| | |
|
FactFindingInBaseballDiscussion 4 - 17 May 2010 - Main.JohnAlbanese
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="JoshLernerFirstPaper" |
|---|
I wanted to respond to some of Matt's points and for now thought it was best to keep this separate from my essay, but I'm open to suggestions on integrating this discussion into my main essay. As a reminder, some of Matt's comments are pasted below. Matt - if you're reading this, I certainly appreciate your thoughts on my paper. | | | After all I said this comment was what generated the outrage? I still think baseball is a team sport, in fact I'm fairly confident about that part. Fantasy baseball may have changed the perception of certain fans, but that doesn't change the game. Even ERA is based in large part on the team around you in the field. What pitching statistics are not dependent on your team? Maybe strikeouts, but I hope we would agree they aren't terribly relevant. With Zack Grienke last season it was his 16 wins on a 65 win team that impressed me. As I said wins are not a perfect statistic, but they are relevant. If you've ever been in a clubhouse after a game you understand that the players really do care about winning or losing. This may be one of those arguments that we have to agree to disagree on. I will concede that when evaluating and projecting the future success of young pitchers, particularly while looking at their minor league stats, that individual statistics play more of a role in the analysis than team statistics.
-- JoshLerner - 15 May 2010
\ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | If you are surprised that your "wins" comment generated the outrage, then you haven't been paying attention to the statistical revolution in baseball the past 10 or 15 years. It is a bitter, generational battle with deeply entrenched beliefs that has led many heated arguments. I am not saying that players do not care about team results (of course they do), but when evaluating an individual player's contribution to the team's success, using statistics that are very heavily team dependent is not helpful. Just as batters are not judged on the success of their team's pitching, pitchers should not be judged on their team's hitting. If you haven't, go read Moneyball by Michael Lewis. Perhaps it will change your mind. Before I move on, I will leave you with the one point: the ideal baseball pitcher is one pitches every day, nine innings a game, and strikes out every batter. This pitcher is not guaranteed to register a pitching "win."
As for the rest of your thoughts and Matt's thoughts, let's talk about the motivations of baseball owners and fans. Baseball owners want to do two things, 1. Make money and 2. Win baseball games. These, of course, are not unrelated goals. Since MLB is governed by the owners, and not every owner can win baseball games, MLB attempts to ensure that owners make money. Fans like winners. Baseball fans will not watch baseball if they don't feel that the game is being played fairly, especially if they their team does not have a fair chance to win the game. That is why the MLB was fine with allowing steroids until the information became public. Baseball fans were happy with the gaudy home run totals, until they heard that home run were hit in an unfair fashion. Only then did the crackdown on steroids begin. Fairness and the desire to make money are not two distinct desires. Since fans like winners, it also follows that owners will sign players that they believe gives them the best shot to win, regardless of the color of their skin. -- JohnAlbanese - 17 May 2010 |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |