Interesting stuff, Jemanji! I've more or less thought of sabermetrics as the statistics that come out of formulas that should help us determine the most valuable players. James puts it in a new light saying the mere difference in this and sports writing is that sabermetrics begin with a question. Putting sabermetrics in a box labeled 'statistics' may not be fair on my part.
I still have a problem with how some people interpret the results of the formula. A few weeks ago, Beavan and Iwakuma were compared on the 'big blog' (as you folks like to say) and they wanted us to believe they were the same pitcher this spring. I had a big problem with them dismissing the amount of hard-hit balls that landed for base hits there. It's that kind of example that has me questioning the people who base opinions solely off of what Fangraphs tells us.
Well said in this paragraph, "We try to begin, sincerely, with questions, as opposed to beginning with what are in essence position statements. If we find a good clear question, it is not so hard to find historical patterns that illuminate the questions." That is what gives rich content to a site.
Curious to hear what you think of the ol' 'team chemistry' debate? How much can it really help or hurt? A week or so ago I wrote (admittedly, a muddled post) that questioned some of the 'fangraphs is the only way' believers, thinking along the lines of chemistry and special players. http://goodguyssports.com/2012/03/27/tim-tebow-and-baseball-sabermetrics/
Good stuff!
Add new comment
1