Moneyball, My Ass!

I think Friedrich Nietzsche could say it better than I possibly could—“The poison from which the weaker nature perishes strengthens the strong man—and he does not call it poison” (Thank you, college). That quote is overwhelmingly astute in reference to the sport of baseball. The poison of which I vicariously speak through Nietzsche—Moneyball.

Moneyball, the word that scares Joe Morgan worse than people realizing that he has no idea what he is talking about and never does any research. Moneyball, the word that single-handedly destroyed baseball. Moneyball, the book that detractors don’t even know the subject of. Moneyball, the book that has epitomized any new-fangled, crazy, baseball-hating, on-base percentage enthusiasts, despite the fact that so-called sabermetricians have been influencing baseball since 1977, 26 years before Moneyball was published. You can see it everywhere in baseball now—this battle between the baseball traditionalists and the people who try to objectively evaluate players.

Just the other day, in a nationally televised game, Steve Phillips, Orel Hershiser and that deep-voiced bald guy tried to ruse Mark Shapiro into their trap. Shapiro talked about minor league boxscores and stats. They asked him about what scouts said. He avoided the trap by saying he liked to incorporate every kind of evaluation. I prayed for Steve Phillips (possibly the greatest general manager in the history of history, as well as the most intelligent baseball expert ever, ever) to ask Shapiro why he hired that crazy weirdo who invented VORP into his front office. But, alas, my prayers went unanswered.

…And the battle rages on. I shall make my offensive, probably to no avail…

Let’s start with the simplest—on-base percentage. It measures how often a player gets on base, or, more accurately, it measures how often a player avoids making outs. Last time I checked, baseball is chronologized by outs; so, someone who is good at avoiding outs, is good at baseball, yeah? No, the prophet Joe Morgan says on-base percentage is only good for lead-off hitters. The prophet 2.0 Dusty Baker says nasty OBP-ers like Frank Thomas and David Ortiz “clog up the bases” with their speedlessness (I patent that word).

Then there is that crazy-ass VORP shit. I’m pretty sure VORP was invented by some jerk to try and make Adam Dunn look like a good hitter. VORP, to review, stands for Value Over Replacement Player. It measures how many runs (not runs-runs, but runs created) a player adds to a line-up over the average AAA replacement player. Screw that crap, give me a .350 hitting first basemen who hits only singles and never walks, that’s what I call a baseball player; a baseball player who is extremely average and doesn’t really help a team much at all. VORP not only includes how many times a player hits per at-bat (even if they’re all singles), it even adjusts for a player’s position. Bullcrap, who cares about position? Shortstops, catchers and centerfielders hit just as well as first basemen.

Obviously, I am being facetious, because advanced statistics, in the most statistic-driven sport, might, perchance, be useful (that was six commas in one sentence!). Take all six of the main baseball statistics par example:

Batting Average: Like I said before, .350 hitter + all singles + no walks = crap.

Home Runs: The best a hitter can do, but only one of many possibly beneficial outcomes for a plate appearance.

RBI: A situational stat. Let me reiterate, a SITUATIONAL statistic. Justin Morneau can’t get 130 RBI in ‘06 without people on-base in front of him. Let’s take this a step further… Pretend there is a team with 8 me’s and Alex Rodriguez. I can’t avoid outs at all and A-Rod is all alone in his douche-ity. A-Rod’s OPS+ is 147 (according to his career average). A-Rod hits, say, 40 homers. With my major league talent, he has 5 runs to drive in (and that’s generous). That means he gets about 45 RBI. Seems like a pretty limited way to evaluate a hitter, no?

Wins: The most limited, stupidest statistic in the history of statistics. We can take another extreme example: Jake Peavy pitches 240 innings, striking out 300, walking none and “gives-up” 20 runs. His offense, meanwhile, never scores one run for him all year (not that much of a stretch when you think about it). Peavy goes 0-20. He, therefore, sucks at pitching and isn’t a “gamer.”

ERA: Tolerable, but there is so much that goes into it outside of a pitcher’s control—luck, defense, relievers, park.

Strikeouts: Like home runs, the best a pitcher can do in a plate appearance. There are still a lot of other things a pitcher can do, like walk everyone as Carlos Zambrano does.

Each of those statistics provides you with a tiny, little aspect of a player’s abilities. Don’t get rid of them, just don’t dogmatize them. EqA (equivalent average) or VORP encompass a great deal more than batting average, homers or RBI. They are statistics, as in facts. They aren’t something that some nerd pulled out of his ass. They are carefully calculated scientific fact.

The whole thing reminds me of Christianity vs. evolution. Evolution is basically proven, yet Christians are skeptical. George W. Bush is “undecided.” People come up with these scientific facts, but the baseball traditionalists don’t believe it because Adam and Eve boned and created everyone, forget all the incest. These stats are new, evil and Nietzsche’s poison. I mean, look at the front offices that are openly down with sabermetrics: Oakland (obviously), Boston, Cleveland, San Diego and Toronto (though I’m skeptical, since they signed Eckstein). All of those teams are relatively successful, and some are very successful. Poison? Nay, I say advantage—"and [they do] not call it poison."

Ok, I know this was more analytical than funny and entertaining, but I’ll come out with something funny and entertaining soon (I hope).

“Billy Shakespeare wrote a whole bunch of sonnets” – LFO in the 1999 hit song “Summer Girls”