Heretics and Priests
Re-examining traditionalism
1/27/04
Andy Brown

There are so many good things about sabermetrics and the stathead community that multiple articles could be written about them.  From its thirst for knowledge and enthusiasm for the game to its sense of humor and the tangible positive effects on MLB management, there is no doubt that the sabermetric movement is, in general, very positive.  However, that is not what this article is about.  Instead, this article is about something I find very disturbing about sabermetric devotees.  I don’t expect it to change anyone’s mind or cause some sort of sea change, but I would hope it is taken as food for thought.

The first thing to recognize in this discussion is that sabermetrics is, at its core, a science, and a hard science at that.  Like any hard science, as opposed to a soft science like psychology, the focus of sabermetrics is on what can be proven.  Start with a hypothesis, test it against the evidence, and formulate a conclusion.  This is just as it is with any other science, it is the scientific method after all.  The problem I see is what happens if the hypothesis is not proven or if a hypothesis cannot be tested. 

True students of science realize both that nothing can be proven to be false and also that just because something cannot be proven to be true does not mean that it is false.  Virtually everything that happens on a baseball field can be measured and quantified.  From this data we are able to test and form theories.  This is all well and good, but there still are things that cannot be tested.  I notice more and more stat heads taking the attitude that if it cannot be quantified and thus proven, that it does not exist.  I think this is a logical failing in the community and it has the effect of turning some people, who may have been interested in sabermetrics, off completely.

When we look at statistics, it is inevitable that we view players as being the sum of their numbers and vice versa.  What I think we forget is that these are people we are talking about.  Let’s use the example of team chemistry, which is one of those things statheads find laughable.  Think of your worst job environment you have ever been in.  How did that environment affect you?  Did it cause your performance to slip?  Now, consider the best job environment you worked in.  Did that environment make you more productive?  For me, the answer in both cases is yes.  Why would baseball players be any different?  It’s not something I could quantify or prove with anything other than the circumstantial evidence of psychology and I don’t think it is something I would give much credence too if I were running a major league team, but that is a far different bird than simply laughing and saying “it doesn’t exist.”

There are scores of other examples of this.  Scouts and traditionalist GM’s have always been concerned with a player’s “makeup”.  Now, each person defines that differently and, again, it is not something that can be quantified.  However, is it not reasonable to conclude that a player who worked hard would be more successful than one who loafed, all other things being equal?  Would you rather have a player with above average talent who worked out every day and kept his nose clean or a player with superstar talent but was a drug addict? 

What about leadership?  Why are we so quick to dismiss its effect?  When I first started working at one of my many past jobs, there was much I needed to learn and I doubt I would have picked it up as quickly as I would have if not for my manager being extremely knowledgeable and helpful.  Wouldn’t this also be true for a young kid straight off the bus from AA being mentored by a long-time vet?  Will “veteran leadership” win you a championship or even help you win more games than you would have otherwise?  I wouldn’t pretend to know since it cannot be proved or disproved.  Does it exist?  I would answer that it does, almost without question.

I have always been distrustful of authority and very wary of group ideology.  Whenever a group of people wants me to conform to a certain mindset, my natural instinct is to become skeptical.  Perhaps that is why I am not so quick to jump on the “cannot be proven must not exist” bandwagon.  Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not going to suddenly become Dusty Baker.  Give me the choice between Doug Glanville and Manny Ramirez and I will take Ramirez every time.  What can be proven is obviously far more valuable than what cannot.  Relationships between drawing walks, hitting home runs, and scoring runs can be proven.  Team chemistry cannot.  You would be a fool to not put more stock in to OPS than taking teammates out to dinner.  The only point here is that if something cannot be proven, that means just that and that only.  The leap to “it doesn’t exist” that is taken by so many in the community is not one which is based on scientific principles and, furthermore, is a major turn-off to myself and recovering traditionalists.  As I said at the beginning of this essay, food for thought and nothing more.

Kill your idols! Send me comments!