[Slant]

OK, there is definitely some misunderstanding here:

First of all, more than one issue exists on this thread. Arguments for one thing are getting confused with arguments for another.

Second, both sides are trying to be civil, but both sides think the other side is going farther than they really are.

Example (this never happened):
Guy 1: I don't think RBIs are as important as people use to think.
Guy 2: WHAT?!?? Who are you to tell me I'm not allowed to look at RBIs??

OR

Guy 3: I don't feel the need, nor do I have the time, to go through complicated formulas to compare players.
Guy 4: WHAT?!?? Those formulas aren't worthless!!




I feel the need to break down the issues:

A) Purpose of the game: winning or entertaining?
Or, is winning entertaining anyway?
This one has already been covered extensively in this thread. Everyone is entertained by different aspects of the game (I'm talking about baseball here, not OOTP - yet), and we just have to deal with that.
Me, I like to read sabermetric studies and such. I don't always agree with them. If I don't agree with them, it's not because "I just know it's wrong", it's because I don't feel the author of the study did a good job proving his point. I consider myself very competent at math. I prefer to look at the details. If I am curious, I will investigate.
I live in Boston. My friends and I are fans of the Red Sox. Some of us, like me, use sabermetrics. Others couldn't care less. When I talk to someone who doesn't know sabermetrics, I don't just say, "Well, Tejada didn't deserve the MVP because of his extrapolated runs....". Just beacuse I know sabermetrics doesn't make me a conversation-killer.
When Epstein got little Giambi, I might have asked a non-SABR friend, "hey, dude, guess which Giambi, when he makes contact, is more likely to hit it out of the park?"
He would have said, "Jason, duh."
And I'd say "Nope, Jeremy."
And he'd say, "Really? That's cool. If only he made contact more often."
And I'd say, "Yeah, man. If he can stop striking out, he'll be awesome."

OK, I got a little carried away, but I was annoyed by someone who said that people who knew sabermetrics killed conversations. I can see how we would get that reputation, but the point is that whether or not they are fun to talk to has no relation to the validity of their methods.

B) Is SABR for everyone?
NO.
But some of us are glad that our favorite teams are using everything at their disposal to their advantage. I don't care if the most important stat when comparing hitters, in your opinion, is HBP, unless your judgements affects the decisions made by the management of my favorite team.

So, if you don't want to do out math to enjoy the great american pastime, great. If you think the Tampa Bay Devil Rays should have chosen the 90-something Ted Williams as their first pick in the expansion draft because he had more RBIs than anyone else available, and therefore produced more runs, and therefore is better at producing runs, then good for you. But if I want the Devil Rays to win, I don't want you making those decisions.

So what am I saying? I am saying that baseball GMs and managers, etc, should probably know sabermetrics. They should probably take the time to do out the math to support their findings, because that's what they get paid to do. However, the difficulty of determining a statistic has no relation to its validity. That doesn't mean you have to use it, all it means is that whether it takes me 10 seconds or 10 years to figure it out, doesn't change whether or not it works.

C) The RBI thing.
Zeeter's point (which thus far remains unadressed) in response to the "if they switched teams..." argument is that they didn't switch teams, and therefore that argument is irrevelant.

Zeeter, you made a good point, but now I will ask you some questions and invite you to reevaluate your stance on the issue.

Here's the situation: you're the GM of your favorite team. The year is 2004, at the free agent period. You desperately need a third baseman, and that's about all you need to be a contender. There are two choices available. One of them's stats are .290, 30 HR, 160 RBI, New York Yankees, American League MVP. The other? .290, 30 HR, 75 RBI, Milwaukee Brewers.

My first question is which player is better? You'd probably answer, "the first one", and I'd be inclined to agree with you at this point. Sure, the avg and HR are the same, but probably he hit more doubles and triples, right? And maybe he's better in the clutch.

But here comes a stathead, and he says, "If they switched teams, their RBI numbers would likely switch as well. Therefore, the players are equal."

Let's go with a compromise between the two theories. The players are similar, but the one with more RBIs is a bit better.

So, which one do you bid on?

I would hope you bid on the one with less RBI. Why? Because you can save about $10 million.

You say, "But I lose about 85 runs with that player."

But you're wrong. Because you'll never know how many runs you lose unless you play the season twice. Once with each player. What everyone else is trying to say is that RBI are influenced by factors out of the batter's control. The batter should not be penalized if his teammates suck.

D) The stupid thing.
Get over it. Let's debate, not argue, about baseball, not about our intelligence.

E) What does all this have to do with OOTP?
Henry had a few good posts and tried to bring the game (OOTP) into the discussion but he was largely ignored.

Zeeter, you say that you can evaluate players to a certain extent using only RBI and batting average. And I agree.

But we have to ask ourself if we can evaluate them using only BA and RBI well enough to have OOTP rely only on those stats.

I don't think we can.

In order for OOTP to provide the most realistic simulations, it needs to know everything that we know.

If some stathead proves that the ratio of hits per balls in play is in direct proportion to the average age of the fans in the stadium, then I hope OOTP would realistically apply that.

Similarly, if someone were to prove that a pitcher's ability to limit hits on balls in play is less important than a pitcher's ability to strikeout opposing batters, then I hope OOTP would implement that as well.

(In OOTP's current edition, a pitcher's ability to limit hits on balls in play is more important than his ability to strikeout opposing batters)




If anyone does not understand my points, or does not agree, please respond, and then a few things may happen:

1) I may reclarify something in hope that you understand better.
2) I may make an additional point in an effort to convince you that I am correct
3) I may decide that I was wrong and you are right based on a reasonable argument that you provide.
4) I may ignore you. That is actually the most likely outcome.