...and get off my lawn!

I am so tired of these kids with their VORP and their makeout parties.

There wasn't much doubt before that Chass was now a hack, but this certainly clarifies things.

i think one of the few things that bugs me more than people pretending to know what they're talking about as they blather on pointlessly are people who not only openly admit they don't know what they're talking about and still blather, but those who insist they don't need to know what they're talking about (and it's in fact better than they don't) and still blather on. I really don't care if 90% of people on earth who follow baseball know or care what VORP is - i find it betters my understanding of the game, so i'm happy knowing - but i resent being told that a statistic everyone is free to consider, disregard, or interpret as they see fit "threatens to undermine most fans’ enjoyment of baseball and the human factor therein".

i could go on about how poorly developed the whole article is, but would it matter? oh, i suppose it might a little bit. how about calling the whole concept behind VORP absurd after learning nothing more than it's title? "I don't need to know what it is - i can tell it's stupid!"

Value over replacement player. Don’t ask what it means. I don’t know.

He saw "VORPer Madness" and became positively enraged at the youth of today.

Xrist almighty, he could just un-subscribe to BP and scan the agate type of his own paper for his daily RBI fix. That way he wouldn't come into contact with anything so scary as a number he doesn't understand. (Which doesn't mean he understands RBIs, either...but I suppose he thinks he does.)

OTOH, Chass said this:

The Yankees haven’t won the World Series, but they didn’t win it in the three years before Rodriguez arrived either.

Many precedents exist for teams being successful despite internal turmoil, which the Rodriguez-Jeter relationship doesn’t even rise to.

I have some problems with VORP myself, but I didn't dismiss it out of hand. Isn't he more of a baseball biz guy? Is that why he subscribed to BPro?

Seems kinda silly lumping in VORP w/ those other tired storylines - and if he hates those storylines so much, why is he wasting a column rehashing them?

I suppose that if stats mongers want to sit at their computers and play with these things all day long, that’s their prerogative. But their attempt to introduce these new-age statistics into the game threatens to undermine most fans’ enjoyment of baseball and the human factor therein.

Yeah, because a couple of guys talking stats on the Internet really ruins the fun for my grandma while she listens to the game on the radio.

I think grumpy old sportswriter hacks are a bigger threat to the game than the stat geeks (while I don't consider myself a stats guy, I do think the Internet based stat people bring a lot to the table in terms of better understanding how individual players contribute to their teams' performance).

How can you not be a 'stats guy', anyway? If you're interested in baseball, you're interested in understanding how it works. Period. This joker just isn't interested, that's all. So why do they pay him to write about it? The concept of replacement player is very easy to understand, and its also easy to understand why its relevant, especially from the economic standpoint.

Sad but true:

"Murray Chass was the recipient of the 2003 J.G. Taylor Spink Award, presented annually 'for meritorious contributions to baseball writing.'"

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/spink_bios/chass_murray.htm

People play baseball. Numbers don’t.

####. I thought number 53 was really due this season.

Chass has his moments, but they're all of the lyrical boys-of-summer-on-the-lazy-greensward type. He's #### when he tries to move beyond that.

Guys like this ARE stats guys, it's just they only care about the triple crown stats. That was good enough for sports writers for 100 years and it's good enough for them. They resent the "stats geeks" from because they see them as outsiders trying to take their place as the recognized baseball experts.

How can you not be a 'stats guy', anyway?

Unless you follow the game with a Magic 8 Ball, everybody is a "stats guy." It's just a matter of which statistics you follow, that's all.

How can you not be a 'stats guy', anyway? If you're interested in baseball, you're interested in understanding how it works. Period. This joker just isn't interested, that's all. So why do they pay him to write about it? The concept of replacement player is very easy to understand, and its also easy to understand why its relevant, especially from the economic standpoint.

an "expert" doesn't want to know about new things in their field. in most areas, that's laughed at. in sports, it's something to be proud of and brag to the world!

maybe someone can go by the temple on saddle river rd. and see if mr chass is around, drop off a quick summary of VORP and other new tools so he won't have to go through any great lengths to find out these new fangled things.

As Election Approaches, Some Topics Should Be Off Limits

Politicians promoting abolition of slavery and other new-age political ideologies.

I receive a daily e-mail message from Underground Railroad, an publication filled with articles and information about slavery, mostly information that only political activists can love.

To me, abolition of slavery epitomized the new-age nonsense. For the longest time, I had no idea what abolition meant and didn’t care enough to go to any great lengths to find out. I asked some colleagues whose work I respect, and they didn’t know what it meant either.

Finally, not long ago, I came across abolition spelled out. It stands for freeing all the blacks in slavery in the United States. How thrilling. How absurd. Abolition. Don’t ask what it means. I don’t know.

I suppose that if abolitionists want to sit at their printing presses and play with this idea all day long, that’s their prerogative. But their attempt to introduce these new-age ideologies into the country threatens to undermine most citizens’ enjoyment of the American Way and the human factor therein.

I apologize in advance if the above is tasteless, insensitive, and grossly hyperbolic (which it probably is), but who in their right mind honestly decides that ignorance is a superior alternative to education? The best way to deal with something you don't understand is to continue to not understand it? Really?

Sure, sure. It's just baseball. It's not that important. I just don't understand how someone can be paid to write something like this in one of the most prominent newspapers in the country. It wouldn't fly if Chase were a political journalist. It shouldn't be allowed even though he only writes about something as insignificant as baseball.

How can you not be a 'stats guy', anyway? If you're interested in baseball, you're interested in understanding how it works. Period. This joker just isn't interested, that's all. So why do they pay him to write about it? The concept of replacement player is very easy to understand, and its also easy to understand why its relevant, especially from the economic standpoint.

In this context my definition of stat guy is one who regularly invokes statistical analysis in his writings. Obviously baseball is a stat driven game and even the most casual fan follows the stats on some level.

I think the bigger issue here is the growing mutual resentment between the punditocracy in the establishment media and the Internet-based proletariat of bloggers/commenters. The Internet has made it much easier for regular folks to call these media hacks out on their bullsh|t, and the establishment pundits are threatened by this. The VORP nonsense was just a throwaway jab at the Internet-based media.

>he could just un-subscribe to BP

I don't know how to unsubscribe and I don't want to know how to unsubscribe. I just know it's stupid.

But their attempt to introduce these new-age statistics into the game threatens to undermine most fans’ enjoyment of baseball and the human factor therein.

Jeez...this is worse than Jimmy Powers and his mass polio epidemic article!

Unless you follow the game with a Magic 8 Ball, everybody is a "stats guy." It's just a matter of which statistics you follow, that's all.

The only thing that Chass counts are rings.

Do you know what would be a cool prank? If Chass's stockbrocker decided to practice what Chass preaches and throws the numbers out the window. Then we can all have a laugh when Chass's new stock portfolio full of clutch companies and ignoring company financials results in him having to dance at the bus station for nickels.

Is it just me or is there a growing disdain for intellectualism in our society?

Evolution mongers promoting Darwin's theory and other new-age biological theories.

I receive a daily message from Darwin's Dailies, a publication filled with articles and information about biology, mostly godless biological theories that only secluarist scientists can love.

To me, "evolution" epitomized the new-age nonsense. For the longest time, I had no idea what evolution meant and didn’t care enough to go to any great lengths to find out. I asked some colleagues whose work I respect, and they didn’t know what it meant either.

Finally, not long ago, I came across evolution spelled out. It stands for the idea that natural selection, not a higher being, causes species to "evolve" over time. How thrilling. How absurd. Natural selection. Don’t ask what it means. I don’t know.

I suppose that if evolution mongers want to sit at their godless laboratories and play with these things all day long, that’s their prerogative. But their attempt to introduce these new-age theories into our schools threatens to undermine religion, society and the human factor therein.

God made animals. Scientists did not.

Is it just me or is there a growing disdain for intellectualism in our society?

It's just you. Anti-intellectualism has a proud tradition dating back from, oh, since there have been intellectuals. It's not growing - it's always been there.

But later, he can remake his fortune by selling beachfront real estate in central Connecticut.

Do you know what would be a cool prank? If Chass's stockbrocker decided to practice what Chass preaches and throws the numbers out the window. Then we can all have a laugh when Chass's new stock portfolio full of clutch companies and ignoring company financials results in him having to dance at the bus station for nickels.

C'mon, a dart throwing monkey could pick better stocks than a broker.

i think one of the few things that bugs me more than people pretending to know what they're talking about as they blather on pointlessly are people who not only openly admit they don't know what they're talking about and still blather, but those who insist they don't need to know what they're talking about (and it's in fact better than they don't) and still blather on.

I was complaining about this today in another forum... we can thank the Dicks and FoxNews for this new form of discourse.

a) Ignorance as a way of avoiding critical analysis ("I can't understand the complex scientific arguments, but here's what I think of them.")

b) Apathy and inertia as a result of ignorance. ("We can't possibly hope to understand the complex dynamics of the environment we live in and so why even try? And who cares about the planet in 50 years anyways? I'll be dead! ")

c) Tangential ad hominem attacks as conclusion ("Al Gore's house is really big and he flies in a private jet, so he can't really be interested in helping the enviornment")

Chass hits for the cycle in his article:

a) I don't know anything about these new statistics.
b) Because I don't understand them, I'm going to dismiss their usefulness.
c) Anyways... what kind of a freak nerd would sit around trying to come up with new statistics all day.

I just want to know when people began getting away with this kind of BS... is it just more obvious now with more alternate routes to information? Or has it become more permissable in general to be completely full of $hit?

I just don't understand how someone can be paid to write something like this in one of the most prominent newspapers in the country.

Answer: he's employed by the same "paper of record" that employs George Vecsey. And Vecsey is Murray Chass plus 50 years. On the other hand, the Times has also published quite a lot on the new stats, with guest columns by BP guys and Alan Schwarz. So when it comes down to it, their sports editorial board seems to believe that:
a) the Yankees are better copy than the Mets---probably true
b) the grumpy old men are what people want to read---vindicated by the Spink award, no doubt, but not necessarily true
c) that mild gossip baseball columns (Chass's "On Baseball") are preferable to really gossippy baseball columns (like Gammons') but also preferable to deeper analysis of the newer-school type.

Personally, I think this is dichotomous with their general editorial bend. Their editorials are rather left of center, and Frank Rich is their featured Week in Review columnist. It strikes me as odd that a paper which frequently reports on innovations in business, fashion, and arts and which takes a progressive slant in general would therefore continue to let their sports page be the domain of two cranky old baseball men. They should be all over the contemporary analytical revolution rather than contributing to the backlash against it.

It's just you. Anti-intellectualism has a proud tradition dating back from, oh, since there have been intellectuals. It's not growing - it's always been there.

See Hofstadter, Richard Anti-Intellectualism in American Life

Re #21: My prank idea was to concoct an algorithm for Value Over Replacement Sportswriter (VORS) and send Chass several e-mails detailing how it's calculated and how low he ranks.

Part of the reason a ,ot of these old-timers are so hostile to advanced statistical analysis is because it undercuts their "expertise." They can no longer tell us how Joe McEwing, for example, is soooooooo valuable to a team because of his great ability to play small ball and all his spunk -- facts that we, too would see if only we were as expert as Chass -- when we can actually crunch numbers that show that McEwing is worse than any freely available minor leaguer.* It is a threat to their monopolistic fanchise.


*I am just using McEwing as an example of a guy who was way overrated by these writers who love small ball-type players. I have not actually looked at McEwing's numbers, so he may, in fact, have been somewhat more valuable that a replacement level player.

Part of the reason a lot of these old-timers are so hostile to advanced statistical analysis is because it undercuts their "expertise."

I don't think so. I think that a lot of the problem is that statistical analysts do a poor job explaining the concept behind the particular form of number-crunching being done (something to which Jim alludes in the intro). Bill James, for example, rarely used the basic form of runs created after the first couple of years of self-published Abstracts, but he always took the time to explain the basic formula because it was easier to explain the concept of runs created using the simple formula.

-- MWE

I hate numbers! What have they ever done for us?!

I think that a lot of the problem is that statistical analysts do a poor job explaining the concept behind the particular form of number-crunching being done (something to which Jim alludes in the intro).

I don't find the remote psychoanalysis of baseball columnists convincing either, but if you've been following baseball long enough to know what kind of players are down at AAA, the concept behind VORP just isn't that difficult to grasp.

Re #21: My prank idea was to concoct an algorithm for Value Over Replacement Sportswriter (VORS) and send Chass several e-mails detailing how it's calculated and how low he ranks.

Sarcasm is pretty much wasted on the ignorant.

Part of the reason a ,ot of these old-timers are so hostile to advanced statistical analysis is because it undercuts their "expertise." They can no longer tell us how Joe McEwing, for example, is soooooooo valuable to a team because of his great ability to play small ball and all his spunk -- facts that we, too would see if only we were as expert as Chass -- when we can actually crunch numbers that show that McEwing is worse than any freely available minor leaguer.* It is a threat to their monopolistic fanchise.

Y'know, I been readin' stuff like this on the intranets for 'bout ten years now, and all the Chasses who had jobs back then still have those jobs, and a bunch more younger Chasses also got jobs. So maybe it ain't as much of a threat as we'd like to think it is.

think one of the few things that bugs me more than people pretending to know what they're talking about as they blather on pointlessly are people who not only openly admit they don't know what they're talking about and still blather, but those who insist they don't need to know what they're talking about (and it's in fact better than they don't) and still blather on.

Sounds like baseball think factory.

But their attempt to introduce these new-age statistics into the game threatens to undermine most fans’ enjoyment of baseball and the human factor therein.

The same thing could be said about the business of baseball.

I think that a lot of the problem is that statistical analysts do a poor job explaining the concept behind the particular form of number-crunching being done

This is undoubtedly true, but when Chass writes "I had no idea what VORP meant and didn’t care enough to go to any great lengths to find out" it's hard to see how a straightforward explanation of VORP would have helped here.

Sports Illustrated started putting little blurbs from BPro in their magazine last summer and several of them made reference to VORP or WARP. In every case, they put a one-sentence footnote to the effect "How much a player contributes [in runs or wins, depending on whether it was VORP or WARP being quoted] over a AAA player." That's the concept - understanding the details is, of course, much more complicated than that, but isn't really necessary for most people to get some value from VORP.

Which doesn't mean he understands RBIs, either...but I suppose he thinks he does.)

Are you insinuating that Vinny Castilla wasn't jobbed out of the 2004 MVP after all?!?!?

Part of the reason a ,ot of these old-timers are so hostile to advanced statistical analysis is because it undercuts their "expertise."

I wholeheatedly agree with this -- we're seeing the "baseball reformation" in action, the long-revered priests of baseball; the Chass's, but also the Joe Morgans, the Tommy Lasordas, etc - no longer have exclusive rights to the "bible".... It may have started with folks like Bill James and Tom Tippet (or even someone like an Earl Weaver) -- but now, you've got tons of little baseball Martin Luthers nailing dispensations to the cathedral door and translating the original Latin to a more universal language (hard to comprehend or not -- anyone can learn the formula for VORP.... not everyone has a line to Joe Torre or whomever to tell us "who's valuable" and why).

Sure - all these Conlins and Chass's are still employed... and new ones are getting hired - but we're seeing explosive growth in other publishing avenues.

While someone like Rob Neyer or TangoTiger or whomever may not have a regular column in the daily paper -- I think sportswriters ARE smart enough to see circulation numbers drop and see that these 'alternate publishing outlets' like blogs, etc ARE reaching lots of folks who were formerly part of their 'flock'.

I think most of the problem here is that the acronym VORP just sounds geeky. It sounds like it was named after a Star Wars character. If it was called Production Factor it might still be disparaged, but it wouldn't lend itself to a quick laugh line.

But their attempt to introduce these new-age statistics into the game threatens to undermine most fans’ enjoyment of baseball and the human factor therein.

does this sentence even need witty commentary?

Humansdorp

I've been to this land, and it is a weird land...

They can no longer tell us how Joe McEwing, for example, is soooooooo valuable to a team because of his great ability to play small ball and all his spunk -- facts that we, too would see if only we were as expert as Chass.

So Chass is either an expert urologist, or a...

I've been sympathetic towards Chass because of Mnookin's axe-grinding, and the 'stat mongers' often overreach, but this column leads me to believe Seth has good reason to take Chass on.

Why should anyone be able to hold a premier writing post long after his performance has declined below acceptable performance for even an average scribe?

SI's obviouly got a conection with BPro -- I believe the latest issue has an article on Spring Training that includes PECOTAs for the players profiled.

Mebbe that rag will be worth reading this season.

"VORP" is the sound beat writers make after chowing down on the free buffet.

I think most of the problem here is that the acronym VORP just sounds geeky.

I don't know that it's "most" of the problem, but I agree that VORP's a pretty geeky acronym. On the other hand, I really like PECOTA - that's an acronym that was obviously created by a baseball fan.

Are you insinuating that Vinny Castilla wasn't jobbed out of the 2004 MVP after all?!?!?

To be honest, I have to admit I don't fully understand RBIs either, seeing as how I don't know whether clutch hitting is an ability. However, given his own words on a related topic, I doubt he's given it even that much attention.

Murray Chass is on the very, very short list among the most important writers to ever cover baseball. He was one of the real pioneers, probably the most important among them, in covering baseball as a business to be treated like any other business, and at the time when he began doing so, treating Marvin Miller as if he was obviously in the moral right and the owners as if they were sleazy plutocrats trying to enforce a system of indentured servitude was neither a popular nor obvious thing to do. In his way he's probably as responsible as Bill James for a lot of the better material you'll read about baseball.

Anyway, he really doesn't deserve to be called a hack, and certainly not because he doesn't care about VORP. There are thousands of people who care about VORP who combined won't make his contribution to the appreciation of the game.

Anyway, he really doesn't deserve to be called a hack, and certainly not because he doesn't care about VORP. There are thousands of people who care about VORP who combined won't make his contribution to the appreciation of the game.

Most of those complaining about Chass in this thread are careful to single out his later work, not denigrate his work as a whole. And it's clear that Chass hadn't brought much to the table in years.

In most fields, when someone ages to the point where they're no longer producing much of value, they're given a gold watch, a pat on the back, and sent on their way. But for some reason, columnists get to hang around until they die.

Excellent post, Tim. Thank you for the perspective. That explains why I've always enjoyed Chass's take on the business of baseball, but haven't really enjoyed his analysis of the game, when he gets into it.

So, Tim, do you think you could help us understand why guys like Chass feel compelled to attack things like VORP with the kind of hyperbole he used in this article? I mean, "threatens to undermine most fans’ enjoyment of baseball and the human factor therein"? It's just a different way of understanding, appreciating, and yes, enjoying the game. It doesn't threaten or undermine anything.

Anyway, he really doesn't deserve to be called a hack, and certainly not because he doesn't care about VORP. There are thousands of people who care about VORP who combined won't make his contribution to the appreciation of the game.

Is there a new definition of "hack" that I'm not aware of?

I'd guess Chass simply means what he says, and there's some truth to it. I happen to get a lot out of VORP and similar statistics, but anything that leads you towards abstraction and away from the concrete and particular is certainly open to the charge of leading him away from the point of the game.

I'm sure that in forty years everyone here will be grousing about how the kids are missing the point of the game with all their virtual-reality helmets and nanocameras that allow them to watch the game through the umpire's eyes in real time.

Anyway, he really doesn't deserve to be called a hack, and certainly not because he doesn't care about VORP. There are thousands of people who care about VORP who combined won't make his contribution to the appreciation of the game.

But he certainly deserves to be called anti-intellectual, which is mostly what people are hitting on here. And anti-intellectualism is certainly one of the lower quality of human behaviors.

Mnookin's take.....

But if it was my job to watch baseball games and then inform the public about these very same games, I’d sure as #### make sure I knew everything I could about the sport, regardless of what language I used to write about what was taking place on the field. And anyone who thinks that being better informed makes for a less enjoyable day at the ballpark clearly hasn’t ever watched a game with Bill James.

Anyway, he really doesn't deserve to be called a hack, and certainly not because he doesn't care about VORP. There are thousands of people who care about VORP who combined won't make his contribution to the appreciation of the game.

I have nothing personally against Mr. Chase. However, I don't think that it is fair to make the argument that someone is immune from criticism now because he or she has done something of importance in the past. This is particularly true on a professional level.

For example, I'm a software engineer and I have a particular interest in computer graphics. I have a good grasp of both fundamental and advanced techniques in computer graphics today. If in thirty years I am still using the same techniques I use today, there is no doubt that my work will be abysmally sub-par and that I will be at best a "hack."

The problem here isn't that Mr. Chase may have done excellent work in the past. The problem is that since the 1970's and the 2000's the entire world has undergone an information revolution that Mr. Chase is apparently unwilling to keep up with. He is hardly alone in this respect.

I'm not saying that VORP or any other current form of statistical analysis is perfect. I believe it should supplement an informed view of baseball, not supplant it. Even if Mr. Chase believes it to be useless, it would still be his job to understand why such a useless metric is being touted as important and to explain to his readership why it is useless. That he instead resorts to irrational, lazy arguments is an indictment of his performance as a journalist.

Ironically, this same argument (so-and-so was great in the past, you owe them something now) is used all the time in baseball to justify keeping around a former great player who is past his prime (see: Williams, Bernie). I doesn't make sense in baseball. I don't think it makes sense in journalism either. You don't get extra credit for past performance when evaluating current performance.

Of course, heavy-duty number crunching certainly is not the only way to "make sure I know everything I could about the sport." Chass doesn't have to understand, like, or care about VORP to be in a position to inform the public about major league baseball. And it's pretty damned arrogant to suggest that he does. I'd just like to know why he thinks it threatens anything.

I have nothing personally against Mr. Chase.

Then why can't you get his name right?

I'd guess Chass simply means what he says, and there's some truth to it. I happen to get a lot out of VORP and similar statistics, but anything that leads you towards abstraction and away from the concrete and particular is certainly open to the charge of leading him away from the point of the game.

Nonsense. The players are still out there, playing the game. The championship isn't decided by which team compiles the most Win Shares. Chass is completely free to ignore composite stats or criticise them as he wishes, but to charge them with ruining the game for everyone else is ridiculous.

I'm sure that in forty years everyone here will be grousing about how the kids are missing the point of the game with all their virtual-reality helmets and nanocameras that allow them to watch the game through the umpire's eyes in real time.

As long as the game itself hasn't fundamentally changed, we'd be wrong to do that.

Ironically, this same argument (so-and-so was great in the past, you owe them something now) is used all the time in baseball to justify keeping around a former great player who is past his prime (see: Williams, Bernie).

Funny, in this very article Chass says that Williams should move on or retire.

I'd guess Chass simply means what he says, and there's some truth to it. I happen to get a lot out of VORP and similar statistics, but anything that leads you towards abstraction and away from the concrete and particular is certainly open to the charge of leading him away from the point of the game.

Then his entire career is worthless, as focusing on the business side leads you towards abstraction away from the game itself.

Don't give me this fancy "balance sheet", "free agency", "arbitration" and whatnot! Does that help you in the pivot? NO!

I have nothing personally against Mr. Chase.

Then why can't you get his name right?

Wow. My apologies to Mr. Chass. I don't know how that got stuck in my head.

<Opens Mouth. Inserts foot.>

I don't think that's really not true, Ignoratio. The statistics, as advanced as they get, are something to know about the sport, and therefore they are part of the only way to know everything about it. Knowing what great hitters think about when to break your wrists, knowing how to throw a screwball, and the like are also part of the only way to know everything about it. That's what "everything" is all about, and someone whose job is to write columns about baseball is not doing his job adequately unless he makes his best effort to know everything about it. The great leap forward that sabermetrics has taken in the aughts has been that realization, from the other direction. It's hilarious to read some of BPro's stuff from eight years ago, but they've learned. Chass wants to go on writing the same columns he wrote in the '70s, and that is completely inadequate.

My reply to Chass:

---

Re: "...But their attempt to introduce these new-age statistics into the game threatens to undermine most fans’ enjoyment of baseball and the human factor therein."

Wow. I had no idea that we stats-crazy fans had SO MUCH POWER!

Let's see. What would "most fans" be? You must have access to the number of people who came to a game last year; it's at least 30-35 million, right? Plus all of the people who watch games on TV, and the people who go to minor league games, and whose kids play little league, and so on. Let's say that there's, oh, conservatively 40 million baseball fans in the country. Seems a bit low, but hey. We don't want to get too caught up in numbers. Matter of fact, let's not use any. Since numbers don't go to games, fans do, right? Let's just say that it's a lot. More than the number of donuts a sportswriter can eat during a game.

Then, the thought that we can, for a majority (oops! that's a statistic! can't use that -- statistics don't get manipulated by dastardly geeks, people do!) for some number of them, written articles and the people who talk about them, can "undermine their enjoyment of baseball."

I had no idea. I really thought that "the enjoyment of baseball" was pretty tough. It is for me. I've sat through a lot of rainy dark cold night games at Yankee Stadium with a lot of other people who were enjoying themselves just fine. And we had to ride a crowded subway to get there in the first place, and drink watery beer once we got there!

I never realized though, that I had the power to empty those seats next to me. I should have methodically proceeded down the baselines, discussing VORP with each person in a better seat than mine, until they lost their enjoyment of the game and abandoned the park. I could have wound up sitting right behind home plate!

Mr. Chass, you are a sociologist with rare insight indeed. Thank you so much for enlightening me to this marvelous phenomenon. May I suggest that you pass this along to Mr. Selig? I'm sure he would want to take immediate action to protect the fragile flower that is the enjoyment of baseball.

Yrs,

Roger Devine

P.S. Thanks also for letting the rest of the world know that we shouldn't be talking about Bernie or Schilling or the rest. I'll report any violators to you directly for discipline.

Still don't care for Mnookin's hatchet attacks, but I'm not giving Chass a pass because he once did good work.

VORP is beside the point -- Chass' current attitude and performance is lacking.

Is there a new definition of "hack" that I'm not aware of?

Possibly. "Hack" seems to mean whatever the writer of the word wants it to mean. If I had my way, it would just mean someone who writes only for the money, i.e., not in sincere self-expression. To lots of folks, "hack" is synonymous with "bad writer," and I don't think that's a proper use of the word, but that battle might be lost.

Chass doesn't have to understand, like, or care about VORP to be in a position to inform the public about major league baseball.

I agree completely with the above. Still, it's different to look at baseball a different way than it is to totally discount the value of someone else's approach without at least a cursory attempt to understand it. Or to say it undermines enjoyment of the game? That's outrageous.

I would never say that Chass should be judged on the basis of work he did when he was younger. What I am saying is that Chass is on the side of the angels. He's not trying to undo the Enlightenment and I see no signs that he's threatened by the modern world. He just seems to find Baseball Prospectus statistics annoying and thinks they diminish rather than increase the amount of joy in the world. I disagree, but just hope that people would put his point in perspective relative to his enormous contributions to the game and to the fact that VORP and similar statistics are hardly beyond various sorts of criticism—some of the smartest of which are to be found on sites like this one.

*I am just using McEwing as an example of a guy who was way overrated by these writers who love small ball-type players. I have not actually looked at McEwing's numbers, so he may, in fact, have been somewhat more valuable that a replacement level player.

He was just about replacement level as a regular with STL in 1999.
He had a fluke 319 PAs as a Met in 2001 where he was actually pretty good.

other than those two years he's been comfortably below replacement level as a hitter (even using BPro's ludicrously too low replacement level)
Defensively? To my eyes he was no better than OK (I don't know what the advanced metrics say)-

I always thought the sportwriters blather about him was absurd. Too me, he looked like he was trying hard- but was too overmatched for his apparent effort to make a difference. Half the guys in AA and AAA if given the chance would probably leave the same impression.

VORP and similar statistics are hardly beyond various sorts of criticism—some of the smartest of which are to be found on sites like this one.

Of course not.

I wouldn't have blamed him if he never mentioned stats in his articles, completely ignoring statistical work.

I wouldn't have blamed him if he came up with cogent criticisms of those stats on their own merits.

I blame him because he wants them to go away, saying that they're bad for baseball. And not just those particular stats, but any stat that he doesn't want to bother with. It's not enough for him to ignore them - he wants them to be obliterated, perhaps for the good of the children, or something.

For saying that, he deserves to be lambasted.

...therefore they are part of the only way to know everything about it...

I do not accept the premise that it is a baseball writer's job to know *everything* about the sport. Nor do I accept the premise that knowing *everything* about baseball is a prerequisite for being able to inform the public about baseball. If that's the standard, then who actually is up to standard? Certainly not any of us, and certainly not Seth Mnookin.

Still, it's different to look at baseball a different way than it is to totally discount the value of someone else's approach without at least a cursory attempt to understand it. Or to say it undermines enjoyment of the game? That's outrageous.

Now it's my turn to agree with the above. That's the point I was trying to make. If you don't like someone else's approach to the game, fine. You can disregard it without attacking it.

I guess I should also add that if Chass or any other "mainstream" writer really did think that VORP needs to be debunked before it ruins the game for all of our children, *the* it would be incumbent on him to thoroughly understand it so that he could write a coherent and logical critique.

And I just saw that JRE basically already wrote exactly that, but I'm gonna hit submit anyway.

*theN*

sheesh

I read that silly Chass column early this morning, and going through this thread reminds me of just how uncommon it is to find good mainstream writers with a solid grounding in baseball history / anecdote and an appreciation of serious statistical analysis. The first three names that pop into my head are James, Neyer, and the late Leonard Koppett, who sadly seems to be somewhat forgotten by both the mainstream and the general run of Primates. I'm sure that others here could name many beyond these three, but in any case they're far too rare a breed. I'm afraid that Chass is far more representative of what sports editors want to publish.

I read that silly Chass column early this morning, and going through this thread reminds me of just how uncommon it is to find good mainstream writers with a solid grounding in baseball history / anecdote and an appreciation of serious statistical analysis. The first three names that pop into my head are James, Neyer, and the late Leonard Koppett, who sadly seems to be somewhat forgotten by both the mainstream and the general run of Primates. I'm sure that others here could name many beyond these three, but in any case they're far too rare a breed. I'm afraid that Chass is far more representative of what sports editors want to publish.

Well said. I'd add Roger Angell to the short list.

Sorry if this gets double posted ....

I don't know that I'd add Angell to that list. I love his work, but it seems to me that his brilliant writing is proof that you can illuminate, enlighten, and enliven a baseball discussion without an understanding or appreciation for "serious statistical analysis."

One who once could be included was Tom Boswell. His work during the Earl Weaver years combined the ability to spin a yarn together with moderately serious attention to statistical information (e.g. his quasi-invention of TA) was quite a read. I think he is far from his once wonderful peak, but still has an occasional column that brings some of that back.

One who may reach this group is (sorry about spelling) Joe Posnaski in Kansas City. I'm looking forward to his Buck O'Neil book and he more than occasionally sprinkles his columns with statistical analysis.

I read that silly Chass column early this morning, and going through this thread reminds me of just how uncommon it is to find good mainstream writers with a solid grounding in baseball history / anecdote and an appreciation of serious statistical analysis. The first three names that pop into my head are James, Neyer, and the late Leonard Koppett

Don't forget Tim Marchman, even if he does defend that nazi child molestor Murray Chass.

Well said. I'd add Roger Angell to the short list.

Angell's one of my three favorite writers along with James and Koppett, but although he certainly doesn't show any hostility to statistics, I don't recall reading much by him where he focused on them. When I think of Angell, I think of the best stylist of them all, and I picture the perfect person to be sitting next to in the ball park during a 10 to 2 blowout, comparing the way Joe Gordon and Bill Mazeroski turned the DP, and relating countless telling anecdotes about Casey and Charlie O. I just don't associate him at all with statistics.

Murray Chass: Newfangled Statistics :: Social Conservatives: Gay Marriage

Art Martone, when he writes (now too infrequently), writes well.

One who once could be included was Tom Boswell.

If you'd written that 25 years ago, I would've not only agreed, I would have thought of his name the first time around. But man, has he ever slipped since then, and it all began when he took himself off the O's game beat and started fancying himself a philosopher. The difference between Boswell and the other four (including Angell for now) is that with them, there always seems to be an insatiable curiosity about what others have to say about baseball, whereas with Boswell, even when he's quoting others it always seems to be in order to reinforce his previously held opinions. It's not that he's still not capable of bringing it up once in a while, it's just that he should have stuck to reporting. He's gotten old before his time ("Who is Oscar Charleston?"), and you could never say that about Angell, Koppett or James. Neyer's still young.

Don't forget Tim Marchman, even if he does defend that nazi child molestor Murray Chass.

Marchman is good, but being still mostly a print addict, and not an NY Sun reader, I haven't read enough of him to put him up there quite yet. But I wouldn't really argue against him, either. Nor against our Pinstriped Yankee friend Mr. Goldman, even though he flies off the deep end once in a while.

One who once could be included was Tom Boswell.

I should have acknowledged that you used the past tense there, and that you really pre-empted my comment about him.

Being willing and trying to learn everything is his job, not knowing everything. The latter is probably impossible, since there's a new thing to know far too frequently for anyone to keep up with.

But of course, that's not really his job anyway, and I know that. His job is to write a column, which doesn't have to be based on or informed by anything as long as his bossess think its good enough that they don't fire him. If they think a column about horseshit is good enough, and he writes one, well then, there we go. What I really meant was duty. He would tell me, of course, based on many things, that I have no idea what duty is.

Posnanski's getting there.

The first three names that pop into my head are James, Neyer, and the late Leonard Koppett, who sadly seems to be somewhat forgotten by both the mainstream and the general run of Primates.

I actually just started reading The Thinking Fan's Guide to Baseball for the first time. I only got two chapters in, though, and they were a struggle; the book is almost too influential, as outside of a few anecdotes and quotes I haven't read anything I haven't encountered before.

So I set it aside and am now reading a book by ... Rob Neyer.

I would also like to take this time to endorse Andy's comments on Roger Angell. He doesn't address statistics, generally, but is an enlightening and wonderful writer. I picked up on of his old anthologies about a year or so ago and was blown away.

Being willing and trying to learn everything is his job...

Well, I'm not sure I accept that premise either, but more importantly that's not what you said. It's not what Mnookin said either. Like it or not, there are people who have access to players and coaches and managers and GMs and owners that we don't. Those people are called mainstream sportswriters, and that access puts them in a position to inform their readers about the game, even if they fall woefully short of anything remotely approaching perfect understanding, and even if they don't try to achieve greater understanding.

I don't think that Buster Olney is particularly knowledgeable or insightful about baseball. But he gets to talk to Brian Cashman and I don't. For that reason, I'll skim his columns.

So Andy, despite appearances, you completely agreed with me but wanted say it more clearly, right? Just trying to draw the distinction between the soaring prose of Angell and the plodding pontificating of my style ... (insert smiley thingie)

About Angell - he is quite old now, but reading his New Yorker pieces, I still get the feeling that he enjoys each game. Going to a ballgame and writing about the experience has never been just a job to get through the day, but a pleasant diversion day after day. I get the feeling that he would enjoy sitting down with us and discussing the brilliance and brevity of Pedro Martinez and Sandy Koufax, the quiet confidence of Pee Wee Reese and Derek Jeter, the aggression of Roger Clemens and Bob Gibson, or the massive girth of David Wells and Mickey Lolich. Ye ol' days - to Angell - weren't better or worse, just different and help to illuminate what happens today. For those who haven't read it, make a point to find Web of the Game, a story about watching a College World Series game matching Ron Darling and Frank Viola while in the company of octogenerian Smokey Joe Wood. Best single story about baseball ever and doesn't involve statistics any deeper than wins, losses, ERA, and strikeouts.

The column begins:

"Things I don’t want to read or hear about anymore:"

I agree with him on most of the things there:

Roger Clemens and his Hamlet Act.
"Poor Bernie Williams" statements
Guys like Schill and Mario noting they will be free agents next year
The A-Rod/Jeter Soap Opera

Of course, all of this raises the question: If he does not want to read about them anymore, why would he assume that anyone else would want to read about him writing about them?

And the Anti-VORP screed is just so strange and over-the-top -- "threatens to undermine most fans’ enjoyment of baseball"?? -- one is tempted to drop him a line and ask if he remembered to take his medication today.

In any event, after they tuck him in for the night, somebody should tell Mr. Chass that "most fans" will never run across "VORP"; that many of those who do will see it in some mainstream publication like SI or ESPN Not The TV Show Or The Radio Show But The Stapled Together Pieces Of Semi-Slick Paper, and will probably skip over it just as quickly; and that the remaining small minority will see it because they are hard-core baseball fans who sought it out to INCREASE their enjoyment of the game. So rest assured, Murray: VORP will not destroy baseball. And remember to ring the buzzer if you need a fresh bedpan during the night.

The fans enjoy hating Pat Burrell and Adam Dunn so much that it's really lousy to take that away fom them. And how dare it not be true that David Eckstein is the reason the Cardinals won the World Series.

Me, I've been much happier as a fan since I've known which teams were going to contend even though everyone thought they wouldn't and which teams wouldn't even though everyone thought they would. I've been happier since I've known better than to hang my hat on a player who had a fluke season only to be disappointed. I've been happier since I've known which old veterans were washed up and which just got unlucky. This is the time of year at which I'm mot happy to modern analytical tools.

I'm mot happy to modern analytical tools.

I will never understand street slang.

I don't know that I'd add Angell to that list. I love his work, but it seems to me that his brilliant writing is proof that you can illuminate, enlighten, and enliven a baseball discussion without an understanding or appreciation for "serious statistical analysis."

Angell's writing never delves into statistical analysis, but he has no phobia or antipathy toward the subject whatsoever, indeed he respects it and has indicated growing awareness and understanding of it over the years. Indeed it was none other than Angell who introduced the young unknown Bill James to a national audience, in his profile of James in a late 1970s New Yorker piece

I agree with Tim Marchman. Maybe Chass is being a bit cranky but killing him for being anti-SABR is just as wrong as him killing the SABR-ites. I mean, who are we to tell him how and what he needs to enjoy baseball? I think he's already figured that out for himself. And whatever value VORP has, it is NOT something you can figure out in your head by perusing raw statistics, like you can for BA, OBP and SLG%.

I would also like to point out that it was Murray Chass who broke the story about the Yankees removing the steroids clause in Giambi's contract. So at least he's still able to stay on top of things in that area, a place where most of the baseball media has failed miserably.

Everyone forgot about Gammons. He's very much up-to-date on the latest statistics.

I agree with Tim Marchman. Maybe Chass is being a bit cranky but killing him for being anti-SABR is just as wrong as him killing the SABR-ites. I mean, who are we to tell him how and what he needs to enjoy baseball?

Nobody's telling him that. He's telling us what we need to enjoy baseball. That's the problem.

He's telling us what we need to enjoy baseball. That's the problem.

More than that, he is suggesting that the SDCN's and their acronyms are somehow ruining the game for everyone else -- as if anyone else was even paying attention.

As I have mentioned before, I work in a place with a lot of what many would likely label "casual fans." They know spring training starts this week; they root for the Padres. They watch games on TV sometimes; they go to PETCO 2-3 times a year. One of them is a pretty intense fan, actually--a guy in his 60s.

I just asked 5 of them what VORP is right before people satrted leaving the school, and none had heard of it. Only one--the older man--had heard of BPro but had never read it and wasn't sure what it was.

"Small sample size," but I think it does reinforce what Srul says.

spring training games, I should say, although for a lot of folks that's the same thing.

*Lops off the heads of all non-believers with his VORPal Sword +4*

Interesting column by Ken Davidoff in today's Newsday - not so much in what it says, but in the fact that he throws out the Mets 2006 pythagorean record and (drum roll please) compares Moises Alou's VORP in 2006 to Cliff Floyds's. For a columnist who doesn't have much of a sabermetric inclination, I can't help but think this was a bit of a wink and a nod to those of us who were upset by Chass's column.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/ny-spken0228,0,3900085.column?coll=ny-sports-headlines

I think Murray Chass's columns should be off limits as well this year. I wish the NYTimes would put his writing behind their Iron Curtain so I won't be clicking on Chass's columns by accident.

The NYTimes baseball coverage is so pathetically lame. It mostly consists of alternating between eulogizing the glory of the Red Sox and pondering petty silly things in the Yankee clubhouse.

The NYTimes has it virtues as a journalistic enterprise, but man, their baseball section makes Judith Miller seem like a truly competent journalist. Oh, and who the hell is Murray Chass?

Just to add: I've been reading the NYTimes for a long time, and the ONLY time I learned something (anything) meaningful about baseball, I read it in some of Alan Schwarz's columns. So I'd like to exclude him from my general criticism of the NY Times baseball section.

Oh, and what's more likely to happen: Chass understands VORP or Judith Miller discovers WMDs?