from Amazon
Monday, March 01, 2010
Pizza on the baseball pysche
This is exactly how I think about it too:
Sabermetricians do not understand the human element of the game. There, I said it. My question is, who died and made (insert favorite MSM punching bag) an expert on the human element? Oh sure, he probably played the game. But then, I drive a car every day, and I have no idea how the thing works. He probably talks a lot about the human element, but talking a lot about something and having an idea of what you’re saying are two different things. They’re called politicians.
I find it funny when sportscasters talk about, with absolute certainty, that a player can’t handle pressure or that he’s clearly being bothered by some event or other that happened in the past (Hi there, Mr. Lidge. I didn’t see you over there. Remember that home run you gave up five years ago? Would you like to see a replay?) It often drifts into the realm of practicing psychology without a license. Or sometimes, a clue.
I can’t say that I blame the pundits, reporters, and commentators for engaging in this sort of talk. They are, at their core, trying to produce an entertainment product for their audience, and people want to feel connected to the emotional experience of the game.
Right, exactly.
1. Saberists only (try to) understand what the data is telling them
2. Gasbags need to engage in gasbaggery
3. For some gasbags, after engaging in said gasbaggery, start to believe their own gasbaggery
It’s #3 that’s the problem.
There is much that falls within what is traditionally understood as the “human element” that is of great interest to (some?) saberists.
All the various investigations which could be loosely grouped under the heading of game theory are the prime example.
In addition, I find that interviews with players, coaches, etc., are some of the true nuggets of data in many an analysis, even if you have to grind through tons of ore to find them and even if you have to discard the occasional lump of iron pyrite.
I also find personally that seeing things with my eyes (through videos, photos, etc.) helps me greatly in my analysis. It’s obviously also horribly inefficient compared to querying a database. However, I find the two information sources complement each other. In general, I believe that those who only use one source of information are poorer for it. Of course, there are occasions when only one method or the other is much preferred.
I can’t read the full article by Pizza, so perhaps he covered this, or perhaps it’s not relevant to his point, but I suppose that many of the main-stream writers either (1) feel much more able to analyze the game with their eyes than through the power of large digital data sets or (2) are mostly part of the game’s landscape because they love the narrative and don’t care much for “objective” knowledge about it.