Outstanding Bill Simmons article

[Jordan4life_2007]

Came across this a few hours ago. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...=simmons/100402

 

One of the best Bill Simmons articles I can remember. He perfectly breaks down both sides of the fence when it comes to saberguys and the traditionalists.

 

See, I stopped writing about baseball these past two years when the sabermetrics movement became too complicated for my liking. Did I respect the work of Baseball Prospectus, Bill James, Rob Neyer, Joe Posnanski, Jonah Keri and everyone else in that community? Of course. I just hated the finality of it, the concept that numbers could trump anything I was watching with my own two eyes. If numbers always prevailed, what was the point of watching baseball or having arguments about it? I longed for the old days when you could say things like, "I hate watching J.D. Drew -- when is that contract going to end?" and there wasn't some dude lurking behind me with Drew's stellar OPS, VORP and WAR numbers saying, "Well, actually ... "

 

Throw everything together (visual and sabermetric), and 1975 Freddie Lynn stands the test of time. But I had to do some work to prove it. And that's what this is all about: work. Not everyone wants to work to follow sports. This isn't school. We don't want to do homework. We don't want to study. We just want to watch games. Hence, my attitude for the past few years could be summed up like this:

 

The bold used to describe me perfectly a couple years ago. Just a really good (and long) article.

[Brian]

I always agreed with him and his comments on Sabermetrics on his podcast. He is spot on. Hope he isn't turning to the darkside.

[chw42]

I always agreed with him and his comments on Sabermetrics on his podcast. He is spot on. Hope he isn't turning to the darkside.

 

Everybody has to turn to it at one time or another.

 

In 5-10 years, ESPN will be comparing WAR values of players for actually how good they are.

[Ozzie Ball]

In 5-10 years, ESPN will be comparing WAR values of players for actually how good they are.

By which point it will be an extremely outdated metric.

[Brian]

Everybody has to turn to it at one time or another.

 

NEVAAAAAA!

[SoxFan562004]

By which point it will be an extremely outdated metric.

well for ESPN to use it you have to get extra points for being on the Red Sox or Yankees

[The Ginger Kid]

I don't really delve in it, but I like all the sabermetrics because it's brought a new dimension to looking at the game and revealed even further what a fantastic game it is. If it makes the game more enjoyable for some, then more power to them. I do agree that the esoteric references get annoying, but they're easy to ignore.

[Middle Buffalo]

I've never played fantasy baseball, so I truly don't understand most of the "new" stats. I know there's value in sabermetrics, but I feel like Simmons used to feel. He used to argue against the stat guys precisely because of players like JD Drew. I know what I see, and there has to be some value to that, too.

 

Simmons is guilty of doing my least favorite fan argument - talking about an outfielder's defensive ability. He says Jacoby Elsbury has bad instincts, gets bad jumps, etc. How does he know this from watching the games on tv? I hear people talking this way all the time: "He's a great center fielder...>" Really? What makes you an expert on defensive play in the outfield? How closely do you really watch players even when you're at the game? Most people just watch the pitcher, then the batter, then follow the ball. How many people watch the center fielder or shortstop while the ball is being pitched?

Edited April 3, 2010 by Middle Buffalo

[chw42]

By which point it will be an extremely outdated metric.

 

True, which means ESPN will never truly catch up.

[JorgeFabregas]

Simmons is guilty of doing my least favorite fan argument - talking about an outfielder's defensive ability. He says Jacoby Elsbury has bad instincts, gets bad jumps, etc. How does he know this from watching the games on tv? I hear people talking this way all the time: "He's a great center fielder...>" Really? What makes you an expert on defensive play in the outfield? How closely do you really watch players even when you're at the game? Most people just watch the pitcher, then the batter, then follow the ball. How many people watch the center fielder or shortstop while the ball is being pitched?

 

Most of the advanced stats have nothing to do with fantasy baseball, other than helping to indicate which seasons might be outliers.

 

Really, though, you seem to be making a great argument here for advanced stats.

Edited April 3, 2010 by JorgeFabregas

[G&T]

Most of the advanced stats have nothing to do with fantasy baseball, other than helping to indicate which seasons might be outliers.

 

Really, though, you seem to be making a great argument here for advanced stats.

 

I think that's his point.

[Princess Dye]

I'm always amazed when people argue for the right to know less as opposed to more.

[ThunderBolt]

I'm always amazed when people argue for the right to know less as opposed to more.

Exactly, ignorance isn't a priviledge. Sabermetrics is pushing the sport forward in impressive ways. We can't fight the future, we need to embrace it.

[Buehrle>Wood]

His argument is terrible. Why do stats take away from watching the game? They don't. And guess what, stats have always meant a ton in baseball. That was true ten years ago. That was true fifty years ago. Just because the names have changed shouldn't mean anything, just that we know a little more at what we're doing.

[Milkman delivers]

I've never played fantasy baseball, so I truly don't understand most of the "new" stats. I know there's value in sabermetrics, but I feel like Simmons used to feel. He used to argue against the stat guys precisely because of players like JD Drew. I know what I see, and there has to be some value to that, too.

 

Simmons is guilty of doing my least favorite fan argument - talking about an outfielder's defensive ability. He says Jacoby Elsbury has bad instincts, gets bad jumps, etc. How does he know this from watching the games on tv? I hear people talking this way all the time: "He's a great center fielder...>" Really? What makes you an expert on defensive play in the outfield? How closely do you really watch players even when you're at the game? Most people just watch the pitcher, then the batter, then follow the ball. How many people watch the center fielder or shortstop while the ball is being pitched?

 

A Middle Buffalo post that wasn't funny...this feels weird.

[Cali]

Fantasy Baseball and Sabermetrics are ruining the sport.

 

.02

[qwerty]

[chw42]

Fantasy Baseball and Sabermetrics are ruining the sport.

 

.02

 

Fantasy baseball is, sabermetrics isn't.

[Brian]

Fantasy baseball isn't, sabermetrics is.

 

Fixed.

 

Fantasy baseball is not even on the radar of things wrong with the game. It's nowhere near the level of Fantasy football in association with the sport.

 

[Kalapse]

His argument is terrible. Why do stats take away from watching the game? They don't. And guess what, stats have always meant a ton in baseball. That was true ten years ago. That was true fifty years ago. Just because the names have changed shouldn't mean anything, just that we know a little more at what we're doing.

I think I know a thing or two about sabermetrics and yet I've never loved baseball more than I do right now.

[chw42]

Fixed.

 

Fantasy baseball is not even on the radar of things wrong with the game. It's nowhere near the level of Fantasy football in association with the sport.

 

How are sabermetrics ruining the game?

 

You can argue either way about fantasy baseball, but how has sabermetrics ruined anything? Is mixing statistics, science, and sports wrong in your opinion?

 

Are you tired of people bashing you over the head with things that are probably right?

 

If it was so bad, why are teams like the Mariners and Red Sox using sabermetric methods to build their teams?

Edited April 5, 2010 by chw42

[Harry Chappas]

I wish people would stop using Sabermetrics as the reason the Red Sox are good and look at the money. Last I looked Seattle was not good last year ...oh and they have two of the top pitchers in the game.

 

Oakland is a sabermetric team and they suck.

 

 

[Brian]

How are sabermetrics ruining the game?

 

You can argue either way about fantasy baseball, but how has sabermetrics ruined anything? Is mixing statistics, science, and sports wrong in your opinion?

 

Are you tired of people bashing you over the head with things that are probably right?

 

If it was so bad, why are teams like the Mariners and Red Sox using sabermetric methods to build their teams?

 

With all these obscene stats and numbers that people live and die by, why not just load the numbers into the computer and have them pick a World Series winner? Some of the stats are so stupid cuz they don't into effect certain things like weather and injuries and if a player knocks his girlfriend up.

 

I have nothing against science in the game. It can keep players healthy and teach technique.

 

[SoxAce]

I wish people would stop using Sabermetrics as the reason the Red Sox are good and look at the money.

 

I would say it is different for certain teams. The Cubs and Mets were horrid with big payrolls and a team like Tampa Bay contends using Sabermetrics. It's more along how well a GM orchestrates a team while being smart with money or how well scouts draft these high round prospects also. Teams like the Red Sox, Braves, etc.. and smaller markets like the Twins, Rays, Rockies, etc.. are outstanding in it.

[chw42]

With all these obscene stats and numbers that people live and die by, why not just load the numbers into the computer and have them pick a World Series winner? Some of the stats are so stupid cuz they don't into effect certain things like weather and injuries and if a player knocks his girlfriend up.

 

I have nothing against science in the game. It can keep players healthy and teach technique.

 

Stats can never predict the true outcome, it's not perfect by any means and it can't take everything into effect. But you can't just ignore it because there's some deformities. It's like ignoring a girl at a club because she's too short for your liking. If she's a 90 on a scale of 100, are you gonna say, "nah, not good enough for me"? I honestly doubt it.

 

You have to be a bit open minded about these things.

 

And you can definitely predict health. You think all projection systems have Chris Carpenter throwing 230 innings this year? It's not all that hard to predict who will and who won't get injured as long as they have a previous history.

Edited April 5, 2010 by chw42