Good points, and well-stated as always, BG. This all mirrors ongoing academic debates in history departments. Back in the 1960s and 1970s quantitative methods first established a toehold of respectability. Pretty soon the "you can't know what you can't count" proponents were coming up with cliometric claims that compare with the sabermetric stuff. A favorite high (or low) water mark was a book called "Time on the Cross" which argued that slavery must not have been such a terrible institution after all because the caloric intake of the average slave's diet was not much different than that of the white population. That is right up there with Matty-in-the-outfield on the credibility scale. Quantitative analysis still has a place in historical debates, but it generally gets a more nuanced (favorite academic word) usage in combination with other forms of evidence.

Since it seems it's tradition in the discussion over Moneyball that I open up the thread...

I know that the big deal over this book is about the overthrow of the traditional baseball success techniques that employ scouting, and that is truly not the case. I think that this is merely a story about how the A's do things and why or why not they are having success.

What I'd like to see is someone write a book detailing (from a technical standpoint) the ins and outs of the decisions these new-age general managers are making (i.e. the Ricciardis, DePodestas, and Epsteins of the world) and how they reach these conclusions. A complete no-holes-barred approach to the potential overthrow of traditional baseball thought.

I mean, what are Win Shares? Beane Count? How are these things calculated, and to what extent to they bear fruit or are used in the context of organizational decisions? I think people want something like this, either to sneer at or to use as a learning tool for the future of baseball. A book that tells both sides, instead of just a mix of nice stories about Chad Bradford, some statistics, and Billy Beane throwing stuff in the A's clubhouse.

To sum it up... I want the answer. I want to know what is right and what is wrong. And I'll never truly get it, but if it takes another Moneyball to make people think about zigging when they would normally zag, so be it.

Oops. I spoke too soon. :) Way to beat me to it, ofergopher.

Oofta, I only finished reading the book the night before last, and I just got through the comments.

O wise and wonderful BatGirl: I like how both book club books share stories (or at least mentions) of Twins' triumphs (in series over the Pilots and A's), stupid managers (I want to read Art Howe's book next), and Jim Bouton.

It's right and well-put that Moneyball does not equal sabermetrics. However, it sure delves deeply into the subject - it's a great starter lesson if you want to learn about the history and fundamentals of sabermetrics. And can we agree the book owes much of its fame to its excellent explanation of sabermetrics and its interesting story of the first GM to put the latest statistics to use?

Sabermetrics were revealed to me on-line a season or two ago by the Twins Geek and Aaron Gleeman. They're very articulate teachers and made me a quick convert. I'm sold on OPS. I read Rob Neyer's Leaderboard regularly. Pitching wins and RBI mean NOTHING to me anymore.

That said, I have a real concern about getting carried away with the sabermetric glorification of "plate discipline." I am not promoting batters swinging at balls out of the strike zone, but I would like them to swing at strikes. Or more to the point, I want them to accept strike calls like men. I want umpires to call strikes, belly button to knees, and not be cowed by multimillionaires (or Oakland As) who think they can waste my entertainment time glaring at the umpires because their finely tuned eyes told them a pitch was 2 inches out of the strike zone. I don't see Gary Sheffield pitch a fuss when he hits a home run on a pitch 2 inches out of the strike zone.

Of all the sports – and I love them all – baseball is the closest to perfect. There are the least amount of annoyances in baseball. There's no clock: that alone makes it beautiful. There are no yellow cards, no shoot outs, no field goal kickers, no penalty boxes, no instant replays, no free throws, no body armor. You do not have to be 6'8" or 350 lbs. to excel.

In my opinion, a problem baseball has that stops it from gaining even more devoted fans is that some games are too long, and one of the principal reasons games go too long is because umpires don't call strikes. In certain counts, if a big name player is at bat, there is almost no way a pitcher will get a strike call. I saw Torii Hunter look at strike three from C.C. Sabathia Sunday, but because it was 1-2 and Torii, he got another swing. (Sorry this is the only example I've noticed recently – umpires can call all the balls they want on Twins – Twins are the only exceptions.)

My happy baseball memories do not include Barry Bonds staring at strike three two years in a row in crucial playoff situations - or Rickey Henderson screwed up to make the smallest strike zone possible, watching pitches all the way into catchers' gloves. I prefer remembering Tony Oliva going horizontal to make a catch in right field (when I was five?), Kirby's and Hrbie's playoff homers, Eric Davis's perfect throw to Chris Sabo in the 1990 NLCS, Guzman's improbable triples, Dan Gladden's triple play catch, Torii's All Star robbery of Bonds on a ball that was Ichiro's to catch, Kirby Puckett throwing Henderson out on his rear at home during the '91 playoff drive. My favorite memories came with the ball in play.

As our sassmaster BatGirl might say, "for the love of Tommy John," if the hope of wearing down pitchers or the fear of making outs encourages batters to linger at the plate and dicker about balls and strikes, I'll gratefully accept my favorite poor strikeout-to-walk-ratio players – provided they hit for average and with some power, run fast, and don't ever again throw to Matthew LeCroy at first base in the playoffs when they should be throwing to home plate.

Recently found your blog. Love it. Especially your pope-i-fied version about why the Twins lost to the Bitch Sox . When there is a reason our boys loose a game it eases the pain.

I have a few questions for you or your learned groupies:

Why does "The Fan" radio (1130 am) chat boys yammer so much about football in APRIL??? Two sentences about the Twins win today (Thurs.) and then it was on to football. Is football THE sport in this city regardless of season? No disrespect towards football (tho' not my favorite) but respect what season it is!

We need 4 catchers why???? Ok one of them is boom boom (LeCroy) but this leaves no room for the recently wonderful Tiffeeeeeeeeeeeee.

WHY was the Twins/Royals series NOT televised? Not even on fancy cable (pay extra) MLB package?

And a couple of gripes. at a recent game, last weeks "drunken college student dollar dog $3 night," several college agers were mocking the holy game of baseball. Over cheering, yelling "Twins Territory", excessive whistling with beers in hand and refills at their feet. Perhaps I am simply getting old and grouchy...

Opening night: not a great game at all but two couples seated directly behind us blithered about their home remodeling projects. The entire game. They were there why?

any thoughts? kal

kal,

Welcome to Bat Girl!

Opening day was discussed very heavily...I had two people in my row who each got up to get beer/food/potty break at least SIX times each (my word to them - stay home and watch on TV - or buy two beers at once and wear Depends.)

A lot of the "amateur" baseball fans show up for opening day, and they do not know the etiquette, much less the game, thus you get discussions of home improvement projects.

Dear Kal,

Hello and welcome. The games were, alas, not televised because of the Timberwolves (Wed) and I think just the day game. The Wolves are done now and that airwaves shall be OURS!

We're talking about Moneyball and sabermetrics up here, but please come on down to the game recap with anymore questions.

Yours,
BG

kal, welcome, the NFL draft is this weekend (tomorrow?), so football is topic de jour. The FAN should be back to baseball soon. Well, more than two sentences, anyway.

Statistics were the hook that kept me interested in the game after I stopped playing and really started watching and trying to figure out what it was that made baseball so damned difficult to master. The timing couldn't have been better, because this was the beginning of the eighties and the dawn of what we now know of as sabermetrics (although there have been folks doing this sort of obsessive stuff with baseball's numbers for ever --i.e. Earnshaw Cook). But the beauty of that particular time was a) that there was so much new territory being explored; and, b) more importantly, the main guy doing all that exploration was Bill James, a wonk who had a fascinating mind, a terrific sense of humor, and a wonderfully conversational prose style that always placed everything he said in its proper context. The arrival of his Abstracts, first in the mail, and, later, in bookstores, was hugely anticipated, and I devoured those books, along with the Elias Annuals. There were also important, easily readable and entertaining books like Thorn and Palmer's "Hidden Game of Baseball" and the later appearance of the STATS Baseball Scoreboards, where the geeks were just having weird, pure fun with all their new numbers.
The problem, today, at least as far as I'm concerned, is that the new wave of Sabermetrics is primarily the domain of bland and blank obsessives, deadly earnest characters who for the most part can't write and have lost sight of the fact that none of this nonsense is a life and death matter. And, as Batgirl astutely notes, all the formulae and numbers in the world can't obscure the fact that baseball is still, in its fundamental moment-by-moment, game-by-game, and pitch-by-pitch unpredictability, a deeply mysterious game. The whole statistics aspect is comparable to me to science in general; the boys and girls in the white coats can stare into their microscopes and telescopes until they're blind and worthless for human companionship, but they'll still never plumb all the essential wonders and mysteries of the universe and the human mind. They'll never get to the bottom of it, and that's a deeply satisfying and comforting thought.

Here are two thoughts:

1. If you can predict the runs scored, etc., you don't just pull out your stats sheets and calculators and head to the playoffs. You can figure out the playoffs, too. No need to waste time on an actual game! (But the accuracy was freaky. However, wins can be determined not on how many runs you score versus how many your oponents do. The runs need to be scored at the right times in the right amounts. And OBP isn't a good stat for the Twins now, what with the bases-loaded double play trick.)

2. The '87 Twins weren't the best on paper. I don't even know if they were the best "on paper" in the AL West. And they won the World Series. Probably a good thing we didn't figure out that season/playoffs on paper.

I think stats and numbers can give you a plot outline to most stories, but sometimes there are surprise endings. For example: we had some pretty poor hitting and pitching happening when we won those six in a row. And we had some pretty decent pitching and hitting when we lost those three (well, two of three). On paper, we probably should've absolutely killed the Royals. We won, but we squeaked out wins.

However, we shouldn't ignore stats. There are many conclusions that can be made with stats for the best possible chance of competing. Baseball is a sport, and it's the actual game that's fun to watch. It's more fun to watch your team win, than lose, so you want to maximize your opportunities. When you can't pay the biggest all-star, you have to find players who have less-rated talents. The all-stars get the press; to find the diamonds in the rough, you need both good scouting--scouts with good instincts--and pages of statistics. Between the two, you ought to fill the holes. If you can't afford the home run hitters, you find the small-ball hitters. The Twins have made pitching and defense a priority, so they look at those oft-considered less important talents.

Baseball needs stats--it's one thing I love about it. Baseball also needs heart. The best players in the world can't win a ballgame if the drive isn't strong enough. [glance over the Yankees] And Baseball needs Batgirl (sass).

Just Beth

(I think one of the reasons that the Twins can afford to take chances on more high school kids rather than college, is that the Twins have a deep minor league system--we don't have to rely on guys we draft today to be playing in the majors in three years.)

I like the comparison of Sabermetrics to quantitative research. In my field (education), quantitative evidence is considered more fundable and reliable because it has results that (they say) can be used to generalize, make predictions, and control. So it goes with sabermetrics. It's all about prediction and control. I'd say that in both cases the deeper meaning is lost.

Kal - KFAN ("The Fan") never spends as much time on baseball as they do on hoops and football and (in most years) hockey. Well, they carry Vikings and Wolves and Wild and even some Gopger games, and not Twins games, so what would you expect? However, they did used to regularly have AJ call in and that was fun.

It's the misconceptions that bother me most of all. People that dismiss Bill James because he NEVER played a game therefore he'll never know what he's talking about.

Baseball is a self-perpetuating entity. Old players get promoted to Analysts, Reporters, Coaches, Managers, even GM's. That's how it's done. It's almost impossible to break into that cycle. That, and the existing "old school" reporters like the Sid Hartmans and Dark Stars, just don't have the capacity to think differently.

I'm just so glad that teams like Oakland have gotten the message thru that you can take an academic/objective look at the players instead of being a complete slave to your subjective scouting system. It has opened up doors for teams to hire young smart people to find efficient players.

My favorite part is that BB wants to perpetuate the scouting system, and how much of an "abberation" his team is, just so that other teams DON'T catch on.

Excellent comments everyone.

I see myself as a both/and. The Moneyball approach using sabremetrics is a more accurate gauge of statistical success, but scouting will reveal the things stats can never show.

If a pitcher has poor mechanics, he may get outs but blow his elbow in one full season and never pitch again. Ditto for a fielder and his throwing style. Stats can't see poor mechanics. Stats cannot interview a player and find out if he has a history of knee or ankle problems or if he is a anal retentive jerk who will screw up team chemistry.

Moneyball showed the value of scouts once, briefly in the draft day story in reference to discerning a player's character as flaky etc, and then never returned.

Long time reader, first time poster. Batgirl, you and your readers provide some of the most entertaining commentary on the web. And I'm not limiting that to Twins blogs.

Responding to Nailbiters observations regarding memorable Twins moments, I wanted to add my two cents about the relationship between stats and sass, or more accurately, how stats and statheads inform a fan's appreciation of the game.

To be sure, nothing beats Kirby's Game 6 homerun, or my first baseball memory (a Roy Smalley home run off the right field foul poul at Metropolitan Stadium).

But appreciating baseball is not just about appreciating big events. It is also noticing when a shortstop makes a play on a short hop and appreciating the difficulty of the play. And I think what the stat-community (at large and broadly understood) did for me is inspire similar appreciation for a hitter that lays off a 1-0 pitch that is a strike, but wasn't what he was looking for; a "good" at bat, where the result was a strike out but the hitter fouled off 4 2 strike pitches on the black; or conversely when a (Twins) pitcher pounds through 7 innings with efficient pitch counts, saving bullpen arms and his own.

In sum, knowing *why* something is good helps to appreciate its goodness. And it does so in a very traditional baseball way, with all of the romance and delicacy that is delivered throughout the course of each at bat, inning, game, and season.

Well said, UWSaint. One of my all-time favorite memories is of a game between the Twins and Yankees at Met Stadium in 1977. That was the year Twins marched down the Yellow Brick Road singing "If I Only Had an Arm." The game came down to a confrontation between Rod Carew and Sparky Lyle with the winning run on second in sudden death (can't remember whether bottom of 9th or 10th inning). Carew kept working and waiting for the pitch he wanted and finally slapped a line drive to left-center, placing it every bit as accurately as a fly fisherman. What made it even more fun was sitting next to an appreciative guest from England and getting to explain *why* all this was so very good.

"The whole statistics aspect is comparable to me to science in general; the boys and girls in the white coats can stare into their microscopes and telescopes until they're blind and worthless for human companionship, but they'll still never plumb all the essential wonders and mysteries of the universe and the human mind. They'll never get to the bottom of it, and that's a deeply satisfying and comforting thought."

I'm thinking of a word here. About eight letters long... rhymes with "fullgrit."

OK, I've gotten that out of my system. Sorry, Brad, sorry, Batgirl (as host of this discussion).

The whole problem with the Moneyball / Sabermetrics debate (as has been made abundantly clear this week) is that it tends to categorize people as either/or ("Pick your side. Defend to the death.") when that is not necessarily the case.

I love the statistical nature of baseball, of looking at results over the past year -- over the past *hundred* years -- to see whether long-held "truths" are, in fact, true.

But I also love the unpredictable nature of baseball over the past year -- over the past *hundred* years.

And I disagree completely that the new wave of sabermetric writers are bland. Yes, Bill James is an outlier -- an English major with a facility for numbers. But there are so many bloggers that most (like me) are bound to pale in comparison with James or the esteemed Batgirl.

I don't know if this what you meant, but I took away from the comment that "sabermetrics people will never love the game as much as non-sabermetrics people," and that's enough to make me cry.*

* Not really. Statement added for dramatic effect. I'll go stare at my '87 Homer Hanky now.

I *am* a sabermetrics person, for crying out loud, and have lots of (too many) sabermetric geeks as friends. I'd never contend that they --or we-- don't love baseball as much as more traditional fans. I don't, though, think that we know half as much about the game as we think we do, and I find that I don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about runs created or win shares when I'm actually engrossed in a game. And while I'd admit certain exceptions, I do think the new wave of sabermetric writers is bland, but it doesn't surprise me in the least that they wouldn't think of themselves that way. Why would they? What they're doing is interesting to them.

Batgirl,

Thanks for pimping my site. Nothing beats a good pimping.

Andy

Another Entry that ties in to Moneyball has to do with the Runs Scored - Runs Allowed and the Estimated record for the Twins. DePodesta did this each year for the A's, as pointed out in Moneyball. Care to know what OUR TWINS expected win total is this year? Check out this link

http://twins.mostvaluablenetwork.com/index.php?p=61

Hint: It looks like we'll win the division again, on paper. Which is strange because it seems like the White Sox have been winning it on paper for years.

"I'd never contend that they --or we-- don't love baseball as much as more traditional fans. I don't, though, think that we know half as much about the game as we think we do, and I find that I don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about runs created or win shares when I'm actually engrossed in a game."

Fair enough -- I'd agree with those sentiments exactly. (And not just regarding baseball.) But I still think you're holding sabermetric writers to a higher standard. I don't enjoy reading sabermetric writers who write spiteful pieces full of numbers about why Derek Jeter is THE WORST SHORTSTOP EVER TO WALK ACROSS THE FIELD. Nor do I enjoy reading non-sabermetric writers who write OMG JETER RULEZ!!!!

Perhaps bloggers are more likely to be technically inclined and are, therefore, more likely to be of a sabermetric bent. But the best writers -- the few that I actually read on a regular basis -- provide context and that sense of wonder and joy associated with this game and with life in general.

Numbers are easy. Writing is hard.

I completely agree with what Zeller said, I probably don't understand HALF of what I think I do.

I don't know if I'll EVER understand defense, or to be able to believe in a defensive statistic that is useful.

"I'll know it when I see it", is about as good as I get. :)

Well, hmmm. I'm getting in here a touch late, but it seems that what we're arguing is, ultimately, what is truth and what is beauty. Is the truth about "good" play to be found in statistics? in narrative? both? some of each?

I tend to side with BatGirl--my love of baseball comes from watching the intersection of countless simultaneous stories wrapped up in one game. The sabermetric blogs aren't nearly as fun to read as hers--I read BatGirl even though I'm a Mariner fan.

Nonetheless, that doesn't mean we shouldn't use sabermetric analysis to make sensible baseball decisions. Sabermetricians can predict, with surprising accuracy, the outcome of seasons and even careers. That's a tool we can use too, and it's fun in it's own way.

I'd suggest to BatGirl that sabermetric numbers can be a part of the narratives she loves, rather than running at cross-purposes to it. The numbers are a good part of what makes the Prez the Prez and Lyle Kohse Lyle Kohse. Not the whole story, and not even (I agree) the fun part of the story, but a key component of the story. Right?

One thing I don't believe is that regular season sabermetrics don't equal postseason sabermetrics.

Reason: Quality of pitching is higher among winning teams, which is the primary variable in hitter success.

Also, some areas that are not defined well by statistics, like defense, are also more important, due to reason A above.

First time poster here- hoping for rematch of 91 Series.

OK, first off, I have not read Moneyball yet.
However, the argument that I have not seen really brought up yet involves sample sizes.
If anyone has taken a basic class in statistics, you may recall the need for a "significant sample". If you have too small of a sample, one or two "outliers" can skew the results. This is why season-length projections can be made. Over the course of 162 games, the statistical "norm" will be clearly seen. In a 5 or 7-game playoff series, it only takes one freak outcome to change the end result.
Again, I can't say exactly how this was addressed in the book. But it is a valid argument to defend why a "moneyball" or "sabermetric" team may not succeed in the post season.

OH, and on another subject, KFAN does not talk about baseball because they do not broadcast it. They are the flagship for the Vikes and the Wolves, so they pimp their own product ad nauseum. CCO is the same way with the Gophers and Twins. In addition, KFAN is simply a bad radio station. They stink, in fact. But that is just par for the course in this market. Other than 89.3, I can't think of a radio product that is very good. KQ92 has a well-produced morning show, but their disgustingly narrow definition of classic rock sickens me. 105 had the potential to fill a void, but their decision to use "auto-jock" gives them all the personality of a cold wet sweatsock. Cities 95 and KS97 are interchangeable pabulum. That too 40 crap at 100 or 101 or whatever, please. Kool 108 also has potential, but again the auto-jock and the narrow playlist and bland personalities. K102, well other than modern country sounding more and more generic and suburban, they might be OK -- EXCEPT that they are owned by the singlre most evil entitiy this side of al-Queda (that would be Clear Channel Communications...which also owns KFAN, 108, that top 40 thing, and either KS97 or Cities 95). I could go on, but that would only serve to raise my blood pressure.

Love this thread because it's all over the place.
As I've mentioned before, I'm nondoctrinaire, and in general, I prefer sass to stats; but I must say that baseball math is awesome, and to this trained poet who can barely count the intersection of Bill James and baseball is as revelatory in its way as anything I've ever experienced.

The math is beautiful, the play on the field is beautiful, and especially beautiful is the play of those all too few who seem to understand the math while they're performing under pressure in front of the rude, the drunk, and the inattentive. Carew. Brett. Hrbek. Yes, even Barry Bonds. And this year, in the last few weeks, we're getting to see Jacque Jones in an advanced phase of getting it for real and for good just this side of too late.

While I'm typing I should mention for the sake of our wonderfully gracious hostess that her fantasia on the theme of the papacy and double plays earlier this week was one of the best things I've read online in a very long time.

I have a slight problem with people arguing about lack of play-off success. And this is it: the playoffs are too small of a sample. Plain and simple. Yes the A's (and for that matter the Twins) have had success in the past few years, and have neither have translated that into a World Series. But it's not because they took an analytical approach to building teams that would succeed in the regular season, therefore somehow forfeiting post-season success. Actually, it's just that the players haven't performed. That and the fact that the teams they faced were very, very good. If you go back a couple years, the A's could perhaps have been World Series bound if Jason Giambi knew how to slide. Instead, he was tagged out and the Yanks escaped to move on. Last year, if a few breaks (and by breaks I mean better pitching) had gone the Twins way, well, who knows? Perhaps they would have gone all the way. But no one would ever argue that having Jason Giambi on your team wasn't a positive (when he was with the A's...his production has fallen off rapidly since then, surprisingly so even), nor would anyone in their right mind suggest anything bad about the top end of the Twins staff.

Over a long season, the breaks even out, and the better put together team will end up reaping the benefits. In a race to four games, anything could happen.

If you've not seen it yet (cuz everyone subscribes to NYX e-mail, right?!) Michael Lewis wrote an article for the NY Times Magazine, "Absolutely, Power Corupts" which follows 5 foot 7, 155 pound Steve Stanley and 6 foot, 210 pound Mark Teahan. Good read. Click my name for link.