Sabermetrics and the Importance of Youth

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absolutely right, but he probably knows as well as anyone that many people are going to keep valuing extremely flawed, outdated stats and utter things like “grit,” “clutch hitting,” and “the will to win” no matter how many columns Law and other sabermetrically-minded people write.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.

The All-Star Game's Identity Crisis

People inside and outside of baseball need to start making some decisions about the All-Star Game. What do we want it -- and the players participating in it -- to be? Someone might say it's foolish to look at an exhibition game and make it sound so meaningful, but people are even torn in this area. Is it just an exhibition game or is it more?

The fact that it determines home-field advantage in the World Series sure makes it seem like more than an exhibition game. Plus, there are managers that seem intent on winning the game like it determines a playoff spot. Look at Jim Leyland, who gave every Final Vote spot in this year's game to a reliever. More deserving players like Evan Longoria, Adrian Beltre, Josh Donaldson, and Carlos Santana won't even get a chance to get voted on in the final ballot, although can you blame Leyland for wanting more relief help? He's managing a Tigers team that has a great chance to get back to the World Series, so he has every incentive to win the All-Star Game and get the all-important home-field advantage. Bullpen depth is always key and All-Star teams go through pitchers faster than position players (playing in the field and getting a few at bats for 3+ innings would not be considered as much of an injury risk as leaving a pitcher in for that amount of time, so managers also feel more pressure to use more arms).

So, even though Leyland's Final Vote decision is ridiculous, he shouldn't be the one to blame. If the game didn't count, maybe he just goes with the more deserving position players or starting pitchers. That's Major League Baseball's fault.

In the other league, Yasiel Puig is causing a similar stir because he's played in a very small amount of games, not just for this season but for his entire career since this is his rookie year. Many people think it's ludicrous for someone with a 32-game track record to make it over someone who's played for twice as many games this season and has been in the league for years. Others think it's the All-Star game is simply a marketing event, so since Puig is such a big, exciting name, he should get a spot.

(Related note: I highly doubt Puig will draw more fans to the All-Star Game if he's voted in, given that he'll play for an inning or two at most. People aren't going to be saying, "I can't wait to hear Puig's name announced, and possibly see him make some nice defensive plays with maybe -- fingers crossed -- two at bats!" Fans will likely vote him in, which is fine. If the fans are so eager to see him, let them decide. That said, the increase in eyes he'll bring to the game will still be insignificant. People who normally don't watch the All-Star Game aren't going to be glued to their TV waiting to see Puig when they're not sure if or when he'll even get in.)

But Puig is just one extraordinary case. What about Bryce Harper, who has missed a lot of time this year in just his second big-league season? He's exciting, but does he deserve a spot over a proven veteran who's played more this year?

What about Chris Davis over Prince Fielder? On last week's "The Baseball Show with Rany and Joe," Joe Sheehan said Fielder should get the nod because he's been better for several more years than Davis. But Davis has been one of the most exciting players during the first half in which he's played much better than Fielder, so should that overrule a better track record?

The same argument could be had about whether Matt Harvey should start over proven guys like Clayton Kershaw or Adam Wainwright.

Every year, we have these debates and they seem to have been magnified this year with Puig and the relievers in the AL Final Vote. One big step towards clearing up this murky situation would be to stop making the game count. Evidence has shown that home-field advantage has a large effect on the eventual World Series champs, so it's moronic to give a team like the 90-win Wild Card Cardinals from 2011 home-field over the 96-win division champion Texas Rangers -- who played in a tougher division and league -- based on one game in which players from both teams had little-to-no impact. The Cardinals, by the way, won that Series in seven games, with the final two wins coming in front of their home crowd.

Getting rid of this home-field advantage rule would also increase the likelihood that managers would pick more exciting, deserving players as All-Stars instead of relievers who no one has ever heard of.

However, there would still be a divide between the "it's a marketing event" group and the track record group. People like Keith Law -- who's in the former group -- and Sheehan -- who's in the latter -- would probably feel just as passionate about their sides of the argument even if the home-field advantage travesty was eliminated. Managers, players, and fans would likely still feel split, as well.

There will never be an All-Star Game in any sport without people complaining about players who are undeserving or snubbed. It's part of what makes it so fun. I personally think Davis's spot as the starter is well-earned but I certainly don't ignore larger samples and better track records. The MLB All-Star Game will always have some type of identity problem, which isn't really a bad thing.

Still, there needs to be less ambiguity. The AL will have six relievers on this year's All-Star team, which is four, maybe five more than are necessary. There are several starting pitchers and position players who are more deserving.

Plus, there's still a divide between the new-school and old-school way of looking at baseball. Guys with gaudy win, save, and RBI totals (*cough* Brandon Philips *cough*) are still making it over players with much better numbers in actually meaningful statistical categories.

The first step towards eliminating some of this ridiculousness would be getting rid of the "it counts" nonsense, but the All-Star Game will still be more frustrating than it should be. The debating is fun but if people involved with baseball can start to agree on more aspects of the game, the outrage over snubs will feel more like a spousal argument over what movie to see instead of an argument about one of them cheating on the other.

The Orioles and Their Young Stars are Spitting on Regression

Chris Davis launching a three-run homer off the Yankees' David Phelps on Saturday

I feared this would happen. The Baltimore Orioles have not come back down to earth and likely won't for the rest of the season -- not much, anyway -- after vastly overachieving in 2012. I'm certainly not an Orioles hater -- I really like this team, in fact -- but after a such a fluky 2012 season, part of me wanted them to regress to the near-.500 record they should've had last year.

While people like me looked at Baltimore's 29-9 record in one-run games as an unsustainable, once-in-a-generation outlier that wasn't indicative of the team's true performance, other people pointed to the fantastic bullpen (valid argument), Buck Showalter's managerial skills (ditto), magic (oh boy) the Orioles' grit (please stop), and their "will to win" (/barfing). It wasn't as annoying as the Trout vs. Cabrera MVP debate, but it wasn't too far behind.

People were so reluctant to admit that the Orioles were lucky. Teams with winning percentages over .700 in one-run games have been as rare as, well, teams with the same winning percentages for entire seasons. There's just too much randomness involved in games of such a close margin. Sure, having a good bullpen and a smart tactical manager are major advantages going late into games, but plenty of teams have had those two things and not come close to the .763 winning percentage Baltimore had in one-run games last year.

As a sabermetric-minded baseball consumer, I wanted the "will to win" side of the argument to (hopefully) understand this fact by witnessing major regression from the 2013 Orioles. Problem is, the 2013 Orioles have continued to be good, and even if they're average the rest of the season, they still might make the playoffs. Like I expected, confirmation bias has infected the brains of many people in the "2012 wasn't a fluke!" crowd. Here's an example. And another (out-gut!). One more.

These people are like a guy who's convinced a girl is into him even though she's done everything short of saying, "I'm not interested." "But she had this look in her eyes," he says. The Orioles' record hasn't gotten worse because they've made significant improvements this year. Last year, they were an average team playing well above their heads. This year, they're simply a good team playing just about up to their ability (47-36 actual record, 44-39 Pythagorean record).

The biggest contributor, of course, is Chris Davis, who's gone from a decent hitter with power who strikes out too much to one of the best hitters in the game with all of the power who still strikes out, just not as much.

They've also seen Manny Machado make the leap. He's now one of baseball's best young hitters and an absolute phenom defensively.

J.J. Hardy, Nate McLouth, and Adam Jones have also been having solid seasons. As a whole, Baltimore's offense is 2nd in the majors in WAR and 3rd in wOBA. They're also one of the best fielding teams.

The pitching staff has actually been pretty bad so far this season, so if they improve, this team could get close to the 93-win mark. Legitimately.

Baltimore's record in one-run games right now: 12-11. They've already lost more games in one-run contests in 2013 than they did all of last year, and we just started July. So, people who screamed "regression!" before the season have actually been correct, so far, but because the Orioles have improved their talent level so much, the regression in close games hasn't cost them.

Let me reiterate, I really like this team. Davis, Machado, Jones, and Matt Wieters (if he'd ever hit) are some of my favorite players. Camden Yards is gorgeous. In fact, I didn't even hate last year's team; I just couldn't stand the narratives surrounding it.

That's why the 2013 Orioles have also been frustrating. People still don't think the 93 wins from last season were fluky, and the continued success this year has confirmed their false claims in their heads. The Orioles have been building a quality roster for years and are now experiencing the results of good draft picks, trades, and signings.

This is the first season of a prolonged run of excellent baseball in Baltimore. Not last season. It's OK to admit your team got lucky in 2012, Orioles fans. You got to enjoy a playoff team, regardless of how fortunate they were. From the looks of it, that will be one of many Baltimore playoff teams in the '10s.