THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Pretty disingenious of Rosenthal to not mention that Mark Teixiera is the MVP candidate to recieve most of the scorn. Jeter is probably a far more acceptable alternative to Mauer, looking at the numbers.

In answer to Rosenthal’s question, I think it would be perfectly fair to say “Probably not.”

Having looked at the article, I also think that there’s no reason whatsoever to assume that ground rules of any such discussion would include such fancy crap as “Define your terms” (in this case, what we mean by “valuable") and “Show your work” (how we might go about determining value or its absence).

It may make me a rotten person, but I for one am tired of trying to pat pit bulls.

While I didn’t hate everything Rosenthal had to say, I find it funny that he paints the picture of the saber community as shutting minority opinions out.

Here’s the problem. The online saber community is like a peer-reviewed journal. Thoughts are entered in writing, and they are quickly commented on by others in the field. There is always room for reasonable and lively debate, which is part of the fun of having this community in the first place.

However, as Tango mentioned, there are some party crashers that like to show up with nothing more than scorn for the community and logical fallacies. As long as one is making a good-hearted attempt to argue based on data and evidence, by all means, come talk.

The analogy I’ll make is to the Intelligent Design proponents. They cry out that they are being put down by the scientific community, and that open and fair debate isn’t allowed when they express their ideas. Of course, all they’re doing is complaining that their proposals are rejected, but they don’t realize it’s not because they are dangerous, but because they are just prima facie not real science.

Come explain why Derek Jeter is the MVP. That is a lively and cordial debate I have had with many friends who wouldn’t describe themselves as saber people. However, don’t get into wishy washy mumbo jumbo that is better served in a teenager’s facebook diatribe to their favorite player. Bring evidence.

"Last I checked” is the most annoying, smug rhetorical device out there, I think. And using it twice in a row makes it even more obnoxious.

I’m just curious as to what Rosenthal is defining as the “sabermetric community”.  A series of random blogs touting Mauer?  BBTF?  This site?

If it’s the first, then I guess I can see where he’s coming from, as anyone is free to write whatever they like on their blog; it doesn’t make them a part of the sabermetric community, though.

If it’s the second, then he’s only choosing to read comments by jerks or trolls.

If it’s the third, then he’s delusional.

I worry that this sort of response is exactly what Rosenthal wants when he writes a column like this.

It’s so easy to get worked up and annoyed by things others say on the internet, and I’m sure Rosenthal knows this. He also knows there are lot of websites like this one that will link to his column if he writes along these lines.

That being said, I do believe he’s right that part of civil discourse is not being a bully, even when your club is logic and evidence. Just because someone is wrong does not mean they are not entitled to courtesy.

We can disagee without being disagreeable.  However, being a gasbag IS being disagreeable.  There’s no point in talking to a gasbad (not that I’m calling Rosenthal one).

However, I don’t see anything wrong with my “response”.  I corrected him, and I said that I can have a dialogue with anyone who sincerely wants a dialogue. There’s no reason to think that my response is anything other than that.

I certainly did not mean to imply that you were being a bully in this post. And I agree that the proper response for someone who isn’t interested in having a forthright conversation is often not to engage.

But it does raise the question of who gets to decide whether or not someone is a gasbag. I don’t trust myself, especially in the heat of the moment, to differentiate between gasbags and people who disagree with me. So my general bias is to afford as much courtesy as I can, even to those who might appear to me to be unreasonable. Of course, I often fail

"The sabermetric community, through web sites, message boards and blogs, tells me so.”

I’m starting to think Ken was playing Troll today.

Obvious troll is obvious.

Re Tommy Bennett’s comment in #6:

I’m not convinced that someone who is wrong is necessarily entitled to courtesy.

For example, Rosenthal’s remark “Slavishly adhering to sabermetric dogma reduces the level of discourse,” may be reasonable-sounding, but:

“Slavish” (my dictionary has it as “servile” or “blindly imitative,") is insulting. Preemptively characterizing sabermetric analysis as “dogma” is likewise inflammatory.

This sort of thing may be rhetorically effective, but it’s plainly not offerred up in good faith.

In this context, “We can still talk, can’t we?” isn’t any different from asking me if next week’s dinner invitation is still on, after defecating on my kitchen floor.

I was going to post about how I thought Tango used the incorrect plural of ignoramus and how I know that the plural of alumnus is is alumni and that the plural of octopus is “give me three more while you are it.”

But I did a wonderful thing.  Instead of trusting my eyes and instincts, I checked a dictionary and what do you know, Tango used the correct plural.

Now did he know that was the correct plural?  Maybe he thought he knew, but wasn’t sure and also checked a dictionary?  Perhaps he composed the post in a word processor and it corrected his spelling?  Perhaps he had no idea, had some one proof the post and they consulted their dictionary and corrected the spelling?

Then it dawned on me how this whole little thing is like this argument.  A little research, a little cross-checking, a little review by others and a correct spelling/conclusion is drawn.  I could have just cited my “educated” spelling eye and previous spelling history and concluded ignorami is the correct plural.  This would have been the, “I have seen Player X and he is an MVP so similar Player Y is the MVP” argument.

Obviously the MVP discussion is a little more subjective than a spelling, but a reasonable person could cite all the references I discussed, then go to a dictionary for some evidence and be corrected.  Maybe two dictionaries have different plurals and you can have a discussion on which to use, but at least there is factual evidence for both.

So there is room for discussion, just have some proof to back your point other than the purely subjective.

"We can disagee without being disagreeable.  However, being a gasbag IS being disagreeable.  There’s no point in talking to a gasbad (not that I’m calling Rosenthal one).”

Only problem with that is it’s subjective.  Just because you think someone’s a gasbag doesn’t mean everyone does.  Especially the gasbag, who probably thinks he’s right and you’re the gasbag.

Re Tango’s #7, While we can indeed disagree without being disagreeable, we can also disagree disagreeably, as long as we all know where we stand and who’s zoomin’ who. For example, it would be hypothetically acceptable to call Rosenthal a pig-diddler, as long as the reasons for the accusation were clearly explained.

And Re Troy’s #9, I too think that Rosenthal was playing Troll; I have a sinking feeling that he was trolling for more eyeballs (what used to be called “putting asses in the seats"). There appears to be a great deal of money to be made by creating more fire than light.

Is this really any different than any large debate going on in America?  If you have a platform to say something and believe it strongly enough then others will allow you to say it no matter how wrong or unproven you are.

Just look at evolution.  Proven and trusted by scientists for the basis of modern life yet in the US only about 40% of Americans believe it is true.

If people like Ken Rosenthal go on Fox and down play sabermetrics then we end up in the same debate, but with no facts or evidence to hear from them.

Re Troy’s #14:

I almost recall the similar number of Americans who believe in the existence of angels (facts or evidence aside), but it’ll be interesting to see which way the theosophist Rosenthal bets on the American League playoffs.

Would have been nice of Rosenthal to cite just ONE example of what the hell he’s talking about.

Great post by Devil Fingers here on the matter:

http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/2009/9/17/1034720/ken-rosenthal-sabermetric-group

The real problem with Rosenthal’s article is his apparent need to create the straw man of the unreasoning sabermetrician.  His actual arguments about, for instance, Mauer’s playing time and time at DH not unreasonable considerations to analyze in connection with an MVP award.  But if he had written such a reasonable article without the attack on the sabermetric community, he’s worried no one would bother with his analysis.  Sad.

One major problem with Rosenthal’s argument is that he categorizes all sabermetricians as one, which isn’t true. They are actually individuals.

In my experience, credible sabermetricians are far more forgiving, understanding, and rational than most of the writers from the MSM.  I don’t want to sound sycophantic, but I’m talking about guys like Tom, Dave Cameron, and mgl, whose style of discourse is often interpreted as hostile, antagonistic, and condescending.  Usually that’s because they have the audacity to demand evidence and logic, and as far as the MSM goes, this “burden” contradicts their prevailing worldview that everyone’s entitled to an opinion.

If anyone’s ever read Feynman’s biography (Surely You’re Joking!), he’ll remember Feynman’s anecdote shortly after receiving the Nobel Prize.  Some member of royalty invited him over to entertain her and her party, and when told that he had won the prize in physics, she expressed disappointment.  No one could talk about physics, she complained, because no one knew anything about it.  Au contraire, Feynman replied - you’re talking about psychology and the causes of our many social ills, and it’s precisely BECAUSE you know nothing of these things that you can speak of them.

She sent him on his way shortly after.

I hold a MA in Writing. The most offensive part of Rosenthal’s article is the “Bloggers in the basement” comment. Why? It’s a cliche. Why do so-called professional writers have permission to perpetuate something that is both a lie and terrible writing?

Okay, that’s not really what bothers me the most, though I am really tired of that line. When many Major League franchises are hiring guys like Tango and MGL, why do the writers continue to act like the community is nothing more than a bunch of college kids with a calculator and too much time on their hands?

One last thing: Tango and MGL, two of the most well-known members of the sabermetric community, both post here (obvious, since, you know, it’s their blog). They, along with Dolphin, co-wrote a book. And they disagree A LOT. They publicly disagree on this very blog for all of us to see! Sure, they’re on the same page when it comes to most (maybe all) of the big things. But they are constantly going back and forth in an effort to get to the bottom of this whole baseball thing. If there’s any place where “groupthink” doesn’t exist, it’s here. If there’s any place where “groupthink” DOES exist, it’s the Major League press box.

Just curious, when was Rosenthal’s article published?  Was it a response to the FJM articles written at deadspin?

http://deadspin.com/5360509/expository-writing

At least then it makes sense.  As much as I like FJM, they are doing a lot of the things he’s talking about.

JC Bradbury weighs in, joining Rosenthal’s case against the sabermetric crowd: http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2009/09/the-best-few-paragraphs-ive-read-today/

And here:  http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2009/09/sgt-sabermetric-groupthink/

Of course JC agrees with Rosenthal.

Rosenthal and Bradbury would be a lot more compelling if they would name names.  If you’re not going to do that, though, and you’re going to paint all of us with a broad brush, then don’t be surprised when you get lumped in with the worst of your field. 

Let’s say he was targeting FJM, for instance.  I don’t mean this as any disrespect to FJM, but FJM:Tango or Bill James or Pete Palmer as Bill Plaschke & Jay Mariotti:Ken Rosenthal.  The first groups are opinion spouters, not researchers.  And as such, they should be expected to take on a different tone (whether that tone is over the top or not is a separate issue).

The second group are researchers first (I’m counting Rosenthal’s rumor reporting as research) and commentators second.  But Rosenthal has decided not to distinguish, and lump all sabermetrically-inclined folks together.  How would he feel if he was pigeonholed with a blithering idiot like Mariotti just because they both are/were employed by the MSM?

As for Bradbury, he writes:

But when you start inundating people who have lived and breathed baseball for much of there lives--no less than active sabermetricians--with new acronyms that are not in their lexicon, don’t be surprised when they are confused. And getting snooty about it doesn’t help.

I don’t even know what to say.  Does Jeff Francoeur ring a bell?

VORP is a hideous acronym and should be abolished. MRP, on the other hand, is intuitive and is often used in casual conversation.

Forget the acronyms.  That thread was the best example of getting snooty in response to confusion that one could hope to conjure up.