Great piece, Doc.
But, I gotta admit to a chuckle when you close with "Who would've thought AROD would be *done* (my emphasis) at 36?
I get what you're saying ... he's no longer a superstar. But, I think it does show how easy it can be to fall into the "absolute" rhetorical pit when one isn't looking.
AROD had a 112 OPS+ for the season. (I'm certain you weren't implying the 110 OPS+ numbers from Saunders and Seager are indicative that they are "done").
On more occasions than I would like to admit, I have myself posted opinions that (unintentionally) crossed the line of strong to insulting. But, in all honesty, I'm still amazed that people continue to be amazed that athletes actually age.
Jeter posted a 90 OPS+ at age 36. He bounced back ... and had an exceptionally good 2012 campaign. But, I've been bemoaning the ignorance of age arcs since 2008.
My experience and observation (back up by Bill James way back in 1987), says ... first age decline tends to hit right after age 30. For most (but not all) players the FIRST decline is "modest". Then, for those who were good enough to withstand the first decline, there is a second cliff that hits around age 35/36. It's mostly only the superstars that make it past this period as regulars.
I remember being dismissed when I said Teixeira would begin declining much earlier than most. (Tex had a 116 OPS+ this year and is only 32). The difference between an 8-year for a 25-year old star (like say, Miguel Cabrerra), vs. a 29-year-old, (like say, Tex), is HUGE.
IMO, the steroid era has seriously clouded the issue and created completely unrealistic expectations in regards to player aging, (which is exacerbated by the focus of attention on the handful of superstars that actually do survive into their late 30s, while ignoring the spate of players who matched early career production but faded quickly.
Fielder and Sexson are not the same hitters ... but for every Ibanez or Jeter who stays productive late, there is a Sexson or Andruw Jones or Brian Giles that fades more quickly and ceases to be thought of as a "superstar" directly because they played too many extra seasons being merely "pedestrian".
Honestly, how many people remember guys like Hafner or Derrek Lee as even being in the discussion of best bat in the game? Or, what about Brian Giles or Vlad Guerrero?
The reality of age is skewed due to focus on the few who beat the odds, instead of remembering the scores of guys like Mattingly or Dale Murphy (or even Junior), who were actually the norm.
The paradox with aging players is ... if you want to give AROD the best chance at having a 30-HR season ... you need to play him LESS. Play him at 100% for 120 games instead of 90% for 155 ... (or is common with aging players 90% for 120 games with the other 40 on the DL).
.
Fangraphs stepped forward about 1.5 bases (out of a possible 4) by hiring Jeff Sullivan. There's no telling where the dude will take that site -- and they don't even know it yet.
He takes on the ARod catastrophe with his usual light touch and flexible mind, and immediately runs into a classic sabertista (MGL, Oct 18 at 6:12 pm) who takes offense to the use of any "evidence" that isn't (1) mathematical, and (2) to his liking.
Evidence is defined as "something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody come to a particular conclusion." Synonyms, according to the Bing dictionary, include "indication, sign, signal, mark, suggestion, or proof." If Dr. D hears a sabertista say one more time that "THE ENTIRE ARTICLE IS ASSERTION WITH NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER", he's going to ... he's going to ... ::splutter:: he's going to ... um. Blog about it. ::sheepish::
Look, dude, twenty embarrassing swings that have the other dugout laughing, that's evidence. Just because you don't like a certain indication towards a conclusion, doesn't mean that you get to declare that "no evidence exists."
Evidence? Look up the word! If you're going to repeatedly confront other authors over their "lack of any evidence whatsoever," then would you PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS JAMESIAN stop for two seconds and consider what the word "evidence" CONVEYS.
This isn't just a quibble over semantics. It's a war that is waged by the sabertistas to rule the scouts' observations out of court, and also to declare themselves sole arbiters of what is quality statistical evidence. Sabertistas aren't merely implying that their tools and opinions are better; they're trying to imply that all other voices are worthless. They're not trying to hog the microphone; they're trying to completely silence all other witnesses.
Sorry. Men are sent to jail based on testimony and observation. Very few court convictions, Mojician will confirm we're sure, are driven by JAMA-style research papers. College theses are not the only "evidence" that drives life on planet Earth, either in theoretical terms or practical terms.
......................
None of which is to say that there isn't any sabermetric evidence as to ARod's fail, either. ARod's 34% strikeout rate vs RHP, post-DL, is most certainly "an indication towards a conclusion." Lachemann is welcome to say that he doesn't consider the evidence convincing. He most certainly is not welcome to imply that Sullivan did not present evidence. Such a statement, Mojician we believe would agree, would be factually in error.
There is a world of difference between saying, "I personally haven't seen a major study on Hardball Times or Baseball Prospectus on broken hands and OPS decline," and saying "No evidence exists that..." Just for starters, how would anyone ever claim to have read everything? Can I tell you confidently that nobody has ever published any information indicating that the moon landing was hoaxed?
This is a huge problem in pop sabermetrics. Authors decide that they don't find an argument convincing and they summarize with "no evidence exists." At Bill James Online, they tie this concern into their concern that the U.S. inches ever nearer an eventual civil war. Contempt for those different than us. We hear that rioting is threatened if President Obama loses the election. Every election cycle it gets more inflammatory.
Tolerance is cool. It's got to start with authentic listening. Authentic listening is not a skill one learns in college; it is a choice and it is a character virtue.
................................
ARod has become a joke in the batter's box. Part of it could be his injury. Sullivan happens to be materially on point with this article, in my judgment, and the warped definition of "evidence" is what leaves sabertistas with such a failed sense of proportion.
A few months ago, a reader asked Bill James about this general issue:
.
Bill - Alex Rodriguez seemed to get the wind knocked out of his career when he was moved to thirdbase. Well, he went from superstar to merely excellent. One player is a miniscule sample size. However, I wonder if having that greater ground to cover keeps a player's speed up and along with that his ability to extend his career. Just a theory, I know, but does that make any sense to you?
Asked by: hoot stat rat
Answered: 6/5/2012
Women's tennis is a minor sport.
Alex won two MVP Awards as a third baseman, was in the top 10 in the voting two other times, and in the top 15 two more times. . ..six seasons (at third base) in the top 15 in the MVP voting. He just got old, like everybody else.
.
..........................
That'll do for us too.
ARod has given the Yankees 50 WAR in 9 years. Those 52 WAR have been worth roughly $250M to them. That's about what they've paid him: $247M to date.
Somebody owes him another $114M for performance that will be worth maybe $40, $50M. It's fine to overpay for late years to get the early ones, but ARod is one piece of ... um .... "evidence" that goes onto the side of the scale that says "be careful about long contracts."
Who'd have thought that ARod would be done at 36. I thought he was going to hit 900 home runs. As it turns out, his run at 763 is liable to be embarrassing for everybody involved. No ring, no love, no respect. And I doubt anybody's going to name a street after him.
BABVA,
Dr D
Comments
Since its the off-season, and we haven't traded for Mike Stanton yet, here's a little primer on the root definition of evidence.
Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action. Federal Rule of Evidence 401.
Imagine that this wall is a proved theory. The bricks making it are proved evidence. For example, if you wanted to prove that A-Rod took a morning walk in the snow, evidence for that would be:
1. That it snowed at his house,
2. That tracks led from his house,
3. That the snow was fresh,
4. That the tracks belonged to a large man,
5. That A-Rod is the only large man who lives at his house,
6. That an eyewitness saw him away from his house on the morning in question, with gloves and a hat on,
7. That the eyewitness did not see him with any visible means of transportation.
8. That A-Rod appeared to be walking.
The amount of evidence needed to prove the theory, that A-Rod took a walk on the morning in question, is called a burden of proof. American Law generally has five burdens of proof, 1. A reasonable suspicion, reserved for when a policeman may temporarily detain someone to investigate a crime, 2. A probable cause, which is the standard allowable for making arrest or for a search warrant to be granted. There is a probable cause when a set of facts, ignoring any set of contrary facts, makes an event more likely than not 3. A preponderance of the evidence, or more likely than not, which is generally reserved for civil issues involving a deprivation of property. A preponderance of the evidence differs from a probable cause in that it takes facts contrary to the theory into account, and weighs them, rather than ignoring them.
4. clear and convincing evidence, which is generally reserved for deprivations of a fundamental right, such as a termination of parental rights, and 5. Beyond a reasonable doubt, which is generally reserved for deprivations of life or liberty. Beyond a reasonable doubt generally means that there is no contrary fact or lack of evidence for the theory that would make a juror hesitate to believe that the theory was true, even if the juror's own life, liberty or property rested on the theory.
If you wanted to prove that A-Rod took a walk by a reasonable suspicion, then you could show that there were tracks coming from his house. If you wanted to prove that A-Rod took a walk by a probable cause, you could show that there was fresh snow, and that tracks from a large man led from A-Rod's house. This probable cause would exist even if you knew that Jeter and other friends had also stayed the night at A-Rod's after A-Rod's party.
If you wanted to prove that A-Rod took a walk by a preponderance of evidence, you should be able to prove so by facts 1-4, that it snowed the night before the alleged walk, and that large man tracks led from A-Rod's house, and that there was no contrary evidence negating it.
The higher standards of proof would probably require that you proved that the large tracks did not belong to some overnight house guest of A-Rod's.
There are some problems with applying burdens of proof to baseball theories.
1. No one agrees what the applicable burden of proof for baseball is. Do we need to prove everything by beyond a reasonable doubt? Wouldn't that leave out lots of interesting articles? The most entertaining baseball theories are often the most farfetched. If you wrote "Erasmo has turned to Sid Finch" that would be worth a read, but if articles were limited to what is absolutely provable, the it would limit discussion to boring consensus baseball theory. It is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Ground into Double Plays kill rallies, and it is proved beyond all doubt that home runs put points on the board. But if you require a high standard of proof, it doesn't leave room for enough topics to operate a baseball blog.
2. Even if there was a standard burden of proof, who gets to decide whether it has been met? Who is allowed to jure baseball theory in the court of baseball?
3. Opinions vary wildly on the quality of baseball evidence. Some stats are scofffed at as being unreliable, for example UZR, while other eyewitness accounts are scoffed at as unreliable for being a "small sample size". If you were going to judge a baseball theory, it would be best to receive judgment from a jury panel from media, ex ballplayers, fans, scouts, and stats guys, rather than from an individual judge who favored one of those viewpoints.
4. Judging baseball theories at all shows that maybe the sport is taken a little bit too seriously. Baseball should be fun. If it causes anger, maybe it is time for a new hobby.