Does Anyone Else Here Think Sabermetrics is a Sham?

[SABR Matt]

When did anyone here say it was not OK to criticize the legitimate weaknesses of modern sabermetrics?

All I've said is...if you're going to criticize sabermetrics...you must understand exactly how they work first and make an informed judgment about what they're missing and come at me with more than "numbers don't see everything"...

You must also understand that sabermetric analysis is not designed to give EXACT and undeniable answers to every question...just to get us a lot closer to the truth than we'd be just using our eyes.

[ssbguyincognito]

You wouldn't sacrifice a hit a week for a guy who may be able to teach a teammate how to get three more.

These are the MAJOR LEAGUES. It's the top 1% of the talent pool. Everyone who's in the major leagues has to keep trying to stay in the major leagues -- otherwise they wouldn't be there. And guess what: players in the major leagues are always trying as hard as they can to hit as well as they can because (1) if they didn't, they wouldn't be in the majors and (2) if they do, they make a lot of money. Now this is true except for maybe one or two players out of a thousand, so don't bring up the Manny Ramirez -- who may be the greatest right-handed hitter ever -- as an exception. For 99% of players (not the superstars), they have to always be trying and playing their hardest to stay in the majors, and they'll do so regardless of who they are playing with.

[obmij5]

okay, just registered and read the whole thread. kudos to both the main guys here. You're both excellent and fairly argumentative

First the whole "you have to understand statistics to understand the game fully" thing. The key word, which was used in the original post, is fully. Like it or not (for complete disclosure, i happen to like it) sabermetrics are part of the game, they shape how several major league enterprises act and how countless fans think about the game. So if understanding the game fully is understanding all of its facets (which by the way, i dont see happening in this lifetime), you must understand statistics as well as scouting.

Second, The earlier discussion about throwing the statistical analysis out the window in the playoffs. No doubt about it, sample size is an issue and both sides can point to it (Traditionalists: The Red Sox were lucky, Sabermetricians: The Marlins were lucky), but that doesnt mean that analysis becomes meaningless. These teams displayed over the course of a season that they were better at preventing runs and scoring runs than other teams. Therefore, they should be better than the other team in a seven game series. While luck plays a huge role, that better team should win the majority of the time because they are better. It might only be a slight majority, but it will be a majority.

So thats my first post.
Both sides, commence tearing it to pieces.

[SABR Matt]

Welcome obmj5...

From the sound of your first post, I can tell you're gonna fit in well here.

To your first paragraph...that's basically what I was saying...as much information as you can get from scouting (and no where did I say we should abandon scouting practices in favor of purely sabermetric management...because I don't think that...I think we need to merge both fields)...there's a lot of stuff you can only really figure out through detailed statistical analysis...that's all I am saying.

[redoctober]

Oh and one more thing:

If you guys are willing to admit that sabermetrics has problems, and the field is a "work in progress" how am I off base in criticizing it in its contemporary form. You guys recognize my criticisms amongst yourselves but won't admit it to one of your critics.

You guys can critisize your work, but I can't. Is this like white people not being allowed to say "*****?"

Now you're twisting my words. I never said you couldn't criticize the weaknesses of present day Sabermetrics. What I meant was understand the REAL mission statement of Sabermetrics before you go, and question our purpose.

Sabermetrics is still in it's infancy. You wouldn't predict a newborn's future right after it came out of a mother's womb. Give us time to mature.

[obmij5]

I have played on teams where losing our best player has made the team more successful. I don't take this anectdotal evidence as gospel, but it is a phenomenon that occurs

You're right, but you yourself call it a "phenomenon", which, by definition is somewhat unusual. Granted i never played ball with you, but I'm sure if you looked at records you would see that more often than not, in any league in the world, (any sport for that matter), the majority of the time that a team loses their top player, they get worse. Its just not as interesting, so nobody notices it.
Building a team on sabermetric principles is about minimalizing risk. Its more likely that you'll win with guys who put up runs than high character guys.

Just ask SABR Matt, he's a mariners fan... (Cough, Spezio, Cough Cough)

[SABR Matt]

Ah shaddap!!!

You have no business talking...*cough*Jeter at short*cough cough*

In all seriousness though...the Mariners front office has been building "cohesive" and professional rosters for years now...it ain't working.

[obmij5]

Ah shaddap!!!
You have no business talking...*cough*Jeter at short*cough cough*

Well Played, matt.
and the stereotypical yank fan responds with: "what are you talking about? Jeter has won 2 straight Golden Gloves!"

But to quote Baseball Prospectus 2005

As for the Gold Glove, peel back the foil on the award and you'll find there's some tasty chocolate underneath.

Im just happy that he's improved to the point where you don't have to hide the children whenever he picks up his Easton.

[redoctober]

Ah shaddap!!!

You have no business talking...*cough*Jeter at short*cough cough*

In all seriousness though...the Mariners front office has been building "cohesive" and professional rosters for years now...it ain't working.

The anti's think your team is heading in the right direction, and that the future is filled with a million suns.

[SABR Matt]

My team is...starting...to head in the right direction...it's going to take several years IMHO to fully recover unless they have some outstanding drafts and do better in free agency...

And Jeter's defense has noticeably improved in the last two years...he's gone all the way from being one of the five or six worst fielding shortstops in major league history...to being *gasp* AVERAGE! Ah mediocrity...ain't it great.

I could also have mentioned sticking with Bernie Williams in CF about five years too long...

[SABR Matt]

Well Played, matt.
and the stereotypical yank fan responds with: "what are you talking about? Jeter has won 2 straight Golden Gloves!"

But to quote Baseball Prospectus 2005


Im just happy that he's improved to the point where you don't have to hide the children whenever he picks up his Easton.

LOL!! I like that quote...they need to give out some rapsberry awards...there'd be a LOT of Yankees in there..."Worst starting outfielder -> Bernie Williams, worst trade -> Vazquez/prospects for RJ, worst mid-leve free agent signing -> Tony Womack, worst starting pitcher making at least 5 mil -> Jaret Wright"...I could go on.

[obmij5]

LOL!! I like that quote...they need to give out some rapsberry awards...there'd be a LOT of Yankees in there..."Worst starting outfielder -> Bernie Williams, worst trade -> Vazquez/prospects for RJ, worst mid-leve free agent signing -> Tony Womack, worst starting pitcher making at least 5 mil -> Jaret Wright"...I could go on.

Worst Player: Ruben Sierra
However...
Adrian Beltre...
Not a wise signing. Not Womack bad. I would settle it at about a Wright level of badness.
Hey look at the bright side, Gillick isnt allowed to talk to you guys anymore.

I just need to buy Steinbrenner some super glue and convince him its chapstick....
its a work in progress

[SABR Matt]

LOL!

Yeah...the Mariners are run poorly...the Yankees are run HORRIDLY...spending 200 mil a year, Seattle could win 140 games while the Yankees are winning 94-98

[iPod]

Do you people live in the United States?

C'mon, Ipod, I expect more from you. Its patently obvious that this is the United States' dominant economic model. How come we didn't pony up the pittance it would have cost to fix the levys in NO. Who's got the contracts to rebuild? And don't confuse this with Keynsian economics, that's not what JMK had in mind.

What's up with this bird flu? Check out Ashcroft's massive stock holdings in the pharma company that has the patent on the drug that will be perscribed to treat it.

Where are the cats on this forum from other countries, its a shame, but they are usually more educated on US economic and foreign policy than we are.

Numbers will tell whatever story we want them to, baseball, economics, whatever. Let the buyer beware!

If you think the president's economic advisers said not to shore up the levies in New Orleans because it would help the economy to let them burst and then rebuild the city... well, I just don't know what to tell you. No economist thinks that environmental disasters are good for the economy. Farm subsidies are very much part of the US's economic policy, but no economist is going to tell you that subsidies are good for the economy. On the contrary, it's quite obvious to anyone that's taken an economics class that subsidies have a negatively warping effect on the market. They exist nonetheless because small rural states are full of farmers that are decisive on that issue; a politician's stance on subsidies will affect how they vote for him, because it really affects their wellbeing. We, on the other hand, are indecisive on the issue of subsidies, because we really don't care about them one way or the other. That's how politics works, as I'm sure you agree, but it's wrong to say that politicians do what they do because that's what the economic community tells them to do.

[Ubiquitous]

Wow I missed those posts by digglahhh. It isn't baseball but the government didn't pony up because they didn't want to spend the money not because they were hoping some disaster would come along and force them to spend ten times that amount. Human beings have been doing that for generations. The ants and the grasshopper? We are shortsighted by nature.

As for foriegners knowing are ways better then us, well thats bunk. Generally speaking foriegners are just more cynical about our ways but that doesn't mean they are well informed. They go looking for the worst parts of our ways and then hold them up as if that is all we do and all we are capable of. It isn't true and it isn't that simple and clear cut.

I have sat in the Amsterdam airport while foriegners bash and stereotype America and americans. The funniest time or most bizarre moment came when a Canadian was telling three Brits how rude, inconsiderate, and oblivious Americans are to others and their surroundings. I wanted to tap him on the shoulder and ask him just what he thinks he was doing at that moment that was any different then his stereotype? But then I would just be another rude American. I've talked with a german who had the audacity to chastise me and America on our race relations! I've had a Brit scold me for our foriegn relations. I've had a frenchmen mock our government for its inefficiency.