(And as quickly as the stats world evolves, there’s likely to be such a formula on the Web by the time you finish reading this.)

I really do enjoy when mainstream baseball managers adopt sabermetric principles. I just wish they didn't have to act like J. Jonah Jameson in the process.

I guess I should blame the Topkin rather than Maddon.

Specifically, Maddon is interested in keeping better records of plays that should be made and are not, a broadening of the current range-factor ratings.

I know zone rating isn't perfect, but it does exist....

Paging a Mr. John Dewan...John Dewan to the Tampa Bay dugout, please.

Does that mean Mr2bits wants the Jameson act confined to those here who do it best?

(And as quickly as the stats world evolves, there’s likely to be such a formula on the Web by the time you finish reading this.)

Even if the writer doesn't need to know about UZR or that type of stat, he shouldn't assume that those stats don't already exist. Like nobody has had the same ideas as Maddon before?

Onion: Pirates manager calls for stat to measure amount of balls hit over the wall.

Onion: Pirates manager calls for stat to measure amount of balls hit over the wall.

24-26, #######. Nate will lead us to the .500-land.

Instead of being encouraged by an excellent manager's interest in developing more advanced stats and a mainstream reporter's honest and positive reporting of it, we get a stupid, supercilious, contemptuous and contemptible mockery of it. Rarely do I sympathize with the Neanderthal critics of sabermetrics, but reading this kind of self-satisfied, sophomoric drivel helps one understand why they get so angry.

Oh lighten up. It's hardly a big deal. Just funny that a writer thinks something is revolutionary when it was first thought up probably 100 years ago.

#### sakes. One wonders how you can even get by in life when you get so bent out of shape about something like that. Lighten up.

Unless you are Topkin. Then maybe your post makes sense. If you are Topkin: Might wanna do a google search next time before you write something like: "there’s likely to be such a formula on the Web by the time you finish reading this." ;-)

Javy Lopez's backups during the Maddux era would probably be competitive in a +/- stat.

Maddon Calls for Robomatronic Currency Dispensary Service

The benefits of hard currency were obvious Saturday, as Tampa Bay Ray manager Joe Maddon exchanged 15 paper representations of the American dollar, a popular variety of fiat currency, for various goods and services, including a fizzy bromide, a gratuity to his stagecoach driver, and a pamphlet extolling the virtues of Mitt Romney.

That got manager Joe Maddon talking the other day about how the United States banking system needs a way to better supply Gentlemen moneys that can be needed at any time.

"I don't think that the men of science are adequately serving us. We live in a time of wonder, with manu-factured steel, children that are more like to live to 15 than not, and Chinamen that can be trained to assemble rails," Maddon said.

Money is easy to track. Maddon suggests a more orderly way for a Gentleman to acquire the needed funds, perhaps a special key that cranks a gear and sends a telegraph to a son of Abraham, who then telegraphs the required information back to some sort of mechanical man, who can then disperse the moneys.

That idea is interesting enough and something that could be done anecdotally. But Maddon envisions more, a system of commerce and travel that could revolutionize the 21st century, from a rail-less coach, powered by coal and children's tears to an apparatus that teaches women to be smart enough to vote.

THat was hilaripus, Dan. Particularly the "Chinamen that can be trained to assemble rails".

I see. So a bunch of juveniles who have no conception of what a reporter's job is but feel competent to mock anyway because they think their approach to the game is the only proper one and they are "in" can come across like jerks. But if someone else names their smug self-assurance for what it is he should lighten up.

It's not funny. It's stupid snobbery. And it sets back the cause of advanced thinking by alienating people who are put off by such attitudes. It's one thing when Conlin or Plaschke or Mariotti writes the kind of nonsense that is properly a subject for mockery. But it is quite different when aimed at someone who demonstrates a progressive view but does not seem, and I stress "seem", as well-informed as the amateur experts. And, by the way, the story is quite correct in that while there are many efforts to do exactly what Maddon asks for, they are still in relative infancy and not yet reliable.

Because we are clearly just joking around. Get a ####ing grip. Are you this uptight in "real life" too?

The only person in this entire thread to come across as a jerk is you. Uh, and me I guess. Everyone else is just having some light hearted fun. Not sure why that is so hard to grasp.

I don't even see the negativity that you are talking about. I mean for Christ sakes: "it sets back the cause of advanced thinking." Are you for real? Joking around sets back thinking? This is insane. It's fine if it's not your sense of humor, but acting like it is anything but light-hearted ribbing is just absurd. I mean Jesus.

Buddalay, well said, well said. The negative reaction to almost every article posted here--make that every article not written by Posnanski--is becoming very tiresome. If a writer or manager hasn't adopted Sabermetrics hook, line, and sinker, and hasn't learned the entire breadth of the history of Sabermetics, he is mocked and ridiculed. And then we wonder why so many people in baseball look at those who are Sabermetricians with somewhat of a crooked expression.

"Get a ####ing grip. Are you this uptight in "real life" too?"

Buddaley's Wife was quoted on this subject:

Some people do think my husband is uptight. I'm not sure. He did sew his buttcheeks together and passes waste out of that tube, so I guess that counts as uptight. He also went through all of our daughter's G-rated videos and cut out all the words that rhyme with curse words, so I guess that's uptight. And when we went to see Bob Newhart's act in Chicago, Buddaley did walk out when he felt Bob's carrying on a two-way conversation over an imaginary telephone was rude and immoral. So yes, I can see how you think my husband is uptight. On the other hand, you should see him wear my panties...

... hasn't learned the entire breadth of the history of Sabermetics, he is mocked and ridiculed

I am shaking my head.

The guy wrote an article espousing the idea that Stat-heads are using Range Factor, when nobody has cared about Range Factor for 20 years, and he's getting some ribbing for it, and somehow that is the cause of humanity's downfall.

Holy hell people. Maybe if the author didn't want to be "mocked," he could have done 10 seconds of research.

Has the bar really been set so low that any article that is better than Mariotti's dreck should be protected from any kind of criticism, playful or serious?

I don't want to get in on either side of this argument, and this is not aimed at people who are just joshing, but I wanted to note that the writer did not say that statheads use range factor. He didn't mention or refer to statheads at all, and what he did write was that Maddon was not interested in just a "broadening of the current range-factor ratings." Note that zone rating, etc. are all "range-factor ratings" - they are more or less attempts to measure a player's range. What Maddon is suggest clearly goes beyond statistics that attempt to measure defensive range. There are, of course, a few stats that have come along in the last few years that have begun to do that, but we don't yet have the technology - or at least we haven't yet applied the technology - to go where Maddon wants to go

Buddalay, well said, well said. The negative reaction to almost every article posted here--make that every article not written by Posnanski--is becoming very tiresome.

So's your act, guy. You can remedy both pretty easily.

Fair enough, rdfc.

I've often thought about the idea of putting microchips in players shoes. Sounds ridiculous, but it would be the easiest way (I think) to monitor how far the players (particularly OFers) move and account for positioning in a way that ZR does not.

And just how would like me to remedy "my act?" Do tell, do tell. And while you're at it, why don't you tell me your real name and stop hiding behind a pseudonym that isn't funny or interesting? Let's remedy that situation by admitting who you really are. Then perhaps we can deal with each other face to face.

Now that is the funniest thing posted in this thread.

Shock, you're a buffoon. Uptight has nothing to do with being dismayed at the sophomoric junk in this thread. I know you're simply lashing out because you're bummed that your wittiness in this thread did not receive a Primey nomination, but cool it.

I don't know what a Primey nomination is, but I don't see what about finding post 9 to be just a little bit over the top makes me a "buffoon."

Buddalay was apparently so offended by the joking in this thread that he had to dust off his thesaurus. I think that qualifies as uptight. Alright though, I'll back off.

Primey for #22

Guys, can't we all get along and be friends?

What the world needs now is love,
Sweet love
It's the only thing
That there's just too little of
What the world needs now
Is love, sweet love
No, not just for some,
But for everyone

Smart satire picks its targets intelligently. When it is simply the style no matter what the issue, it is boring and stupid. It is essentially like 12 year olds who are just becoming aware of irony and so their entire conversation is an attempt to appear sophisticated by making fun of everything.

This has nothing to do with research. It is a reporter filing a story about a manager who is interested in more than the customary ways to evaluate players. It isn't a column or opinion piece. And he is writing for a general audience.

I have no objection to 12 year olds having light-hearted fun; that is what is expected at that age. I do object when they invade adult sites and degrade the discourse.

As for "setting back the cause of advanced thinking", that is exactly what this kind of rhetoric does. It alienates people who are groping toward new ways of thinking by making fun of their relative ignorance. Rather than welcoming even small steps forward, it focuses on the gap between the fully initiated and the tyros. Of course, I do not intend to exaggerate that point, but to the extent that the kidding appears self-important and dismissive it is a foolish style.

But the substance of my criticism is that the so-called kidding reflects smug self-assurance. You are not engaging anyone in substantive discussion. You are not embracing someone who clearly is sympathetic to your approach. You are instead establishing an in-group, out-group dichotomy. Instead of saving your wit for proper targets, you dissipate its effect by randomly flailing at anyone who has not fully joined your sect.

Don't really want to get in the middle of anything here, because it is encouraging to see both a major league manager and a mainstream journalist report positively on new statistics. It's just that this article would have been more fitting five years ago. Topkin doesn't mention the existence of any sort of fielding metric like this, or overall metrics that combine hitting and fielding like WARP or Win Shares. That in itself isn't so much a problem, but his reference to the web makes it seem like he isn't aware of any, as opposed to not mentioning any. That gives the impression of a poorly researched article, lacking in due diligence.

Leaving aside the question of whether Maddon knows about the various measurements for fielding or not, it is pretty neat that a field-level guy on the inside of baseball would be thinking of a technological solution.

And come on, +/- is the most ridiculous stat in hockey, if not all sports. He missed a golden opportunity to point that out.

The thing is, nobody in this thread is talking to Marc Topkin or Joe Maddon. We are talking to one another. We are joking about a guy who said something that, let's be honest, sounds fairly ridiculous and belies the current status of statistical evaluations of defense. Nobody is insulting the man, as far as I can tell.

Were I to talk to Mr. Topkin directly, I would obviously say different things. I would link to some articles that I think he would find interesting, and attempt to "bring him up to speed."

As it stands, I have no reason to think that either Maddon or Topkin is reading this thread, and as such, posting these links is pretty useless as virtually everyone here is already aware of them. So, instead, I make a light-hearted joke about Topkin's article. I never in a million years thought that making fun of an article was going to be such a serious setback for sabrmetrics!

Finally, I disagree with you that it has nothing to do with research. I am not a journalist myself, but I would think that if I were to write an article about the prospects of measuring defense statistically, I would at least want to spend SOME time trying to determine the current status of such technology. I don't expect the man to know the ins and outs of UZR, but surely 10 minutes of Googling around would have made him aware of Zone Rating, and not mentioning that in his article makes him look silly.

You are instead establishing an in-group, out-group dichotomy.

At Primer? No way! You mean it might just be the same 12 flavors of thread with the same canned reactions over and over? Can't be.

Hang on, I gotta get over to the latest Repoz-posted Christian bashing thread...

Topkin doesn't mention the existence of any sort of fielding metric like this, or overall metrics that combine hitting and fielding like WARP or Win Shares.

Actually, are there any "overall metrics" that actually use a "fielding metric like this"? Neither WARP nor Win Shares use play-by-play data for calculating their fielding metrics. I know MGL's super-LWTS uses UZR, but that hasn't been publicly available for several years now. Is the author here really that wrong? Quick - how many runs was B.J. Upton's season worth in 2007? How easy was that to find via Google?

Yes, my first Primey!

What I find interesting is aren't there some teams doing some pretty sophisticated in-house evaluations of defense? Could be an employment opportunity for some enterprising researcher who hasn't been picked up by a major league team.

I know MGL's super-LWTS uses UZR, but that hasn't been publicly available for several years now.

This isn't quite true. While it is admittedly not that easy to find, MGL has published UZR and SLWTS data for 2003-2007. I think it's on Tango's site or on the Book Blog somewhere.

Still, good point.

I have to agree with Buddaley and Markusen here. Christ, it's like whenever an Onion article is posted here inevitably the third comment or so is "The Onion stopped being funny in about 1999" (and I know I'm not the first to comment on that).

A manager takes an interest in sabermetrics - why the hell should this site of all places mock him?

I don't think anyone is mocking Maddon, #36; being a manager is a job which keeps him busy all day every day and leaves little time for him to read news from around the league, read sabermetrics, and catch up on whatever the folks on BTF are slinging mud about today.

The person being mocked is Topkin, maybe fairly, maybe not. Topkin's job as a sportswriter is to write informed sports news that tells us more than we can find out in the boxscore. On the one hand, he should be aware of a reasonable amount of sabermetrics because of its growing popularity, but in my mind that means understanding why OBP is important and maybe how DIPs works and that players peak at ages 27-30. Expecting him to be intimately familiar with the Fielding Bible, WXRL, EqA and the like is probably asking a little much. Sportswriters make decent but not great money, and if you have writing acumen and a degree (which most local sportswriters do) and strong math skills (which a good number don't), chances are you've got a wide range of job possibilities that may pay better than being a local sportswriter.

If every local sportswriter in the country were good enough with the math/logic/stats etc to be able to fully understand the value of the better works of sabermetrics, we'd be short a lot of doctors, lawyers and engineers. Well, maybe some of you would rather see fewer lawyers, but that's beside the point. Making fun of Topkin because he's not fully sabermetrically informed is a bit silly in that light.

Can we get a reliable +/- rating for Primeys, Primey nominations, and failed attempts?

Topkin does come off as being perhaps a bit naive. But at least he is INTERESTED in the idea of expanding baseball knowledge.

Compare that with writers like Bruce Jenkins whose modus operandi is to form an opinion and then mock anybody who might try to disagree....

36. The Most Interesting Man In The World Posted: May 26, 2008 at 12:19 AM

He doesn't drink beer often, but when he does, he prefers Dos Equis.

I have to agree with buddaley [Hey! We Dal(e)ys have to stick together], Bruce Markusen, and The Most Interesting Man In The World. This whole thread reminds me of an old Emo Philips routine:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?" He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.

#37 - mr. man:

I don't think anyone is mocking Maddon, #36

Let me reintroduce you to #9:

Onion: Pirates manager calls for stat to measure amount of balls hit over the wall.

I agree with those who say that the reflexive "let's try to find an angle to snark about" attitude at BTF is wearying, and ultimately suggestive of a lack of imagination/thoughtfulness on the part of posters like Shock. A little snarkiness is welcome, as always, but a little goes a long way.

Besides, the current defensive metrics are mostly crap, anyway.

Yeesh.

Alright, it was a dumb joke. I will retract it if it will make you guys feel better.

Ye gads, you'd think I ran over Maddon in the street or something.

I am sorry for making fun of Joe Maddon.

My sincerest aplogies to all whom I have offended today with my lame attempt at humor, especially Mr. Daley. I will think twice next time before I post a joke. I never in a million years thought that my little one-liner would entice such a shitstorm;. I am so very, very sorry.

I am with Daley on this one. There is way too much sanctimonious hand wringing from the stats community whenever someone in baseball says a thing about stats that is but a hair out of place.

But forget that for a moment and consider one of Maddon's points. The GPS idea, while not clearly articulated, would be a metric that no current stat exists for. There will come a time where through "GPS" or whatever, we will know how many feet a centerfielder ran to catch a baseball or how fast a grounder was moving towards a SS and how far that SS needed to run and how quickly to make the play. There is not a single metric now that includes this level of detail.

I nearly laughed when "WIN SHARES" was linked. Maddon's point he was making regarding "GPS" makes win shares look like the back of a 52 Topps baseball card.

Shock -

I will think twice next time before I post a joke.

Exactly right. If your first reaction is to rush into a thread with "snappy one-liners," then sit on your darn hands until you can think of something constructive, non-nitpicky, and non-douchey to contribute. Because 99.9% of the so-called "jokes" people make on BTF - yours and mine included - are absolutely unamusing. The "criticism" is often even worse; as BeanoCook pointed out, you were so eager to attacksnarksmirk that you didn't even realize that the concept Maddon and Topkin were talking about was lightyears beyond any metric, defensive or otherwise, yet in use. People around here are sometimes so auto-primed to criticize that they end up making clowns of themselves and revealing that they didn't actually RTFA carefully instead.

"Yello."

"Joe Maddon please."

"Speaking."

"Hi Mr. Maddon, this is Myron from the computing and stats department."

"Who?"

"Myron, from computing and stats."

"Oh, I think you want John Madden. I hear he has some video game. Don't worry, happens all the time."

"No, I want Joe Maddon, manager of the Rays."

"That's me."

"Well, like I said, I'm Myron from the computing and stats department ... of the Rays."

"Are you that chubby kid with the thick glasses and the pocket protector who's always hanging out in the basement eating Doritos and drinking Mountain Dew?"

"Well, I'm 28 years old not a kid but yeah, that's me."

"We got a computing and stats section? Who knew? What can I do for ya?"

"I saw this article where you said you thought maybe there should be some stat about the value of defense, that looks at plays made and not made."

"Yeah, that would be neat."

"Have you ever wondered what the columns headed 'defensive +/-' and 'defensive runs' on the daily stat sheet mean?"

-----------------

sorry, apparently nobody had made fun of Maddon yet.

Any major-league team that doesn't have PBP defensive stats (or something better!) at their fingertips by now (at least from the last few years) is pathetic. Any manager who doesn't know his team has these statistics is ...

I think some people here, journalists or not, should do a bit of research. The Rays are one of the most tightly knit organizations in baseball, one in which everyone from owner through field manager is in constant communication. And secondly, it is also among the more progressive groups having hired a number of BP contributors like James Click and quite a few others to prominent positions in the organization. It is inconceivable that Maddon does not know about sabermetric principles, an issue that he has discussed before and that Topkin indeed has mentioned before. In addition, Maddon has one of the sharpest minds in baseball and in fact his intellectuality has until recently led some local fans to dismiss him as too nerdy to be a good manager.

While you may not be talking to Topkin or Maddon, neither are they talking to you. Topkin is addressing a general audience many of whom do not know or are hostile to sabermetric analysis. Working to deadline, he has no reason to research whether there are metrics such as Maddon describes. He is not critiquing or cross examining Maddon; he is reporting what Maddon is thinking. And in doing so, he is painlessly introducing an important and sophisticated point to his readers. While he has not taken the steps that Posnanski has, and does not have that role on his paper anyway, he has consistently been amenable to introducing some of the simpler sabermetric concepts in his stories and is always respectful of the research.

But it is ingenuous to say that all this is merely a few folks joshing around. You are not in someone's home or the neighborhood bar, no matter how homey it may feel.

The fact is that the humor, which I agree is unimportant and minor league, is not essentially different from the knee jerk humor of those who talk about pimply faced nerds typing in their mother's basements. It is just as automatic, inane and irritating, and part of the same simplistic thinking that can only address people by categorizing them rather than engaging anyone in useful discussion. You are right. The effect is minimally significant, no more so than one more 12 year old bully pushing one more little kid aside in one more school hallway.

Working to deadline, he has no reason to research whether there are metrics such as Maddon describes

You are really setting the bar low. He has many many many reasons for doing said research, especially on a piece that was not time sensitive. The two primary ones would be 1) it's his job and 2) it's to the benefit of his readership. I mean what are you supposed to do if not take some time and ask around if these stats exist?

I used to cover small time college and high school sports for a daily paper and it's a tough business, but you don't do journalism any favors by defending them this way.

I'm someone who stopped always hanging out at BBTF long ago cause all the snark grew wearisome, but I've got to say that this thread is a pretty mild example. Not sure why people are upset about it.

But it is ingenuous to say that all this is merely a few folks joshing around. You are not in someone's home or the neighborhood bar, no matter how homey it may feel.

To me, most discussion boards are essentially public equivalents of the neighborhood bar. If you don't enjoy the atmosphere, do what I did and go to a different bar.

Any major-league team that doesn't have PBP defensive stats (or something better!) at their fingertips by now (at least from the last few years) is pathetic. Any manager who doesn't know his team has these statistics is ...

Maddon is talking about something much more detailed than simple zone rating with a guy marking whether or not a ball in zone was caught. I think he's looking for something that would give detailed information on WHY a ball wasn't caught, whether it was due to positioning, bad routes, lack of range, etc. He also specifically mentions double plays, something that basic zone rating can't evaluate.

Topkin is not writing about the metrics. He is writing about Maddon's desire to develop more meaningful stats, and in the way Maddon means it, it is very debatable whether any such stats do exist now. He is writing for an audience that by and large is unaware that such research is even taking place, and would be unlikely to read a newspaper story that reviewed the status of such research. So what Topkin reported is both accurate and pertinent to the purpose of the story.

If it were a column on defensive stats, no question there ought to be more research to explore the topic. But simply reporting on Maddon's interest requires no such thing.

But in the end, I have little interest in being the editor who determines the quality of Topkin's story. It is a story that introduces an audience to an important concept and legitimizes the concept by attaching it to the manager who right now has a team in first place. For people here to mock that very positive contribution is childish and dogmatic. I think it would be reasonable for posters here to describe some of the progress on the defensive metrics front, to explore the gaps in Topkin's story, even to indicate the hope that reporters develop their knowledge even further.

But to use it as jumping off point to once again tiresomely demonstrate one's contempt for anyone not fully initiated into the holy grail of analysis is inane. Sure it is mild and hardly worth lengthy discussion, but it happens to be the one I noticed this time and, to my mind, makes understandable, though not justifiable, the venom some feel about blog commentary. And since it is not the neighborhood bar, where I would be intruding if I criticized some joshing among friends, it is disingenuous to claim that's all it is. This is about as public as you can get, and if you say something I find silly here, I don't have to go elsewhere. I can call you on it.

As a matter of fact, I know somebody who is quite a well-known figure in saber circles who has indeed stopped looking at this site altogether for the very reason you give. He is tired of the snarky introductions to practically everything linked. I too, while glancing at it often, usually skip over most of it because it is so juvenile. But that does not mean it is unreasonable to point out how ineffective much of the commentary is.

Out of curiousity, as one not a fully initiated saber researcher, is there somewhere where focused discussion of analysis takes place?

I like the neighborhood bar feel of BBTF, but understand why it's turned some people away. I have little to contribute to analysis, but enjoy reading it.

I don't mind the snark of BBTF at all, and quite enjoy it when it's directed at the likes of Mariotti, Plaschke, Morrissey and other blowhards.

But the snark at this article rather surprised me. GGC's quoted routine sums up how it seemed to me as well. I can only assume people's interpretation of the headline colored their reading of the article. If you just look at the article, Maddon doesn't say anything stupid or silly. He says,

I don’t think offensive players are evaluated enough in regard to how many runs they give up....If you really want to keep track, keep track of how many points they give up and then you can really find out this number that is produced at the end of the season.

Read that with the headline in mind, and it sounds like he's ignorant of defensive metrics. Read it without thinking about the headline, and he's introducing Tompkin to sabermetric theory. As in, tracking defensive runs is what he does, and he's telling Tompkin to do it, too. (Imagine, for example, if it was "Beane said" instead of "Maddon said".) Tompkin then relates him talking about GPS type technology, which was the kind of thing the A's were said to have been developing in Moneyball.

What I see here is a progressive manager talking shop with a reporter, the reporter finding it interesting, and then writing a little fluff piece about the conversation. No mothers' basements jokes, no superior attitude, and nothing illogical and stupid. Is it really worthy of snark? I mean, maybe one or two smartass comments, but #12 level snark and #45 level derision? Maddon should be getting applauded like Bannister, not snarked on like Dusty.

I think that's what buddaley, GGC, et al (including myself) have a problem with. Not so much the snark, but the misguided application of it in this instance.

Probably the Book Blog is the best place for that, bunyon. If you look at the "top posters" there, many of the top researchers around are listed (MGL, Tangotiger, AROM, David Smyth, DSG, etc).

This discussion is something akin to one I have about the Simpsons vs. The Family Guy. The Simpsons are definitely sarcastic, but:

a) They usually don't pour it on
b) Their targets generally deserve it
c) It rarely seems out of place with the episode's plot

Compare that to the Family Guy, where the attitude seems to be "Let's be ironic and nothing else".

Cheers, Kyle. I'd heard of that blog but never ventured over to read any of it.

the thing I like about Maddons proposal of a +/- system is that it's easily understandable, it doesn't plug in values (mind you I know that MGL, Tango, and Dewan all do a lot of research to make sure their values are accurate, but it still boils down to a mathematical formula instead of something that seems tangible) I would love seeing a stat "double plays not made" or more detailed listing for stolen base results (stole second, stole third, number of advances on errors etc) and even more information on errors on the whole. Batters should have reached on errors as part of their standard stat package.

Heck I'm for a system of assigning wins and losses to all players in the game, not just the pitcher. This is the start of an attempt to do something like that.

This discussion is something akin to one I have about the Simpsons vs. The Family Guy. The Simpsons are definitely sarcastic, but:

a) They usually don't pour it on
b) Their targets generally deserve it
c) It rarely seems out of place with the episode's plot

Compare that to the Family Guy, where the attitude seems to be "Let's be ironic and nothing else".

The Simpsons and Family Guy shouldn't be directly compared because they're trying to do different things.

The Simpsons generally takes a more linear view of a storyline and the show is based off of its narrative structure. Events on the Simpsons are designed to be taken objectively within the known world of the Simpsons. That wall is generally only broken when the writers present it in a context in which it's not part of the "real" Springfield, like in the Treehouse of Horrors episodes and some of the miscellaneous fictional episodes, like Simpsons Bible Stories and Tales from the Public Domain.

Family Guy, on the other hand is firmly in the tradition of surrealist humor. The humor isn't based off the narrative itself, but based on the distortion of the reality of show, putting things into new, unexpected contexts.

Both shows have elements of the other, but they don't do them nearly as well. While Family Guy does do better in the episodes where there's at least some skeleton of a narrative (which makes the bizarre juxtapositions better), the Simpsons do occasionally have absurd things that break through. But when Family Guy goes too far and tries too much to have a storyline flow in a given episode, it generally becomes kinda awkward because you're not supposed to take things on the level. And when the Simpsons does some absurd things that break too far with the internal reality (we accept Homer being injured in ways that would kill most people as part of Springfield's reality), sometimes it just becomes uncomfortable, like the evil jockeys elves in Saddlesore Galactica.

You know Dan, I can tolerate snark on BBTF, but I don't know if I can tolerate apologias for Family Guy.

(And on that note, I'm going to now put in the only Family Guy I own on DVD, Season Three. Someone got it for me as a gift once, and I've never really given it a chance. Maybe it will help me write this research paper on Medicare Part D.)

32. Kiko Sakata Posted: May 25, 2008 at 11:38 PM (#2794392)

Topkin doesn't mention the existence of any sort of fielding metric like this, or overall metrics that combine hitting and fielding like WARP or Win Shares.


Actually, are there any "overall metrics" that actually use a "fielding metric like this"? Neither WARP nor Win Shares use play-by-play data for calculating their fielding metrics. I know MGL's super-LWTS uses UZR, but that hasn't been publicly available for several years now. Is the author here really that wrong? Quick - how many runs was B.J. Upton's season worth in 2007? How easy was that to find via Google?

Sort of. It's right here at Primer in my OPD work. Upton was -4 at 2B and -7 in CF defensively but I haven't located his XR+AA. Sorry. I'll work on it.

Sort of. It's right here at Primer in my OPD work. Upton was -4 at 2B and -7 in CF defensively but I haven't located his XR+AA. Sorry. I'll work on it.

Thanks, Chris. I was aware of your work, which I really like, and had a sort of general sense of where Upton stood, but wasn't sure how to easily find it. But doesn't the very fact that it took the author of the stat 15-1/2 hours to answer my question (and even then, to only half-answer it) say something about what could reasonably be expected of Topkin?

(And on that note, I'm going to now put in the only Family Guy I own on DVD, Season Three. Someone got it for me as a gift once, and I've never really given it a chance. Maybe it will help me write this research paper on Medicare Part D.)

FWIW, Season Three is the best Family Guy season IMHO. It's still got plenty of cutaways and flashbacks, but the plots are by far the best, and the characters are the most fully developed.

They really should just spin off Brian and Stewie and be done with it. They're the funniest characters on the show, and their episodes are always the best ones.

Good to know I have the best possible intro to the show.

He is writing for an audience that by and large is unaware that such research is even taking place, and would be unlikely to read a newspaper story that reviewed the status of such research.

This is such a backward approach to how a journalist should approach his job, it's laughable. My gosh, a journalist is in the business of providing people information they don't know!

These comments amaze me a bit. For years -- decades -- we have seen managers or reporters who continue to rely on conventional wisdom of what constitutes value. When we see them expressed, we understandably rip them.

But here it seems that Maddon and Topkin are expressing a willingness to look beyond the traditional conventional wisdom, yet people are still ripping them for not being specifically familiar with UZR or whatever is supposed to be the cutting edge measure.

That's snobbish and it's a very real reason why people get uptight at the word "sabermetrics."

Or what buddaley has said.

I've heard the comment about ripping them and I just don't see it, sure there is snark as mentioned before, but I don't see any real ripping of the guy.

It's a waste learning a lot of stuff just to be smugly superior, it's just as easy and rewarding to be smugly superior when ignorant.

sure there is snark as mentioned before, but I don't see any real ripping of the guy.

Fair enough. Still, I would've thought most folks would be happy to see a reporter and manager show a willingness to think outside the box. Instead, people are getting snarky because the reporter hasn't learned the intricacies of the latest defensive stat du jour.

Amen to #66, SC.

Amen to #66, SC.

Let it never be said that kevin lacks a sense of humor about his own BBTF schtick.

I hope I contribute little to the snark level around here, but I still think #12 is RDF :)

I still don't see why this thread got picked out of the thousands on BTF. You want unbearable snark, check out a JP Ricciardi thread. Or a Shea Hillenbrand thread. That people are actually saying we are "ripping" Maddon or even Topkin...am I reading a different thread than you guys are?

I can't believe I'm still posting in this thread. For some reason I am drawn to this discussion. Maybe because I find it so surreal that people have picked THIS thread of all the ones on BTF to be exemplary of the downfall of intellectual discourse. There were like 3 light-hearted jokes and that's it. Sigh. And I see nobody is ripping Dan for his long post #12, but I guess he's a vet so it's different.