A Modest Proposal To Fix The Mets

of looking at what has stayed constant in all 3 years be the problem? If the constant didn’t cause a problem in 06, why would it suddenly have been the problem in 07 and 08, especially considering the fact that their were more obvious issues.

If the constant core succeeded in 06 with a better supporting cast and, particularly a bullpen that could hold 3-4 run leads, then why in 08, when the constant core had neither of those things, would we look to the core as the issue? I just don’t understand what possible logic could lead to that conclusion.

The data is only as good as the model you’re using. Look at the financial crisis.

You can’t dismiss the quantitative methods either. No one here is talking about “one true method.” No one is saying math=God. That’s one of the nice things about an intelligent fan-based community. The quality discourse is always going to be a blend. We all watch the games, we all recognize various observable patterns in the actions themselves and relate them to personal experiences. And at the same time, to varying degrees most of us understand the meaning and effectiveness of the quantitative measurements and metrics. But that’s all understood in the context of watching the games and the players themselves. That is the fundamental part of our nature as fans. The thing that sets a lot of the dialogue here apart from other “fan-sties” is that the science is accepted, but within the fan-based context. Most of us don’t make the measurements, but we understand and accept them to varying degrees. When something observed contradicts the science, we are capable of noting it, and will often even side with our personal observations. For example, certain metrics don’t rate Rey Ordonez all that highly as a defensive Shortstop. Many of the people here seem to be aware of that fact, or at the very least would remember hearing some vague mention of it, but at the same time, I’m sure the vast majority would gush about Rey’s glove if given the chance. But when virtually all the metrics unanimously agree on something, for example that David Wright and Jose Reyes are elite, its hard to argue against it (not impossible mind you, but hard). Unless that blatantly contradicts our personal observations, its virtually impossible to argue against (again, virtually mind you, not completely).

I think the problem we are seeing with the “break up the core” mentality (and this isn’t in reference to your argument, itsmetsforme, so much as the “Scotty” phenomenon) is two fold:

1. The narrative problem. If the “true method bias” is the problem with quantitative analysis, this is the problem with qualitative analysis. When people observe something on the surface, especially something with as many layers of complexity as the game of baseball, we tend to strain ourselves to place meaning and meaningful patterns where there are none. We like to find some semblance of balance or reason in things that have causes that are fundamentally far more simple than we attribute them to be. In the case of the Mets, the narrative is that they’ve had two seasons and one month of bitter disappointment. So this narrative becomes the blanket meaning for all the things that happen within the games themselves. Anything observable that fits the narrative becomes a manifestation of this disappointment, and the things that don’t fit into the narrative become perceptually devalued. Doing this is just a part of human nature, we’re just not capable of such microscopic observation. We fill in the blanks with pattern recognition so we can focus our cognitive powers on more complicated and abstract issues. Science and method are ways of supplementing that pattern recognition with something more objective.

2. The debunking of the “old science”. Sabermetrics is wonderful. Sabermetrics is the reason terms like “grit” and “heart” have lost their meaning. The qualities these terms used to refer to are now much more readily explainable than they ever were. The problem with this is that typical fans, Scotties, Metsblog commentors, etc., are in this strange sort of limbo. They can’t roll off batting averages, RBI totals, Pitchers W-L record and use them as evidence to make a significant claim anymore. Sabermetrics has begun to reach that level of cultural critical mass, where it has begun to pervade the culture enough to influence individuals who don’t understand and/or believe in it. These “simple stats” are still the only statistics the typical fan understands and can relate to. So while they may use them for personal understanding, when they enter the community they must check their methods at the door. The community at large becomes completely vulnerable to “the narrative problem,” as it rejects the “old science” and is yet to accept the “new science”. All that’s left is personal pattern recognition. Chaotic and unstable memes fly around unchecked, people rush so fast to get in on the groupthink that they don’t bother with proper grammar, and there’s no central mass to it, no legitimate facts to cling to whatsoever. Not even the flawed “simple stats” that their personal understanding is based on. The groupthink tells them that the “simple stats” are useless. As a result, the culture becomes completely hollow. There is nothing for them to discuss except the narrative. The resulting backlash of this, is a community like AA, where there is a central mass of facts that we naturally gravitate to, but we are still relying on our own experiences and observations as fans of the team and of the game as our primary source of understanding.

Everything doesn’t have to be an argument.

but that resembled a common interweb ploy that irritates me, so i wasn’t sure.