Skip to main content

Reply to "Over Analyzing Baseball"

Originally Posted by J H:

infielddad- I would argue that sabermetricians fight FAR more dogmatic traditional views than vice versa. Sabermetrics is objective analysis of the sport, it does not involve opinions. I don't believe an analyst would ever discredit the importance of a player's makeup, but I also don't believe it's dogmatic to state the fact that it is currently financially unquantifiable. Makeup (the "sixth tool" as it's being called here) is certainly an important factor. The question is: how important? I don't buy that the answer will always be "I don't know." We'll figure it out eventually.

 

 

JH, I don't know whether the perspectives between traditional vs. sabremetrics is as imbalanced as you have proposed, but I don't know that it isn't.

Where my comment was directed wasn't that dichotomy.  Mine was the perspective of sabremetrics being applied to the college and HS game in ways which I "infer" to be dogmatic in some threads recently.

I completely agree with you that it is not dogmatic to say the 6th tool is not financially quantifiable at this point, but I also am not sure I could agree with you that it "will" be figured out to be financially quantifiable within the context I used it(making others around them better) in the college and HS team environment.

Even with sabremetrics at the professional level, isn't the end result  that 10 GM's might have the same objective information but use and apply them differently, with some applications proving to be successful and some not? In other words, how the data is used involves judgment and skill and talent and opinion applied to each player on a 25 man roster and we don't yet have sabremetrics for those in the front office paid to apply the objective data?

×
×
×
×