Firebrand gives the column the ol' FJM treatment.
The underlying irony being, of course, that (as is usually the case with articles like this one) the writer presents it as a matter of "old-fashioned gut feeling" versus numbers, when in fact it's pretty clear it's a case of numbers he likes (avg, RBI, W/L) versus numbers he doesn't like or doesn't understand (WAR, OBP, UZR)
What is also amusing is that, as Firebrand points out, batting average is actually pretty complex as to what constitutes an at-bat. As did Posnanski back in 2011.
I needed a good laugh today...In a separate article scheduled for tomorrow, the author plans to state his case for Netscape
the author plans to state his case for NetscapeLOLMichael's comment also perfectly makes the point.
batting average is actually pretty complex as to what constitutes an at-bat.Yeah, I think Moneyball made that point as well. I think that growing up in a baseball culture (which I didn't) deeply ingrains obscure and arbitrary concepts like that of "at-bat" in your mind to the point that they feel like second nature. Like language, in a way.Articles like DeSmit's are way more entertaining to me than they should be, because I can't help but picture these guys' sense of cosmic dismay upon realizing that critical thought is now a part of their job requirements. And possibly sixth-grade algebra too.
Post a Comment