Jonah Lehrer and Why They Make Menus

While I always keep an eye on a player’s performance on the stat sheet, Jason Bay just earned a pass from me for his terrible offensive numbers this season because he hit the grand slam that finally put an end to the beat writers’ “Slamwatch.” If that isn’t overlooking advanced statistical analysis of baseball and appreciating the game in an irrational way, I don’t know what is.

I CAN DO BOTH THINGS, JONAH LEHRER!

To the people he scammed he looks like a kindly old man whom people have trusted for years. Look at his numbers and they’re damn near impossible to believe and scream for further investigation!

What the internet has shown amply is that the Big Media is not a meritocracy. There are probably dozens of amateurs who post content on Youtube that is superior to major network programming. AA >>∞> Loudmouths.

Which is why Web posts have comments sections, so that the general public can give feedback to the poster. If you could comment on Leher’s post (I didn’t see the comment section) it would be relatively easy to demonstrate why he’s (to be charitable) wrong and foolish.

You can’t get the genie out of the bottle. If you’re on the web and you don’t have a comments section, people assume, rightly, that you are a chicken and you can’t back your stuff up. It’s not like an editorial section where you can hand-pick the weakest responses and skewer them to make yourself look good. Lehrer should go back to his rotary club and suck on his pacifier.

ultimately, what people appreciate is a good team and the most competitive play possible. Progressive analysis yields better play, which is what everyone appreciates. And if your team has the smartest front office, your team will eventually reap the rewards, which is what your fan base ultimately appreciates.

What Lehrer is saying is that it’s better to forgo progressive analysis, at the expense of better play, and for your team to emphasize romantic emotionalism in its analysis, at the expense of your team’s competitiveness. I really don’t think there’s any audience for that.

And that is why the fan will eventually have to (and will) be able to get on the same page as the progressives (to some degree). Otherwise, there will be an ongoing schizophrenia between what the fans think they want and what is good for the team (which is ultimately what the fans really want). That’s not sustainable, nor is it necessary.

all sabermetrics does is introduce more information. so bad information is replaced. that is good. its progress. if you are too lazy to learn the new methods or afraid of change, then you will attack that which you do not understand.

if the previous information is still good, IT WILL NOT BE REPLACED BY SABERMETRICS. nothing will be lost. you will just have more information to now make BETTER decisions and analysis.

i think most of this comes from people who just enjoy watching the games without the numbers (which is totally fine), and so they watch a lot of sports and think of themselves as experts. then, while watching the game in the company of other, more statistically inclined fans, they say something dumb and are called out by the stat geek. then they get defensive and snippy about it and blame something abstract that they dont understand like sabermetrics, then write hack articles for bill simmons.

They become so obsessed with the power of base runs that they undervalue the importance of not being an asshole, or having playoff experience, or listening to the coach. Such variables are the sporting equivalent of a nice dashboard. They can’t be quantified, but they still count.

Here’s the thing, those things don’t count as far as winning goes. A player may be good because of or despite his character but it is ultimately irrelevant to the box score. Games are won by some combination of scoring runs for your team and preventing runs for the other team.

These things do count in terms of the narrative of the game and the enjoyment we get out of it as fans. Maybe he’s arguing in favor of appreciating players beyond what they contribute to winning. That does make some sense I guess but it’s unclear if this is what he means.

He’s typically a very progressive, scientifically minded guy. I love his contributions to Radiolab.

The stats say that when you put the best team (stats wise) up against a team whose numbers do not match up as well, the better team will win…and they will.

Mavs play the Heat in a 7 game series, Mavs win even though their stats are not as good. Why? Many reasons obviously. Some include (but are not limited to);

Small sample size, Mavs won a small (comparatively) series. How would the result be if the two teams played a larger series, say a 51 game series?

Players do not always play to their averages. ‘King’ James might average 44 points per game but obviously over a season he has games where he scores 17 points and more games where he scores 49 points.

Enough rambling. Mets play the Yankees in the WS. Could the Mets win? Yes. Is it more likely the Yankees win? Yes, their numbers are vastly superior in many, many categories, but the Mets can still win over a relatively small series, see 2001, 2003.

Lehrer is confused. His issue is with what he feels is a failure to use factors besides statistics. That is simply not the fault of sabermetrics. It is the fault of the people who misuse these factors. Lehrer instead points his finger at sabermetrics. I have come to notice that people who do this are simply confused by the statistics themselves. I know that makes me sound sorta like Captain Obvious, but that is what it probably comes down to. Or it is just their shunning of statistics because that’s not how daddy taught baseball to them.

to be fair to this, and only in this point,

The crux of Lehrer’s article, like literally hundreds of similar anti-sabermetric diatribes, is that in concentrating on numbers so much, we’ve lost the ability to appreciate the intangible. Kids will grow up able to win their fantasy leagues but unable to appreciate the spectacle of sport.

Thats about all I can agree with him on. I have definitely had discussions/arguments with people ignoring certain aspects because they weren’t quantifiable and instead only using stats when that wasn’t the issue at hand. I have no problems with stats being used as a measuring stick. I like knowing more than the next guy. However there ARE people that miss the forest for the trees in this argument. If that was all he wanted to make a point about, I’d be all for it. However, that isn’t, so nu.

And the stupid is very powerful. I’m gonna try and finish it, but I’m not sure I’ll survive.

Your entire “argument.”