On the declining quality of the ORG

[dubc47834]

It needs to be pointed out that SABR and sabermetrics are two very different things. SABR is not always about sabermetrics. In fact, most members of SABR are more historian types that sabermatricians.

To address that sabermetrics are probably the future of baseball. They aren't. They are the present of baseball. They haven't replaced scouting, but they have joined scouting as a full picture of what is going on in the game. While not everyone is fully on board, everyone is pretty much somewhat on board who works in a baseball front office.



I think this is inaccurate. I am a big stats guy, but I am also a big scouting guy. I have made countless posts about how I am not a fan of Pitcher WAR or even of Baseball-Reference WAR in general for modern times since we have had access to UZR for defensive valuations. I make scouting statements often enough in the ORG that get by just fine. Everything someone discusses with baseball is going to come back to some sort of statistical evidence. You can't claim a guy is good or bad without using some kind of statistical measure to come to that conclusion.

I would love to see where someone claimed you can't learn anything from just watching the game. I've never seen someone say that.

Doug, didn't know there was a difference. Learn something new ever day. As far as the future of baseball, you're right, saber metrics is probably the here and now. Many organizations, if not all, use saber metrics in regards to player moves. I doubt I ever fully embrace them, but have learned they are a very good tool in evaluating players!!!

[Dom Heffner]

That was how I took your comments. I don't know if it came off that way to Dom or not, but it came across that way for me.

I did take it that way.

In regards to "proof," I meant it as you say, as evidence in an attempt to prove.

By no means am I saying it's all settled, infallible.

[Raisor]

Offense is pretty much settled stat wise.

Pitching is pretty close.

Defense is improving

[dubc47834]

Offense is pretty much settled stat wise.

Pitching is pretty close.

Defense is improving

What do you mean by settled stat wise...serious question, no funny business!

[Brutus]

I did take it that way.

In regards to "proof," I meant it as you say, as evidence in an attempt to prove.

By no means am I saying it's all settled, infallible.

Fair enough. That makes sense...I appreciate that clarification.

[Rojo]

That was how I took your comments.

Good, I was grasping at something. You grabbed it.

[757690]

Offense is pretty much settled stat wise.

Pitching is pretty close.

Defense is improving

The exact same thing was said ten users ago, and ten years before that, and ten years before that...

All science is settled... Until it isn't anymore.

[757690]

Let's see some say the stat guys are overbearing, some also feel that every Cardinal is a steroid user, or every LaRussa player, or everyone who hits a bunch of HRs is a user.

Some folks find that annoying too.

Que sera.... this debate about Redzone bad, stat guys bad, RBIs bad, snark bad, Batting average bad is the Swallows of Capistrano, it shows up during every season, often when the Reds are teetering.

There a big difference between overbearing and annoying.

Annoying statements you can debate if you want to. They actually encourage debate.

Overbearing statements end debates, and discourage people from debating.

[westofyou]

Bad sabermetrics is saying " That's the end of the story"

Bill James

[westofyou]

Doug, didn't know there was a difference. Learn something new ever day. As far as the future of baseball, you're right, saber metrics is probably the here and now. Many organizations, if not all, use saber metrics in regards to player moves. I doubt I ever fully embrace them, but have learned they are a very good tool in evaluating players!!!

I'm a member of SABR and there are thousands of guys who don't care one iota about advanced stats that are too

[westofyou]

There a big difference between overbearing and annoying.

Annoying statements you can debate if you want to. They actually encourage debate.

Overbearing statements end debates, and discourage people from debating.

I've debated with you about steroids, overbearing describes it perfectly

[Brutus]

I'm a member of SABR and there are thousands of guys who don't care one iota about advanced stats that are too

Yeah I agree with Doug that SABR is a lot more about preserving the history of the game than the statistics themselves.

[Raisor]

What do you mean by settled stat wise...serious question, no funny business!

We know how run scoring works and have the ability to show our work.

We know how accurate stats like batting average, OPS, Runs Created, etc are in relation to runs scored.

[jojo]

Offense is pretty much settled stat wise.

Pitching is pretty close.

Defense is improving

Yep and this notion that Voros M has been proven wrong isnt actually accurate while the notion that our interpretation of BABIP has dramatically been altered greatly exaggerates the actual data.

This notion that there is no such thing as absolute proof is really a straw man. The reality is that all arguments aren't created equal no matter how often one wants to evoke the "ultimate proof clause". Some conclusions are based upon stronger premises and thus the argument is more compelling than the alternative and it's actually not often that two sides of a discussion are equally compelling. Ultimate truth? Shenanigans...that's an implied ad hominem often evoked by one profiting a less compelling argument.

Why is there so much discussion about this stat versus that stat? Simply because often the stats are the premises supporting opposing conclusions so discussing their merits and weaknesses really is getting to the heart of the matter.

But ya, pitching is pretty close to being figured out and suggesting that we've moved further from truth concerning our understanding of BABIP and it's application frankly isn't a conclusion that is actually supported by an accurate characterization of our current understanding of these concepts....which by the way ironically enough has been rehashed at least ten times over in discussions with many of the same people who in this thread are lamenting the rehashing of settled statistical arguments.

But ya.....as to your post....We've been basically pecking at the periphery in a lot of regards with newer stats since Bill James and contemporaries revolutionized saber metrics. Is that absolute truth? Nope...it just means given our current undertaning, there are more compelling and less compelling arguments based upon the available data.

[Raisor]

http://www.eg.bucknell.edu/~bvollmay...all/runs1.html