It must be said - Hawk Harrelson has to go

[chw42]

Hawk hates sabermetrics because they show he was an even more brutal ballplayer than everyone already knew.

 

Hawk only had maybe 2 good years in his entire career. Unless he thinks he's hot s***, I think he already knows he wasn't all that good.

[caulfield12]

Who was Harrelson referring to about getting fired?

 

The old-time Grady Fuson School scouts?

 

Or the new wave GM's like DePodesta and J. P. Ricciardi?

 

(Interestingly, both of those guys are now with the Mets and former A's GM Sandy Alderson.)

[IlliniKrush]

Who was Harrelson referring to about getting fired?

 

The old-time Grady Fuson School scouts?

 

Or the new wave GM's like DePodesta and J. P. Ricciardi?

 

(Interestingly, both of those guys are now with the Mets and former A's GM Sandy Alderson.)

That's exactly it. He just said it to say it. More guys have jobs due to sabermetrics than have lost them.

[Eminor3rd]

It's ironic that those claiming that sabermetrics exude "elitism" tend to be the same people that refuse to even try to understand them because it goes against their "traditional" ways. Ignoring the possibility of progress for nothing but the sake of tradition is about as elitist as it gets.

 

I've pissed some people off on this board regarding the subject of sabermetrics before, but when I get worked up and vitriolic it is NEVER because people disagree with a sabermetric claim or don't concern themselves with the subject -- it is when people vehemently denounce it without even attempting to understand it. That's the kind of BS attitude that fosters an "us vs. them" s***-show in the first place. This isn't people being elitist, this is people being overly defensive on both sides.

 

There's no magic answer to most baseball questions, sabermetric or not. You can disagree all you want and I'll respect it. But your claim deserves no respect if you are making it without bothering to be informed. That is the problem with Hawk's opinions -- they are all rooted in a bias he created when someone made him feel threatened. That's the immaturity that most of the most public voices on BOTH sides of the "debate" have shown, from my observations.

[lostfan]

It's ironic that those claiming that sabermetrics exude "elitism" tend to be the same people that refuse to even try to understand them because it goes against their "traditional" ways. Ignoring the possibility of progress for nothing but the sake of tradition is about as elitist as it gets.

 

I've pissed some people off on this board regarding the subject of sabermetrics before, but when I get worked up and vitriolic it is NEVER because people disagree with a sabermetric claim or don't concern themselves with the subject -- it is when people vehemently denounce it without even attempting to understand it. That's the kind of BS attitude that fosters an "us vs. them" s***-show in the first place. This isn't people being elitist, this is people being overly defensive on both sides.

 

There's no magic answer to most baseball questions, sabermetric or not. You can disagree all you want and I'll respect it. But your claim deserves no respect if you are making it without bothering to be informed. That is the problem with Hawk's opinions -- they are all rooted in a bias he created when someone made him feel threatened. That's the immaturity that most of the most public voices on BOTH sides of the "debate" have shown, from my observations.

I'm plagiarizing the first paragraph

[cabiness42]

It's ironic that those claiming that sabermetrics exude "elitism" tend to be the same people that refuse to even try to understand them because it goes against their "traditional" ways. Ignoring the possibility of progress for nothing but the sake of tradition is about as elitist as it gets.

 

My problem with the most ardent adherents to sabermetrics its that they take their numbers as absolute proof of one player being better than another. I will freely admit that WAR is a far better evaluation tool than AVG and RBI, but please do not try to tell me that Player A with a WAR of 5.0 is 100% undeniably better than Player B with a WAR of 4.8. Sabermetrics is not THAT exact of a science. There is plenty of margin for error in park factors, strength of opponents faced, etc., to be that exact.

 

I'm not accusing any particular person on this board because I haven't seen that extreme kind of behavior here, but I have seen it plenty of places.

[iamshack]

It's ironic that those claiming that sabermetrics exude "elitism" tend to be the same people that refuse to even try to understand them because it goes against their "traditional" ways. Ignoring the possibility of progress for nothing but the sake of tradition is about as elitist as it gets.

 

I've pissed some people off on this board regarding the subject of sabermetrics before, but when I get worked up and vitriolic it is NEVER because people disagree with a sabermetric claim or don't concern themselves with the subject -- it is when people vehemently denounce it without even attempting to understand it. That's the kind of BS attitude that fosters an "us vs. them" s***-show in the first place. This isn't people being elitist, this is people being overly defensive on both sides.

 

There's no magic answer to most baseball questions, sabermetric or not. You can disagree all you want and I'll respect it. But your claim deserves no respect if you are making it without bothering to be informed. That is the problem with Hawk's opinions -- they are all rooted in a bias he created when someone made him feel threatened. That's the immaturity that most of the most public voices on BOTH sides of the "debate" have shown, from my observations.

You find it ironic that when data is questioned by someone, that person is labeled as being dumb?

 

Because they ask questions?

 

I wholly admit there are people on the far end of the spectrum that are very defensive and combative.

 

I am in an industry which is moving from a culture of not producing data because of fear of what that data might reveal, to a culture of producing as much data as possible because of the efficiencies that data might point the way to. I am one of the chief proponents in my company for driving the production of as much reliable data as possible; but that's just it, it has to be vetted and shown over some reasonable amount of time to be reliable.

 

We should always question and test data, especially when it is produced by new methods.

 

Having the nerve to question that data should not elicit insults or a defensive attitude...which is what I very disproportionately receive when I ask questions of sabermetric-oriented folks.

[lostfan]

You find it ironic that when data is questioned by someone, that person is labeled as being dumb?

 

Because they ask questions?

 

I wholly admit there are people on the far end of the spectrum that are very defensive and combative.

 

I am in an industry which is moving from a culture of not producing data because of fear of what that data might reveal, to a culture of producing as much data as possible because of the efficiencies that data might point the way to. I am one of the chief proponents in my company for driving the production of as much reliable data as possible; but that's just it, it has to be vetted and shown over some reasonable amount of time to be reliable.

 

We should always question and test data, especially when it is produced by new methods.

 

Having the nerve to question that data should not elicit insults or a defensive attitude...which is what I very disproportionately receive when I ask questions of sabermetric-oriented folks.

I think BABIP for hitters is a pretty useless stat (and I have a long explanation as to why, the gist of it being that it just repeats what you already know from looking at batting average) and whenever I say that I do get some pretty strong reactions to what I feel is pretty obvious but if I went on to say "sabermetrics is dumb, this tells me nothing" or something along those lines I'd expect to be called dumb.

[iamshack]

I think BABIP for hitters is a pretty useless stat (and I have a long explanation as to why, the gist of it being that it just repeats what you already know from looking at batting average) and whenever I say that I do get some pretty strong reactions to what I feel is pretty obvious but if I went on to say "sabermetrics is dumb, this tells me nothing" or something along those lines I'd expect to be called dumb.

Yeah, I agree with that..people on the far end of either spectrum are both being dumb, IMHO.

 

 

[witesoxfan]

I guess it also depends to what extent you want to declare something as sabermetrics anymore and which is traditional. Hawk trashes sabermetrics but he uses OBP, which has been tracked forever but was only given the name and used by sabermeticians in like the 70s and 80s.

 

Personally, I don't even consider OBP/SLG/OPS to be saber stats any more, but that was how they originated. In 15-20 years, we may not be talking about UZR/150 as a saber stat either. More and more, you see that sabermetric websites focus so much more on pitch location and angle and the repeatability of mechanics, and they can look at that from release points of the baseball by pitchers and graph them out to figure this out.

 

 

[Eminor3rd]

You find it ironic that when data is questioned by someone, that person is labeled as being dumb?

 

No, I think you missed my point. Questioning is FANTASTIC, and it is at the very core of the objectivity that sabermetrics promote. Being dismissive without questioning is the problem. People like Hawk are dismissive, and probably so are the majority of anti-data people. I have no problem with questioning and disagreeing with interpretations of data and/or the quality of data. I have a huge problem with the attitude that it's all "nerd garbage" and that it's wrong because it you (the proverbial you) don't consider it interesting to understand.

[Eminor3rd]

I guess it also depends to what extent you want to declare something as sabermetrics anymore and which is traditional. Hawk trashes sabermetrics but he uses OBP, which has been tracked forever but was only given the name and used by sabermeticians in like the 70s and 80s.

 

Personally, I don't even consider OBP/SLG/OPS to be saber stats any more, but that was how they originated. In 15-20 years, we may not be talking about UZR/150 as a saber stat either. More and more, you see that sabermetric websites focus so much more on pitch location and angle and the repeatability of mechanics, and they can look at that from release points of the baseball by pitchers and graph them out to figure this out.

 

Agreed. Sabermetrics is really about the idea of advancing our understanding of baseball through the quantifiable measurement. The irony in the "saber vs. old school" debates on TV is that both sides are arguing with numbers.

[iamshack]

No, I think you missed my point. Questioning is FANTASTIC, and it is at the very core of the objectivity that sabermetrics promote. Being dismissive without questioning is the problem. People like Hawk are dismissive, and probably so are the majority of anti-data people. I have no problem with questioning and disagreeing with interpretations of data and/or the quality of data. I have a huge problem with the attitude that it's all "nerd garbage" and that it's wrong because it you (the proverbial you) don't consider it interesting to understand.

Agreed.

[StrangeSox]

Oh lawd.

 

Expect a Deadspin article.

I miss FJM

[StrangeSox]

My problem with the most ardent adherents to sabermetrics its that they take their numbers as absolute proof of one player being better than another. I will freely admit that WAR is a far better evaluation tool than AVG and RBI, but please do not try to tell me that Player A with a WAR of 5.0 is 100% undeniably better than Player B with a WAR of 4.8. Sabermetrics is not THAT exact of a science. There is plenty of margin for error in park factors, strength of opponents faced, etc., to be that exact.

 

I'm not accusing any particular person on this board because I haven't seen that extreme kind of behavior here, but I have seen it plenty of places.

Who actually makes that argument, though? They'd have to be statistically illiterate. Fangraphs, baseball reference, etc. don't list error bars for these numbers but anyone who's taken stats 101 should know not to take these numbers as absolute, 100% true measurements.

[lostfan]

I guess it also depends to what extent you want to declare something as sabermetrics anymore and which is traditional. Hawk trashes sabermetrics but he uses OBP, which has been tracked forever but was only given the name and used by sabermeticians in like the 70s and 80s.

 

Personally, I don't even consider OBP/SLG/OPS to be saber stats any more, but that was how they originated. In 15-20 years, we may not be talking about UZR/150 as a saber stat either. More and more, you see that sabermetric websites focus so much more on pitch location and angle and the repeatability of mechanics, and they can look at that from release points of the baseball by pitchers and graph them out to figure this out.

OBP has been around as long as I've been paying attention to baseball. I consider it "mainstream" if they show it on TV during broadcasts. To me OPS is as essential a stat as batting average and I'm not sure why it's not more "mainstream" (given my definition).

[flavum]

http://www.csnchicago.com/blog/white-sox-t...etrics-its-bull

 

[StrangeSox]

“I think baseball has lost a lot of its childlike qualities, and it’s a kid’s game. You take Mark Buehrle, he has never lost his child-like qualities. That’s one reason he can go out there and throw an 86-miles-per-hour fastball and still compete and win. So if a lot of players lose it, the individual game loses it.

 

The reason Mark Buehrle has had a successful career is that he's got the mind of a child?

 

Hmm, I bet there's some advanced metrics out there that could better explain why Buehrle is effective with an 86 MPH fastball.

[witesoxfan]

"I think Moneyball is bulls***"

Have you ever read it?

"NO"

 

/facepalmtoChina

 

Moneyball is not ABOUT sabermetrics. Moneyball != sabermetrics. Beane USES sabermetrics IN Moneyball, but they are not one in the same.

 

I feel like a broken record.

[Eminor3rd]

The Moneyball book got rave reviews and has sold over one million copies worldwide. One person who hasn’t read it is Harrelson. He never will.

 

“I wouldn’t waste the money,” he said. “I’ve heard some guys who’ve read it. I’ve talked to some guys who liked it, and I’ve talked to a majority of guys who think it was a bunch of bull----, which if I read it, I’m sure that’s what I think it will be.”

 

This is the problem. A strong, negative opinion without ever lifting a finger to understand it. Literally judging a book by its cover.

[witesoxfan]

The reason Mark Buehrle has had a successful career is that he's got the mind of a child?

 

Hmm, I bet there's some advanced metrics out there that could better explain why Buehrle is effective with an 86 MPH fastball.

 

Good control, throws groundballs, plays good defense, keeps teams from stealing bases against him, 4 above average pitches (none of which are his 86 MPH fastball). You want me to keep going?

[StrangeSox]

Good control, throws groundballs, plays good defense, keeps teams from stealing bases against him, 4 above average pitches (none of which are his 86 MPH fastball). You want me to keep going?

No I'm going to stick with simple-minded fool, like the Rainman of pitching. Measure THAT with your computers in your mom's basements, NERDS!

[IlliniKrush]

"I think Moneyball is bulls***"

Have you ever read it?

"NO"

 

/facepalmtoChina

 

Moneyball is not ABOUT sabermetrics. Moneyball != sabermetrics. Beane USES sabermetrics IN Moneyball, but they are not one in the same.

 

I feel like a broken record.

Yup. Ex: Chad Bradford.

[flavum]

Isn't it just obvious that it's a control thing with Hawk? He wants baseball to stay the way he played it where nobody had information. Since it's not what he had, it's worse in his mind.

 

Please retire. Go back to Orlando, and play Bay Hill everyday.

Edited April 25, 2013 by flavum

[Dick Allen]

The reason Mark Buehrle has had a successful career is that he's got the mind of a child?

 

Hmm, I bet there's some advanced metrics out there that could better explain why Buehrle is effective with an 86 MPH fastball.

The first part of Hawk's quote was left off when he said the use of all the data is turning some players into robots. While it sounds silly, attitude does play a huge role in how you perform just about anything. Buerhle is not out on the mound worry about his K rate or his WHIP. He's out there to win a game. I think that is what Hawk means. I don't know how many players are actually turning robotic like Hawk suggests, but I'm sure there are several. After all, in the end, it's all about getting paid.