if he had played for a good team in a hitter friendly stadium. Often times, players are more victims of circumstance than anything else. To say Frank Thomas is not a Hall of Famer is at this point ludicrous. Unless he's found out and admits to taking steroids that should go into a baboon you have to take his numbers from the 1990s at face value.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I do think Jimmy Wynn is an interesting case. When you translate his numbers it is really interesting. For myself, I just chalk him up as someone that could have been recognized as a great player if he had played for a good team in a hitter friendly stadium. Often times, players are more victims of circumstance than anything else. To say Frank Thomas is not a Hall of Famer is at this point ludicrous. Unless he's found out and admits to taking steroids that should go into a baboon you have to take his numbers from the 1990s at face value.
Ah, yes. The Curly defense.

My major problem with certain types of analysis is when too many what-ifs are thrown out and treated as valid arguments. Players must be regarded for what they did, not what if they did it elsewhere or later or longer. If you're not great on your own, then you're just not great. I'm not saying you're doing this, barzilla. I'm just using your post as a starting point for mine.

[barzilla]

If you're not great on your own, then you're just not great. I'm not saying you're doing this, barzilla. I'm just using your post as a starting point for mine.

Good point and you're right. I'm not doing that. Great players rise above their environment. I suppose the question is whether the Hall of Fame should extend to very good players. Very good players can be a product of their environment. All I'm saying is that his career would be looked at differently. Most of the numbers I use take ballpark out of the discussion.

[digglahhh]

Chris,

I didn't say your argument was unsubstantiated, you did a very good job putting forth your case in an extremely difficult uphill battle. I just thought that some of the reasoning was faulty, and in the end I didn't buy the case. Severly underrated, sure, HOF, no. I accused the Thomas case of being unsubstantiated, simply because it can't be substantiated...

One thing I would never say about you is that you don't come to bat for your opinions, I can tell you put a lot of time and effort into trying to convince others of your convictions.

[Brad Harris]

OK, let me start off by saying that I do believe that sabermetrics are important in determining whether or not someone belongs in the Hall or not.

And let me start by saying that's not 1% as :grouchy as these kinds of statements make me!


However, it seems like now that's all that anyone pays attention to!

Perhaps the snowballing popularity of sabermetrics could been seen as evidence that, perhaps, there's something to it? Hmm?


I hate reading people criticize players they probably never even got to see play by just pointing out their statistics.

Not as much as I hate a grown man - because you expect this from a child - supports or criticizes a player based solely on their unsupported perception and personal observation. My nephew in Cincinnati thinks Sean Casey is the greatest baseball player in the world. He's ten. In twenty more years, if he's still under that gross illusion, I'll be proud to whack him on the side of the head. Of course...most "critics" of sabermetrics (yourself included) remain conspicuously silent when the sabermetrician supporting/defending an individual player happens to agree with your opinion. I notice you didn't say you hate when people support players they've never seen "just pointing out their statistics."


There is a lot more to it than just looking at the statistics.

I have yet to meet a single person fond of baseball statistics who doesn't agree with this obvious statement. Your implication that people who use statistics prominently rely on them exclusively isn't welcome and is, quite frankly, insulting.


Personality, classiness, popularity, FAME...those are other factors I find important in judging.

I hope that by "personality, classiness, popularity, FAME" you mean the "intangibles" - though why a player's merit or value should be based on something as subjective and ethereal as "classiness" is...well let's just say that's a new one. Again...I don't know any sabermetrician who discounts the existence of intangibles - though individuals would certainly debate individual aspects of that broad category - but I know plenty of people like you who discount the statistics. Which is odd because in any argument, one should strive to find the most credible evidence to support one's position. Statistics exist because they represent accomplishment that can be accounted for, measured accurately and preserved credibly. Intangibles, by their very nature, are far more difficult to measure (and thus to compare) and are a less reliable form of evidence for inclusion in debate.


No, I don't think its so important that every player with a great personality belongs in...I wouldn't ever claim Mickey Hatcher belongs in because he was well liked by his teammates, but I can't believe some of the players who get criticized for not being Hall worthy.

You might not, but somewhere out there is a Mickey Hatcher fan who, to support his Hall-of-Fame bandwagon - unicycle? - finds it convenient to talk about Hatcher's "popularity" and "class" because Hatcher's numbers just don't get it done. You, apparently, have your own idiosyncratic candidates (Frank Thomas), as does everyone, sabermetrically inclined or not.


Just look at ElHalo...OK, let me say this: I like ElHalo and enjoy reading his posts, but he is one of those examples of a person who judges by sabermetrics. He criticizes players like Robin Yount and say they don't belong in the Hall because their stats are unspectacular for their positions. I don't see how 3,000 hits is unspectacular for any position! Yount was one of those very well liked players who stuck with the same team his entire career (which started at age 18, btw) and put up big numbers in the process.

El Halo is a horrible example. Obviously you haven't read enough of his posts. If El Halo relies on anything to determine Cooperstown worthiness, it's closer to whether the player wore pinstripes than to whether he put up great numbers. Don't misunderstand me. El Halo provides some thought-provoking arguments from time to time, but there's a huge difference between someone using "sabermetrics" and throwing stats out there to support your candidate.


I just don't understand how sabermetrics have gotten so out of control.

Perhaps it's because you don't really know what "sabermetrics" is. As defined by its leading proponent, sabermetrics is "the search for objective knowledge about baseball." Is it any wonder that sabermetrics would, then, focus on things that can be counted - like hits, runs, or wins - and not focus on things like whether a player was well-liked.

Sure people misuse numbers. Most people I see misusing statistics aren't what I would think of as sabermetricians at all. Any fool who's seen the back of a baseball card can quote statistics, that doesn't mean the guy has anything to do with sabermetrics.

Of course, refusing to distinguish between someone who uses statistics and someone who uses sabermetrics can certainly lead to the kind of misconceptions you seem to be holding to.

Sabermetrics has become popular because it's right and it works. Naturally, an explosion of statistical usage has followed, for better or worse, but that's not the same as sabermetrics.

The unprovoked attacks against sabermetrics and sabermetricians are poorly reasoned and extremely unkind to people who, like the anti-sabermetricians, really just want to understand the game better and have a better appreciation for what they're watching at the ballpark.

[Brian McKenna]

numbers are deeply engrained in this great sport - if your purpose is to rate players and compare players than numbers are a vital for the argument - certaining not THE argument - but they have a legitimate (perhaps significant) function

however the sport is much more than numbers - the players are much more than numbers - anyone we talk about from mendoza to cobb are better baseball players than 99.9999999% of the country they came from - if one was to say x, y or z about a player, there is still the rest of the alphabet which is material to the discussion

what numbers will never and can never measure is:
- historical significance of field or office personnel
- give us a feel for the baseball community or culture of a time period
- teach us the inner workings of the game
- allow us to vicariously insert ourselves into the game

what numbers severly lack is the story - by their very nature they can spark debates and arguments but what they can't do is spin a tale - give an amusing anecdote - leave us with the heart-felt fondness of our youth

numbers are also limited by:
- differences between eras
- differences between leagues
- differences in competition and between competition levels

some try to measure these things - heck even some try to draw numerical correlations between the majors and the negro leagues or nippon professional baseball or the minors - good luck on gaining widescale acceptance for this

there are very real intangible factors which cannot be quantified between a hall of fame second baseman playing in the 1920s and one playing in the 1970s

numbers are also limited by available information - we see that in the negro leagues - it is also happens in the majors - we measure and keep track of a lot of things today that they did not in the past - that data cannot be recovered - it is why 90% of baseball fans just ignore the 19th century - too much work - too hard to understand - try to get solid info on the minors - good luck - many early accounts just listed the battery and an inning by inning score line

for all it efforts - numbers can only measure execution of x and the rate there of - to some that might tell the whole story - to some it doesn't say anything

the posters who say they don't care about a through w - the only thing that matters is that they plug the numbers in here and it spits out their ranking system there and their sole rationalization of any issue is defined by that spreadsheet - i say they're missing the forest through the trees

[KHenry14]

This was a real beaut, and as I recall, there was a consensus of only Dodger fans that he was the greatest defensive 3B ever.

To be fair, it's more than just Dodger fans who felt that way. Cox is a prime example of how stats don't show everything when evaluating a player. Part of the problem with Billy is he just didn't play that long, and in the time that he did play he wasn't on TV so the general public could judge for themselves. You could do that with Brooks and Schmidt, but not with Cox.

Now I never saw him play, but there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that supports how good Cox was. The stats don't back that up, but that's baseball for ya!

KH14

[538280]

numbers are deeply engrained in this great sport - if your purpose is to rate players and compare players than numbers are a vital for the argument - certaining not THE argument - but they have a legitimate (perhaps significant) function

however the sport is much more than numbers - the players are much more than numbers - anyone we talk about from mendoza to cobb are better baseball players than 99.9999999% of the country they came from - if one was to say x, y or z about a player, there is still the rest of the alphabet which is material to the discussion[/QUOTE]

The rest of the subject (that aren't covered in advanced sabermetric statistics) is about ballplayers as people. That's nice to hear about, but it really has nothing to do with how good a player they were or how much they helped their team win.

As far as the point about them being better than 99.999999% of ballplayers where they came from, that's true, but it's not relevant to sabermetrics. What does that have to do with a player's value to a major league team? What does that have to do with "the objective search for baseball knowledge"? Nothing. I don't know how that is supposed to be relevant to this discussion.



what numbers will never and can never measure is:
- historical significance of field or office personnel
- give us a feel for the baseball community or culture of a time period
- teach us the inner workings of the game
- allow us to vicariously insert ourselves into the game

All right, we can't get those things from numbers, but that's not what the numerical part of sabermetrics is concerned with. The numerical part is concerned with is measuring as accurately as possible a player's contribution to his team.

Then comes the other part of sabermetrics that people don't really seem to ever focus on. They forget that sabermetrics is much more than numbers. As Chancellor said, sabermetrics is defined as "the search for objective knowledge about baseball". It's not just about numbers, or about a player's value. If you want to reasearch the inner workings of the game, try to improve fielding equipment, improve baseball stratigies, learn how to properly manage a baseball team, that's really sabermetrics. As long as you stay objective and don't go into fantasy world, trying to prove things that you want to be true. Sabermetrics is really scientific reasearch, and it doesn't have to involve numbers.


what numbers severly lack is the story - by their very nature they can spark debates and arguments but what they can't do is spin a tale - give an amusing anecdote - leave us with the heart-felt fondness of our youth

If you want those things, there are tons of baseball books you can buy that contain those anecdotes. If that's your interest in baseball, knock yourself out. I have no problem with that. But sabermetrics isn't concerned with anecdotes. That's not their purpose. You're misunderstanding what sabermetrics really are.


numbers are also limited by:
- differences between eras
- differences between leagues
- differences in competition and between competition levels

some try to measure these things - heck even some try to draw numerical correlations between the majors and the negro leagues or nippon professional baseball or the minors - good luck on gaining widescale acceptance for this


Those three factors really aren't that hard to adjust for. For differences between eras/leagues, just compare a players stats to how the league did. That's part of sabermetrics that has been really ingrained, normalizing statistics by comparing them to the league.

Differences in competition level, or league quality, is messier but still possible to adjust for. With good objective reasearch about baseball (sabermetrics, really), you could come up with very good, factually based opinions about league quality over time. Others will always disagree with you, but at least it's objective.


there are very real nontangible factors which cannot be quantified between a hall of fame second baseman playing in the 1920s and one playing in the 1970s

What are these factors?


numbers are also limited by available information - we see that in the negro leagues - it is also happens in the majors - we measure and keep track of a lot of things today that they did not in the past - that data cannot be recovered - it is why 90% of baseball fans just ignore the 19th century - too much work - too hard to understand - try to get solid info on the minors - good luck - many early accounts just listed the battery and an inning by inning score line

90% of baseball fans ignore the 19th century? Maybe casual fans, but 90% of them pretty much ignore all baseball history. Among serious fans and those active members here at BBF, I know of very few who ignore the 19th century. I know I don't.

There are some stats missing (caught stealing for a large chunk, other than that just isolated years when a few stats are missing, nothing huge) that aren't available to us, but for the most part we have a very good and accurate record of statistics through the years.

The Negro Leagues.....lack of stats will always be a problem there I suspect. There was a study done recently that suppoedly got pretty good results, I have heard that we now may have a much better statistical base. So, work is being done in that area.


for all it efforts - numbers can only measure execution of x and the rate there of - to some that might tell the whole story - to some it doesn't say anything

If it says nothing to you, then you just don't understand really anything about the game of baseball. To say statistics are completely meaningless and don't mean anything is just absurd.


the posters who say they don't care about a through w - the only thing that matters is that they plug the numbers in here and it spits out their ranking system there and their sole rationalization of any issue is defined by that spreadsheet - i say they're missing the forest through the trees

I agree with you a bit here. Statistics are not an argument ender just becaue Win Shares says one thing or WARP says one thing doesn't mean it's true.

Now, overall I think you're not understanding what sabermetrics are. Sabermetrics is objective research about baseball. It doesn't always have to do with determining a player's value or even necessarily using numbers.

[Brian McKenna]

i really don't recall mentioning sabermetrics once in my whole statement - your whole post is about this - unfortunately my post wasn't intended as a knock on sabermetrics and you won't find a post of mine on bbf that does - at least i don't recall - i was referring to the generic use of numbers and how they are thrown around - numbers are not owned by self-proclaimed sabermaticians

my entire statement concerned historical analysis and the limitation of a numbers-only approach - there are others better qualified to tell the professionals in a billion dollar industry how to do their jobs

i never said they were better than 99.99999% of ballplayers - i said people - and i was referring to those who sit in front of a computer and type out what a piece of crap they think so and so was

your statement about ballplayers being meaningless outside their stats is precisely why this debate rages - no one outside this clique respects that opinion

"What are these factors?" - night games and air travel for two - others if i had the inclination to think about it

the 19th century forum is dead - don't preach about devotion to it - my name is all over it - is yours?

i don't think you understand - sabermetric is used 90% to determine a player's value - i am in awe of sabermetrics and respect what it can do to understand the game as a whole - i question how it is applied at times to an individual - but most of the time it is used to rate men - if you can't see that than walk barnes and noble and check out all the fantasy magazines and similar publications

in and of itself yes the execution of x means nothing - the problem comes as others place normative values on objective data - there is usually an underlying agenda - such as a boast that reggie jackson was the next coming of ruth (at least that is a positive contribution)

Sabermetrics - Sabermetrics - Sabermetrics -- i never said the word once - i've read my share of articles and books about the subject and its utilization - it is true i don't fully understand it, perhaps because i've never applied myself to it - i'm just not a devotee - perhaps that's a problem - but i have a degree in economics so i have interpreted numbers before - my statement was really for those stat spewers who 1) wouldn't take the time to respond in a lengthy manner, 2) wouldn't be able to respond in a lengthy manner and 3) fail to understand that "Sabermetrics is objective research about baseball."

studying sabermetrics to develop "objective research" is one thing - HOWEVER few are qualified to place normative values on the data - maybe that my entire argument here - too many mouths, too little understanding - i don't know everyone on bbf but i sure as hell can tell you that not everyone throwing these numbers around and poo-pooing hall of famers understand what they hell they are really saying

you can also review my posts and you will find very little criticism of ballplayers (outside the black sox, roid users and a general dislike for john mcgraw) - i love the game - others seem to live to tear it and its players down - numbers are used every hour on bbf to unduly criticize and trash the top ballplayers in the world - i have a hard time understanding this - perhaps it says more about the author than the subject

[Ubiquitous]

Oh look another one.

I was going to stay away from this one since I have already participated in several of these but I read a passage about intangibles and it piqued my interest.

People like to talk about intangibles and how stats don't measure them. Well thats all fine and good. You can't measure someones "heart" or "desire". But here is the thing, almost nobody stops there. Nobody says Bob Soso had a lot of heart and that means nothing. They say things like Bob Soso had heart he willed his team to win. Basically what I mean is that when people mention intangibles they talk about it in relationship to winning and losing, performing and not performing, and when you link intangibles to this then it does become measurable. When you say a runner was so feared that he would alter the game when he is on the basepaths, well then one can measure that to see if it is true. OR when saying somebody is a field general who positioned his players to win well then again one can measure that.

[Brian McKenna]

i agree - heart means nothing - it's an empty term - they all want to win

don't put your definition of intangibles on me - i was speaking about the differences of playing ball in the 1920s and 1970s that can't be measured with numbers - will and heart are psychological terms which people use to tout their own guys or to make a point - to me they are empty sports talk because by definition all athletes compete to win - i was speaking of intangibles that denote differences in playing conditions of all ballplayers not individual motives

i was going to stay away as well - i am really just here to learn not bicker - i just get ticked to constantly hear bbf members that tout how great their thought process is by tearing down the men that play and run the game - frankly it's a joke

[west coast orange and black]

i think that there is plenty of room for both sides of the fence.

there is no reason to throw rocks at the other side: a sabr-type thing was inevitable because of the tethering of numbers to baseball and the advancement of computer skills by ordinary-type folk.

and although i sometimes am lost in the sabermetrics of it all, i do enjoy and appreciate reading how meticulously some of the breakdowns that these guys come up with.

[Brian McKenna]

i agree - some of the breakdowns and approaches are amazing - but the depth of some just lose me - you get to the tenth assumption the author makes and then you just begin to wonder - are they too close to the material? are they just too invested to prove something? - anything? - i also wonder how much last year's analysis is respected this year

[west coast orange and black]

good question.

sabr guys: do advances in the field ever make you look at someone's work and go "that is sooo 2004"?

[Ubiquitous]

i agree - heart means nothing - it's an empty term - they all want to win

don't put your definition of intangibles on me - i was speaking about the differences of playing ball in the 1920s and 1970s that can't be measured with numbers - will and heart are psychological terms which people use to tout their own guys or to make a point - to me they are empty sports talk because by definition all athletes compete to win - i was speaking of intangibles that denote differences in playing conditions of all ballplayers not individual motives

i was going to stay away as well - i am really just here to learn not bicker - i just get ticked to constantly hear bbf members that tout how great their thought process is by tearing down the men that play and run the game - frankly it's a joke

I never said I was talking about your post. I was simply talking about what I was talking about.

[Brad Harris]

i think that there is plenty of room for both sides of the fence.

Of course there is. But tell that to some of the anti-sabermetricians. Sabermetrics - statistics especially - take a lot of heat from the anti-numbers crowd.

You have a stat-oriented approach and the traditional (for lack of a better word) approach. They both live with each other, even compliment each other (in my opinion.)

Where I have a problem isn't with the people who don't care for sabermetrics, it's the people who act like they're on a crusade to purge the world of statheads. Huge different between being a non-stathead and being an anti-stathead. My beef lies with the mob in the latter faction.

[538280]

Of course there is. But tell that to some of the anti-sabermetricians. Sabermetrics - statistics especially - take a lot of heat from the anti-numbers crowd.

You have a stat-oriented approach and the traditional (for lack of a better word) approach. They both live with each other, even compliment each other (in my opinion.)

Where I have a problem isn't with the people who don't care for sabermetrics, it's the people who act like they're on a crusade to purge the world of statheads. Huge different between being a non-stathead and being an anti-stathead. My beef lies with the mob in the latter faction.

I agree. In most arguments like that I've seen the statistical people are usually polite about it and realize the importance of both ways of looking at the issue, but it's usually the traditional anti-statheads who cause the problems.

[west coast orange and black]

not only do i think that there is plenty of room for both sides of the fence, but the two sides are complementary, right.

[Fuzzy Bear]

There is a lot more to it than just looking at the statistics. Personality, classiness, popularity, FAME...those are other factors I find important in judging.

I don't believe that "fame" is a qualification to be inducted into the HOF.

The Hall of Fame BESTOWS fame on a player. It's purpose is, in part, to keep alive the memories of those players who were among the greatest ever to play the game. (I grant you that the term "greatest ever" is highly subjective, and I don't want to get into what that means in this thread.) The HOF sheds light on some players who were not overly famous while active, but, over time, were found to have been more valuable players then given credit for while active.

Sabermetrics plays a role in this. Sabermetrics does things such as keep alive the memory of Dick Allen, while debunking the "greatness" of Gil Hodges. If Tim Raines makes the HOF and Jim Rice doesn't, sabermetrics will have a role in that.

[Fuzzy Bear]

There is a lot more to it than just looking at the statistics. Personality, classiness, popularity, FAME...those are other factors I find important in judging.

My All-Personable/Classy/Popular/Famous Team:

1B Vic Power
2B Bobby Richardson
SS Bud Harrelson
3B Ken Boyer
LF Roy White
CF Bob Allison
RF Dwight Evans
C Elston Howard
SP Mel Stottlemyre
SP Johnny Vander Meer
SP Ron Guidry
SP Johnny Podres
RP Dan Quisenberry
DH Brian Downing/Chili Davis
MGR Gene Mauch

How many of these guys would you put in the HOF?

(Note: Tony Kubek was my original SS pick, but he only has 9 years of MLB service.)

[Paul Wendt]

Evidently Fuzzy Bear revived this thread today.

Quoting the initial post,

OK, let me start off by saying that I do believe that sabermetrics are important in determining whether or not someone belongs in the Hall or not. However, it seems like now that's all that anyone pays attention to! I hate reading people criticize players they probably never even got to see play by just pointing out their statistics. There is a lot more to it than just looking at the statistics. Personality, classiness, popularity, FAME...those are other factors I find important in judging.
How do you know or judge the "personality, classiness, popularity, FAME" of ballplayers from before your time as a fan? Many of those who lament the impact of statistical analysis, or simply the impact of playing statistics, seem happy to make those other judgments without researching them.

I remember some of the 1960s. Bill Burgess does and F.B. may remember some of the 1950s. If one's memory continues up to the present ;) then "some of the 1950s" now means coverage of at least 50 seasons in the sun. That's a lot! but one can't do much in "hall of fame conversations" on that foundation alone. Those 50 seasons do not cover even the whole careers of Aparicio, Bunning, and Clemente. In order to participate adequately in hof talk one must cover at least another fifty years, which is now beyond the scope of any living memory, and one should cover at least another forty years before that --in all, 140 years of openly professional baseball, 1869-2008. What basis does anyone have for that participation? "Personality, classiness, popularity, FAME" are more difficult to study than base hits and runs scored, because they cannot be summed --and not much of the evidence has been compiled in any form, or adequately summarized.

In order to debate based on knowledge of p, c, p, and F almost everyone here needs to hit the books or limit the scope to Dave Concepcion v Ozzie Smith.

[henrich]

My All-Personable/Classy/Popular/Famous Team:

1B Vic Power
2B Bobby Richardson
SS Bud Harrelson
3B Ken Boyer
LF Roy White
CF Bob Allison
RF Dwight Evans
C Elston Howard
SP Mel Stottlemyre
SP Johnny Vander Meer
SP Ron Guidry
SP Johnny Podres
RP Dan Quisenberry
DH Brian Downing/Chili Davis
MGR Gene Mauch

How many of these guys would you put in the HOF?

(Note: Tony Kubek was my original SS pick, but he only has 9 years of MLB service.)

I bolded the ones I would put in the Hall of fame.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I bolded the ones I would put in the Hall of fame.

Bobby Richardson?

[futurehalloffamer]

I admit I have no idea what I'm talking about here.

Wow, hard to believe that was almost three years ago that I started this thread, and I'm STILL being criticized for it...GETT OFF!!! 23 positions in a one-night-stand, GETT OFF!!! You gotta have a motha for me, now move your big booty round this way so I can work on that zipper, baby. Tonight, you're the stars, and I'm the big dipper...Sorry, felt the need for a Prince reference. Love ya guys, I'm out!

[Fuzzy Bear]

Bobby Richardson?

You would have to throw out the whole of sabermetrics to put Bobby Richardson in the HOF.