It’s no secret that people’s opinions as adults are shaped by events during their youth. Whether we’re talking about
politics, social issues, entertainment, or baseball, there are many people who
believe everything they believe right now because of how they grew up.
In regards to baseball, this is a
big reason (maybe the biggest) why so many people disregard the sabermetric
point of view. Sure, advanced stats are a little more complicated than pitcher wins or
home runs, but if these people grew up during the 21st century
reading articles from writers like Rob Neyer instead of writers like Mitch Albom, it’s hard to
imagine their views would still be so old-school. They weren’t brainwashed, they just fallaciously
trusted the most visible authority figures, and no one else was really providing more
accurate viewpoints. At a certain point, the windows for a new way of looking at
baseball were slammed shut. Their minds had been made up, and nothing was going to change them. Some people, like Peter
Gammons, kept an open mind and eventually embraced sabermetrics, but he’s the
exception to most baseball consumers.
ESPN’s Keith Law talked about
this concept on his podcast last week, and he’s mentioned it before that. He says that people should question
the opinions spouted from the mouths of talking heads and from the fingertips
of writers, even saying that he should be scrutinized. He’s absolutely right, but he
probably knows as well as anyone that many people are going to keep valuing
extremely flawed, outdated stats and utter things like “grit,” “clutch
hitting,” and “the will to win” no matter how many columns Law and other sabermetrically-minded
people write.
Baseball fans are more than aware
of last year’s AL MVP race between Miguel Cabrera and Mike Trout and are
probably tired of hearing about it at this point. The arguments between
old-school (pro-Cabrera) and new-school (pro-Trout) baseball consumers became
so loud and constant that it made sense for people to make WAR puns. It truly
was a war, maybe the biggest one the baseball world has ever seen between
traditional stat backers and traditional stat detractors.
But the most interesting part
about this debate had nothing to do with those two schools of thought. The people in
the middle – who had a hard time deciding which player deserved MVP the most – had
the most compelling POVs.
Jim Caple wrote an excellent piece breaking down his thought process in what was an extremely difficult award to
vote for. He kept going back-and-forth before eventually deciding on Trout, but
he still wasn’t sure he made the right choice. Caple also thought the outrage from the louder sides of the debate was ridiculous. This was
a refreshing viewpoint on an issue that felt about as refreshing as a
crowded bus during a summer day in St. Louis.
Caple seemed to be struggling
between the completely logical Trout side of the argument and the more
traditional Cabrera side. I don’t know Caple, but I’m willing to bet he grew up constantly hearing things like “RBIs are extremely important” or “a player who gets his
team to the playoffs is more valuable than one who doesn’t.” Maybe Caple’s
struggles stemmed from the fact that he couldn’t let go of these ideals he grew
up hearing and (likely) accepting.
This brings up one of the more
interesting examples from the whole debate: Bill Simmons and his buddy JackO on
the BS Report this past October.
Here’s JackO’s opinion on the MVP
race:
“I think Trout is the better
overall player given he can steal bases and play defense,” he said, “but I just
think if a guy wins the freaking Triple Crown he’s gotta be the MVP.”
Again, someone sees the arguments
from the sabermetric side but has a hard time looking past that shiny Triple Crown. In
JackO’s case, he couldn’t look past the Triple Crown at all. Neither could Simmons.
(Related note: Right after JackO made that comment above, Simmons sarcastically said, "But, Johnny, runs batted in don't matter! It's an arbitrary stat!" He was making fun of the advanced stats defenders, and the way he said it sounded a lot like a jock making fun of a nerd in high school. A few minutes later in the podcast, Simmons referred to himself as a "secret stat nerd." I'm a pretty big Simmons fan, but this section of the podcast was not one of his best moments.)
JackO and Simmons
made a couple of other points in favor of Cabrera: Cabrera’s team made the
playoffs (without mentioning that Trout’s team won more games), and Cabrera “put
the team on his back” the last three months (without crediting Trout for playing nearly as well in that span, especially when considering his defense and baserunning advantages).
The whole conversation consisted of "Trout was amazing, but..." arguments. JackO and Simmons both realized how great Trout was and understood the logic from the pro-Trout side, but old-school baseball viewpoints kept clouding their thoughts. They were like cigarette addicts, unable to get over their terrible habit because they've been smoking their whole lives. No number of studies proving their habit was bad for them could ever completely convince them to make a change.
This old way of looking at baseball will surely become endangered -- if not extinct -- in the next few generations. The fact that last year's MVP debate was so heated is actually a step forward for the sabermetric community even though "their guy" didn't win. Still, while some may want to change the opinions of every traditionally-minded person, that's just not going to happen. Hell, Simmons has talked at the Sloan Conference multiple times in the past and often refers to himself as a stat nerd, yet he still has these old-school ideals.
Sabermetricians still have a way to go, though, as far as getting their message across. Many people still grow up watching programs like Baseball Tonight and reading old columnists who love to bash advanced stats. Although several MLB players have expressed interest in this newer way of looking at baseball, the majority of them still lean on stats created in the 19th century. They were told those older stats and ideas were meaningful, and they, too, have gone on to tell other players and fans to look at baseball that way. Until players start to accept sabermetrics, or networks stop filling 99% of their TV analyst positions with former players, baseball consumers will inevitably believe what they hear.
Not everyone decided to read Moneyball at the age of 19, or started listening to the (now-extinct) Baseball Today podcast at the same age, or had a college buddy who consumed sports in a sabermetric fashion. I'd probably laugh at a piece like this today if I didn't experience those three things. I'm no smarter than anyone else, I just benefited from good timing. People need to experience things like this at a young age if they're going to adapt.
Sabermetrics certainly aren't perfect, and people should question them all the time, like Law said. People like me prefer them, but if someone would rather look at traditional numbers, they obviously have that right. But that doesn't mean they are right, and their constant rejection of new methods of baseball consumption is extremely close-minded and stubborn.
It's hard to blame these people too much, though, because they probably grew up hearing about the greatness of the traditional baseball viewpoints and can't imagine a world where these values are misleading or flat-out false. You might have more success convincing a devout Christian, Muslim, or Jew to question his/her religion than convincing a traditional baseball fan to embrace advanced stats.
Hopefully, generations in the near future will grow up looking at baseball through the clearest lens available to them, questioning everything they hear, whether it's "old-school" or "new-school." The further they get into adulthood, the less likely it will be for them to change their minds.
