There’s no more one “Sabermetrics” than there is one measure of what happens on the field

One team wins, communism loses.

I think I'd quibble that maybe he should be using "socialism" rather than "communism". If only because for the analogy to carry over to sabermetrics there have to be large groups of people or nations either advocating or implementing what they describe as communist policies.

Or maybe that is the point he's making and I'm missing it.

"I stand before at this time and in my hand I have a list of individuals who are part of MLB front offices who are known sabermatricians."

My own personal "opinion" is that the "author" could have "illustrated" his "point" to the same "degree" without the "overuse" of "".

"DB"

What is this guy talking about?

Sabermetrics was never defined as a search for "truth," objective or otherwise. Bill James defined sabermetrics as "the search for objective knowledge about baseball." Knowledge and truth are two very different things IMO. Sabermetrics is akin to the scientific method applied to baseball, refusing to accept untested cliches.

Whoever described science as being a monolithic movement?

Also, sabermetrics isn't the search for a subjective ANYTHING. Also also, you could argue that there is one "true" Communism (as defined by Marx/Engels), and then there are flawed implementations thereof (hell, the Soviet Union wasn't Communist; it was a farking oligarchy).

Anyway, it's a silly article.

What is this guy talking about?

Sabermetrics was never defined as a search for "truth," objective or otherwise. Bill James defined sabermetrics as "the search for objective knowledge about baseball."

I didn't read the article, but wasn't the whole point that sabermetrics HAS been defined by lots of people in incorrect ways? Why would he say "Bill James defined it as this. the end." when a bunch of other definitions are out there being used and mis-used?

Sabermetrics was never defined as a search for "truth," objective or otherwise. Bill James defined sabermetrics as "the search for objective knowledge about baseball." Knowledge and truth are two very different things IMO. Sabermetrics is akin to the scientific method applied to baseball, refusing to accept untested cliches.

I don't disagree with the scientific method analogy, but I wrote the viewpoint and analogy cited here as part of an analysis of summaries about the perceived "Sabermetrics" movement. For all intents and purposes, people talking about Sabermetrics in the articles I quoted in the original post equated "truth" with "knowledge."

I don't disagree that one could find many differences between "truth" and "knowledge," but the way people talk about them in summarizing the movement, they are conflated.

Whoever described science as being a monolithic movement?

Exactly -- and that was my intended point throughout my whole argument, which was meant to argue against the monolithic summaries of the stats movements.

Also, sabermetrics isn't the search for a subjective ANYTHING.

I disagree with this, to the extent that advanced statistical work and critical investigations about baseball frequently utilize historical, strategical, narrative, and other evidence about baseball.

"Subjectivity" isn't a negative thing; it's pretty difficult to escape the subjective aspects of critical pursuits, even if objectivity is the aim (I would say each search for knowledge has objective and subjective aspects).

Also also, you could argue that there is one "true" Communism (as defined by Marx/Engels), and then there are flawed implementations thereof (hell, the Soviet Union wasn't Communist; it was a farking oligarchy).

I typically agree with this.

I disagree with this, to the extent that advanced statistical work and critical investigations about baseball frequently utilize

Yay! A sighting of "utilize" over "use."

That means I don't have to read any further, which is always a relief.

I disagree with this, to the extent that advanced statistical work and critical investigations about baseball frequently utilize historical, strategical, narrative, and other evidence about baseball.

"Subjectivity" isn't a negative thing; it's pretty difficult to escape the subjective aspects of critical pursuits, even if objectivity is the aim (I would say each search for knowledge has objective and subjective aspects).

I'm not saying subjectivity is a negative thing; I'm saying that sabermetrics isn't about the SEARCH for anything subjective. It may USE subjective information, where necessary, but the object surely is an objective one.

I think that's a fair distinction and correction.

It should be obvious that I was working through the analogy as a part of the larger point about how the baseball stats movements are portrayed in mainstream accounts, but if I were to edit that argument, I'd be more clear about how I meant "subjective."

Fair enough. I admit I was more interested in being flip than offering any kind of deep analysis or insight. :)

Fair point, thanks for being honest.

Just out of curiosity, I am wondering if I missed something; is there ONE Sabermetrics movement? I suppose I always took the critical lessons from articles and books, etc., to be the main point about advanced stats analysis / baseball history + stats work.

But, it seems I've misunderstood an actual movement in this way. If there is one Sabermetrics movement -- or one defining trait -- what is it, and how does the press characterize that movement?

The Soviets considered themselves Marxist-Lennist, adapting communism as defined by Marx and Engels to suit their particular situation (the absence of a well-define industrial proletariat). What it actually evolved to was what it always was - centralized power that passed over the peasants and kept the ruling elite well-fed and content. With a lot of dead bodies along the way. The continum of Russia-Soviet history is comforting, really.

All movements become subverted when the next person interprets the work of the original. You think Pol Pot wasn't trying to outdo Cousin Mao?

All movements become subverted when the next person interprets the work of the original. You think Pol Pot wasn't trying to outdo Cousin Mao?

...best explained by Ricky Gervais

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3hjv-2bBlw

All movements become subverted when the next person interprets the work of the original. You think Pol Pot wasn't trying to outdo Cousin Mao?

Here I thought of heavy metal, Black Sabbath kind of fit in the rock landscape at the time, but a decade later there were bands like Manowar that made no sense whatsoever for anyone outside the metal subculture (Like Pol Pot, not a hero for your average left-leaning English professor). Though later there arose metal bands with cross-over potential and hits (eurocommunists? metal with a human face?)

And then the wall fell, and metal crashed out from the charts. And all was well with the world.

But, it seems I've misunderstood an actual movement in this way. If there is one Sabermetrics movement -- or one defining trait -- what is it, and how does the press characterize that movement?

Just my subjective understanding, but for me I've always pictured "sabermetrics" as Bill James saying, "oh yeah? Prove it".

Just my subjective understanding, but for me I've always pictured "sabermetrics" as Bill James saying, "oh yeah? Prove it".

James once said* something to the effect of "the difference was that I checked."

* Maybe the "Breaking the Wand" essay?

Thanks, Obo and Greg (U)K.

[19] Exactly.

From "Breaking the Wand":

It is a wonderful thing to know that you are right and the world is wrong; would God that I might have that feeling again before I die. I was developing, in those days, a technique of listening very carefully to the things that baseball people sais, and then asking the question: If this is true, what would be the consequences of it? If it was false, what would be the consequences of that? ... The secret of the success of the [Abstract] was that I was dead in the center of the discussion. I was writing about exactly the same issues that everybody else was talking about, only in a different way. I would check.

Also from Breaking the Wand:

Sportswriters, in my opinion, almost never use baseball statistics to try to understand baseball. They use statistics to decorate their articles. They use statistics as a club in the battle for what they believe intuitively to be correct. That is why sportswriters often believe that you can prove anything with statistics, an obscene and ludicrous position, but one which is a natural outgrowth of the way that they themselves try to use statistics. What I wanted to do was to teach people instead to use statistics as a sword to cut toward the truth. ... It is an educated public, a public that recognizes an opinion and a fact, distinguishes between a cliche and a theory. It is, simply, an audience that wants more.

What I want to know is why is this Clevelander talking about the Brewers?