The Sunday links
Posted by: Peter Abraham - Posted in Misc on Jun 24, 2007 
Print This Post
| 
Email This Post
The Yankees lost in the 13th inning against the Giants despite collecting 17 hits.
Derek Jeter has a hip injury. This notebook also has updates on Chien-Ming Wang, Kei Igawa and a special reunion.
Stephen Borelli tells the tale of what happened to Mel Allen.
The Sunday baseball notes takes a look at the relationship between Mets fans and Carlos Beltran. Check out the story on the feud betwen Scott Boras and Jayson Stark.
Met fans boo’d David Wright in May. They are worse than Yankee fans who boo’d Mo, A Rod and Jeter.
My philosophy?
You never boo guys who give 110%.
The Boras-Stark feud is fascinating. Stark is wrong about Boras being the only guy taking the book so seriously. I heard Graig Nettles was none too pleased about being called the most overrated third baseman in history.
Nor were many of the older Yankees of the past too pleased about Stark saying that one way to make the overrated list is to have played for the Yankees and done something in October.
I read the book and took it as a piece to kill a summer’s day. I didn’t take it seriously and I certainly didn’t see it as some piece of journalistic excellence. His over-reliance on stats tends to weakened, rather than strengthen, many of his arguments.
Particularly, his firm belief on zone stats/ratings to determine defensive excellence. Many around the game are not really convinced that it should be taken as the sole statistical measure of defensive play.
Using it as part of an analysis. That’s fine. Using it as the sole analysis to determine one’s defensive skills? I think that’s a mistake and so do many GM’s in the game.
The book basically reads as a Philadelphia sportswriter’s book aimed to breaking down the myths of many of New York’s baseball heroes. Heck, he even calls Sandy Koufax “overrated” in his book. Its not just an assault on Boras clients. Which is probably the way Boras takes it.
Nice story on Mel Allen, one of my favorite Yankee broadcasters. Looking forward to being at today’s game and a cameo from my favorite past Yankee, Bobby Richardson.
SJ:
Stark writes with a light touch when he’s not got his head buried in his print outs. He’s provocative and I enjoy being challenged by a different perspective. But IMO Stark panders to a small but growing segment of fans who are trying to use the shortcut of statistics to replace, not enhance, the evaluative perspective that only comes from twenty years of playing/watching baseball. The stathead believes that this shortcut insight is a keener perspective because stats measure the “right things,” don’t get tainted by feelings or hometown-ism and because think it allows apples to apples comparisons across time periods.
I look at it this way: engineers and architects build skyscrapers on paper. Obviously, the measurements and numbers perfectly describe the dimensions of the structure. But your personal reaction to the building, your appreciation or lack of appreciation of the building as it stands in its neighborhood, cannot be engineered.
The World Trade Center was laughed at and dismissed by serious architectural critics despite its groundbreaking engineering features and size. People didn’t warm to the structures and for a long time the office space went underutilized. But somewhere along the way, people came to appreciate the two giant towers, maybe after Phillipe Petite “humanized” them with his high wire walk from Tower A to Tower B. Now their absence is a symbol, an emotional scar that will never heal.
Statheads take note: the Twin Towers were nothing but big until people came to find something of value to them other than their sheer size and numbers.
Why Myers still on this team?
It’s pretty obvious why. When the Red Sox signed Freddy Krueger as their 5th starter, the Yankees felt they needed to compete.
Murph,
That’s a great analogy to describe Stark. I used to love his columns when he was a columnist in Philadelphia. I, too thought they were light, funny and insightful.
But, sadly, as many do when they get to ESPN, things change. The need to feed the 24 hour news cycle, and all the other ESPN properties, often leads to pandering and some VERY flawed analysis.
JMO but, the statheads have taken a lot of the fun out of baseball. They just live by their numbers and, all too often, the numbers aren’t used in the proper context.
Most statheads do an awful job of using numbers to make their points. Its why many of them have failed when given GM or scouting director jobs in the majors. Jon Daniels being the latest example.
We see it all the time. Heck, we have people on this blog still fighting the, “Josh Phelps should play everyday” and “Brian Bruney should be the 8th inning guy” fight. They use numbers as their analysis to support these contentions.
Yet, our EYES tell us something VERY different about both players. Yesterday, another shining example of just that.
To properly evaluate baseball, you can’t discount your eyes. Those that do, fail in their analysis.
You look all around baseball. The best organizations have a balance between great scouting (non-statheads) and reliable statistical analysis (statheads). The organizations that solely rely on statistical analysis are not good organizations. Like the Nationals, Rangers and Devil Rays, for example.
Reliable statistical analysis can be a great asset. However, relying on it totally, as Stark, Rob Neyer, and several others at ESPN are wont to do, ends up giving you very flawed analysis on players.
SJ44 and/or murphydog –
A question:
SJ mentioned the Nationals and Devil Rays as two teams that rely on statistics to their detriment. Can it have something to do with their ownership?
The Nationals, I believe, are trying to justify building a new stadium. The Devil Rays seem to have to toe a very stingy bottom line. Perhaps owners who have invested in baseball as a way to make money, rather than as a way to also indulge a fantasy, just have an over-reliance on numbers, in general.
I have no patience for people who only look at numbers without taking in the general circumstances, without using actual life experience. Numbers as part of an overall education in any field can be good; numbers alone can certainly be misleading, to say the least. They only tell the story you want them to tell. They’re subjective, actually, when most numbers lovers will tell you the opposite. But precisely which statistics are used to calculate someone’s worth is subjective.
I liked the part in the sunday baseball section about CashMan being smart for getting 5 players for two guys who are now on the DL.
Doreen:
I had a teacher in high school who used to say that if there was one thing he hated worse than ignorance, it was aggressive ignorance. That kind of reminds me of the real statheads. They are willfully blind and proud of it.
I think it’s all about the “voodoo economics” of the small market vs. big market debate. There is a very seductive side to saying that your team is trying to make business decisions by numbers rather than gut feelings because they cannot afford to be an uber team (Theo’s biggest b.s. remark yet). That’s really the allure of sabermetrics for a tight budget, a GM can tell the owners and the fans that they are getting this much OBP for this much money.
Loved the Mel Allen story.