Something
I have learned while writing history papers is that if you have already decided
what the evidence will show and what your conclusion will be before you even
begin researching your world will not completely collapse. It will, in fact, be
remarkably easy for you to write a quote-filled, argumentative paper that seems
to prove exactly what you expected. This monumental success can be had by any
researcher and writer so long as they are willing to sacrifice but too
inconsequential things: quality and accuracy.
In
baseball writing, as in historical analysis, this easy tradeoff is made all too
often. This is not entirely a bad thing, after all, baseball reporting does not
attempt to define patterns of human existence, and the choice of topics and
opinions are necessarily subjective. The evidence used in support of these
positions should not be subjective, however, and it is the lack of subjectivity
in the presentation of “evidence” that dooms the reactionary forces of Old
School Baseball.
The
statistics used to describe the game are so varied, expressive and complex that
presenting evidence in an attempt to back one’s own argument is remarkably easy.
Thus, it is somewhat of an indictment of the entire human race and the American
educational system that Jerry Thornton, a reporter for WEEI (Boston), compiled
an article attacking Sabermetrics two years ago in which he presented evidence
that directly disproved his argument.
As
I have explained, the statistics in baseball are so facilely twisted to make
such an achievement appear to be theoretically impossible. Mr. Thornton,
however, not only managed to render his own argument entirely irrelevant, he
did so without even using statistics.
Though
this article has been capably destroyed by several other, more experienced,
Sabermetrics Trolls, I feel that the magnitude of Mr. Thornton’s accomplishment
in this case should be further highlighted.
First,
he seems to be obsessed with the:
creepy little subculture
that lives among us: the Stat Geeks
Suffice
it to say that while we do not mind the comradely moniker of “Stat Geek,” the
overt characterization of our rapidly expanding religion as a “creepy little
subculture” is entirely too bold.
Now
that you understand the tone of his writing, let us progress to the first
moment in which Mr. Thornton entirely destroys his credibility:
the
Stat Geeks have quietly and insidiously taken power. Every hot stove report
I’ve read this offseason, every article written from Fort Myers, every
statement from Sox brass, has the Stat Geeks’ grubby little fingerprints on it.
They’re like the Communist Party plotting to take over Hollywood in the 1950s
before Ronald Reagan got wise to them and kicked their pinko butts all the way
back to Moscow and Harvard Square. Only, instead of trying to write screenplays
full of anti-capitalists rants, the Stat Geeks have succeeded in making
otherwise normal, decent, God-fearin’ Americans start talking about VORP (Value
Over Replacement Player) ratings and UZR (Ultimate Zone Rating) numbers like
they really believe in this nonsense.
I
am offended by this paragraph on a remarkable number of levels.
1) As a baseball fan
2)
A Sabermetrician
3)
A human being
4)
A Democrat
5)
A Californian
6)
A lover of classic cinema
7)
A Jew (the whole god-fearing thing is very New
Testament)
8)
And most importantly, as an aspiring historian
I should hope that I do not need to
explain that the trumped up charges against Hollywood writers and the insidious
blacklist of suspected communists are not a high point in our nation’s history.
The repression and public castigation of dozens of actors and writers whose
only crime was expressing their political beliefs or being gay or Jewish was
not prompted by any Communist Party plot. Additionally, though Ronald Reagan
was a vocal conservative in Hollywood at the time, connecting him to
McCarthyist terror in a positive light is not only insulting but also
inaccurate.
Because
the Communist Party was NOT trying to take over Hollywood in
the 1850’s, it is clear that Mr. Thornton is saying that Sabermetricians are NOT
trying to insidiously take over baseball. As this little anecdote seems to run
counter to the rest of is article in which he
The
rest of the article is highly entertaining if only for its unintentionally
hilarious anecdotes about the author’s discovery of women, breasts and,
(apparently simultaneously) the pause and rewind buttons on the TV in his
bedroom.
The
one remaining part of the article that does not deal with Mr. Thornton’s
personal journey away from baseball cards to the hallowed land of puberty is
his dismissal of Sabermetricians writing about baseball as being:
Like the nerdy fanboys from “Galaxy Quest” being asked to use
their ridiculously detailed knowledge of the show to save the world for real.
In case you were wondering, this sentence only offends me on
levels 1, 2 and 3 of the above-mentioned scale. Added to this is my disgust, as
a Sci-fi fan, at Mr. Thornton’s failure to understand the ending of what I
consider to be one of the best movies of all time. To put it simply to those
deprived and depraved folks who have not seen and memorized the movie (spoiler
alert!): The “nerdy fanboys” use their ridiculously detailed knowledge of the
show to save the world for real. It is that simple, Mr. Thornton is
attacking the “stats-crunching troglodytes among us” for attempting to use Sabermetrics
principles to make baseball decisions by comparing them to fictional characters
who use their own complex calculations to save the planet from impending doom. To
complete the metaphor, Sabermetricians will revolutionize baseball, teams that
embrace their principles will win the World Series every single year and Jerry
Thornton will soon be out of a job.
It
boggles the mind… In case the introduction to this remarkably long rant has
faded from your memory, allow me to briefly tie it all together:
1) Mr. Thornton chose to write a biased, subjective article
based on whatever evidence he felt like including.
2) Mr. Thornton included two pieces of entirely made up
evidence that directly contradicted his argument.
A bit long I know...
ReplyDelete