Sigh.

Disclaimer.

One could have easily predicted that the release of the Bennett Miller-Aaron Sorkin-Brad Pitt film "Moneyball" would have prompted baseball writers across the country to unleash their inner hyperbolic selves. As expected, there were many erm, not-particularly-well-informed articles written in response to the movie's release.

One particularly um, outstanding example comes from Jason Whitlock. Whitlock, once a nationally powerful voice for writing respected and insightful columns often on controversial issues, is now writing this article. The man is talented. He does not show that talent in this article. http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/sabermetrics-moneyball-stat-geeks-are-ruining-sports-092211

I won’t be going to see "Moneyball."

Not how I would recommend starting a movie review, but go on.

The movie celebrates the plague ruining sports:

The increasingly ultra-violent nature of sports? Cheating and the use of performance-enhancing drugs? Greed? Over-commercialization? Glorifying criminals as heroic athletes? An influx of athletes athletes dying far too young?

I don't remember any of those in the book. Maybe Aaron Sorkin took some liberties with the screenplay.

sabermetrics.

Th...what? All of the problems with sports today listed above somehow pale in comparison to statistical analysis? Interesting viewpoint.

That is not intended as a shot at Bill James, Billy Beane or Michael Lewis.

"I just hate everything they stand for."

James (the inventor of sabermetrics) and Beane (the most adept user of sabermetrics) are baseball visionaries worthy of glorification. Michael Lewis (the author of the book "Moneyball" that celebrated Beane’s use of sabermetrics) is one of the most important writers of this era.

Well, I wouldn't say Beane is the most adept user of sabermetrics, but I agree with your point here.

Wait. Hell, maybe it is a dis — an unintended one — of James, Beane and Lewis.

So uh, it IS a shot at them, then?

They unwittingly conspired to remove much of the magic and mystery from baseball.

And scientists? Screw them. They took all the magic and mystery out of how the world works. Physics? Chemistry? Please. I'd rather have mystery. Why do things fall toward the ground? I don't know! Wanna find out? Nope!

They reduced the game to a statistical bore. It’s no longer enough to be down with OBP (on-base percentage). To talk the game, you now must understand OPS (on-base percentage plus slugging), VORP (value over replacement player), BABIP (batting average on balls in play) and on and on.

Well, yeah- there are a lot of stats in baseball now. As an aside, though, if you can figure out OBP and Slugging Percentage, you should probably be able to come up with OPS (which is, as Whitlock pointed out, literally the two added together).

There’s a stat for nearly every action in baseball.

And there always has been. Every action in baseball can be recorded as a statistic. This is nothing new.

Little is left to the imagination.

I disagree. When I hear that Derek Jeter hit a single, I can imagine that he hit a bloop over the shortstop's head, or that he hit one of his patented inside-out knocks into right field, or that he hit a grounder into the gap, or that he hit a line shot all the way to the wall, stepped on a still-active land mine a few steps away from first base, and despite suffering a horrific injury, managed to crawl to first base for a single before the left fielder managed to get the ball to first. He's a winner, I tell ya!

This is another way of saying "what does that even mean?"

Sports were never intended to be a computer program,

This might have something to do with the fact that baseball was invented, like, a hundred years before the computer. I don't know, just a possibility.

stripped to cold, hard, indisputable, statistical facts.

Yeah, forget facts! You know what sports should be? MYTHS AND LEGENDS.

"Legends say that Dustin Pedroia hit a game winning double last night. Legends have it that the Phillies clinched the NL East two days ago."

What else are sports supposed to be?

Sports — particularly for fans — are not science. Sports, like art, are supposed to be interpreted.

Yes, sports are supposed to be interpreted. They are also usually aesthetically pleasing, or "nice to look at," if you prefer. And that is where the differences between sports and art end. Unlike art, sports have a clear, objective goal: to win the game. And in sports, unlike art, you win the game by scoring more than the other team. That score is quantified with a number. Sports also produces other numbers. All of these numbers can be manipulated to create new numbers. Art doesn't create numbers.

It’s difficult to interpret baseball these days.

It's a tough sport to interpret. I don't blame you, or anyone, for not being able to explain everything that happens in baseball. It's a funny sport.

The stat geeks won’t let you argue. They quote sabermetrics and end all discussion.

In baseball, as well as Every Other Thing To Discuss Ever, the more information you have, the stronger your argument is. If you aren't using stats or advanced stats (also known as sabermetrics), then you don't have much of an argument to go on. I'm gonna take a guess and say that the reason your arguments have ended so early is because you haven't been able to respond with stats- and in baseball, there isn't much else to respond with.

Is so-and-so a Hall of Famer? The sabermeticians will punch in the numbers and give you, in their mind, a definitive answer.

Not only is that a ridiculous generalization, but I don't think I've met anyone in the sabermetric community who pretends that there is a definitive answer.

It’s boring. It’s ruining sports.

Boring, maybe, that's your opinion. As for "ruining sports," I don't even know where to begin to explain how incorrect this is. If you think that stats (which can be completely ignored, although they probably shouldn't be, if you want to be well-informed) are ruining sports, you probably didn't like sports that much in the first place.

Sabermetrics or analytics are overrunning football, too. ESPN is pushing a new statistical way of analyzing NFL quarterbacks, Total Quarterback Rating.

Oh hey, we agree! The reason sabermetrics are a good fit for baseball is because the result of each at bat is primarily an individual struggle between the pitcher and the batter. In football, every play involves the entire team, so advanced statistics aren't necessarily the best gauge of a player's ability.

And ESPN's new QB rating formula is, um, hooey.

Last season, the basketball analytics crowd was convinced that LeBron James and Dwight Howard deserved the MVP over Derrick Rose. The fact that Howard’s whiny, immature crybaby-ass was even in the discussion tells you all you need to know about analyzing the game solely on statistics. The Orlando Magic were a joke last season in part because of the immature environment fostered by Howard.

Advanced statistics in basketball are slightly better than those in football. To simplify, most advanced basketball stats start off analyzing the team, or the 5 players on the court, then separating the individual players.

But that's beside the point. Why does Jason Whitlock hate Dwight Howard?

As for James vs. Rose? Well, James devoured Rose in the Eastern Conference Finals. Rose’s defenders — most notably ESPN’s Ric Bucher — argued that Rose’s inferior supporting cast is what allowed the Heat and James to get the best of Rose and the Bulls. And by the time James disappeared in the NBA Finals, it was easy to see the merit of Bucher’s point.

So, the NBA MVP should've been Dirk Nowitzki, then?

It doesn’t really matter who deserved the NBA’s MVP award.

You just wasted two paragraphs.

What matters is that there was a fun, yearlong debate.

As there has been in baseball. With less than 7 games to go, the AL MVP, NL MVP, and NL Cy Young are all up for grabs. The AL MVP is mostly a three-man race between Jose Bautista (who had the award locked up in June before having a slower, but still great, second half), Justin Verlander, and Jacoby Ellsbury, with two or three dark horses who could steal some votes. The NL Cy Young is between four pitchers. The NL MVP could be won by pretty much any player in the National League, including Raul Ibanez.

Ok, maybe not Raul Ibanez.

But my point is, it's the end of the season and, apart from the AL Cy Young, we don't know who will win any of the major awards. Players have entered the race and dropped out over the course of the year, which is what I'm assuming you want. But even if that didn't happen, why does it matter? If a player is clearly the best for the entire year, why should there be a debate? The MVP award exists to reward the best player in the league, not to inspire debate amongst fans.

As much as we enjoy watching the competition on the field or court, we take equal pleasure in interpreting and debating what we just saw.

Again, I agree! The problem, though, is that it seems you're implying that those in the SABR-community don't enjoy these things the way non-SABR fans do, and you'd be wrong. We just analyze the game a different way.

Sabermetrics/analytics undermines the debate. They try to interject absolutes.

Yes and no. Sabermetrics try to provide an individual, objective analysis of certain players and teams. Really, they just try to provide a better alternative to traditional statistics. If you consider this trying to interject absolutes, ok, but that's not the goal, or the second goal. Or the third goal.

No one will ever convince me that John Elway isn’t the greatest quarterback/football player in NFL history. I know what I saw. I don’t care that Joe Montana won more Super Bowls. I don’t care that Dan Marino threw for more yards. I don’t care that Peyton Manning’s completion percentage is eight points higher.

"What I care about is Elway's .........
.........
..........
!!!"

I can and have argued credibly and passionately that Elway is the best QB and player in the history of the league. You are free to disagree. I invite you to disagree.

Ok, that's good, because we both agree that there are no absolutes in sports and that everything is open to interpretation and debate.

I’d love to refute your erroneous position.

YOU JUST SET BACK YOUR OWN ARGUMENT.

Just bring more than stats to the table. The games are about more than stats.

That's true, but I really don't see what else we're supposed to bring to the table. Or even what else we CAN bring to the table.

That’s what bothers me about this whole era of sports. In my lifetime, there have been two innovations that have significantly influenced sports fans: 1. fantasy leagues; 2. sabermetrics/analytics.

3. Cable packages like Sunday Ticket and NBA League Pass.
4. HDTV.
5. ESPN3 and live internet streaming of games.
6. The internet in general.
7. VIP/luxury boxes
8. Twitter

I could argue that 3-8 have had much more of an influence on sports fans than sabermetrics, especially since SABR principles are still just a fringe science of sorts among the majority of baseball fans. For proof of this, look at the results of any baseball poll on ESPN.com. Or just trust me on that one.

Again, the stat geeks are winning. Our perception of athletes and their value are primarily being dictated by statistics. Peyton Manning is the king of fantasy football; therefore, he is the king of real football. LeBron James is the king of fantasy basketball; therefore, he is the king of real basketball.

Your argument would be a lot stronger if you didn't cite two athletes who are probably the best at their given sports.

Is it a coincidence that James and Manning have both struggled in postseason play?

Yes.

I don’t know the answer.

It's yes.

But I want to discuss and debate it.

I think it's yes. What do you think?

And I don’t want to do it with people who simply want to quote stats.

"I want to do it with people who quote..........other things! Such as...........!"

The answers and the questions that make sports special, unique, our collective national pastime, can’t be found on a stat sheet.

Now I'm interested in where they CAN be found. The gut? The heart? Jung's Collective Unconscious? Kansas City?

They’re in our imaginations and our individual interpretation of what we witness.

Right now I'm imagining David Eckstein dunking on Wilt Chamberlain. Eckstein MUST be better at basketball!

When the "Moneyball" movie hysteria subsides, I hope the sabermeticians STFU.

Likewise.

-Tucker Warner

What do you think? Comment on this post or send any and all questions, comments, or insults to FirstTeeMulligan@yahoo.com. Tucker Warner likes poetry and a nice pair of slacks. You can find him on Twitter at @twarner50.