THE FIGHT AMONGST BASEBALL WRITERS

There has been a war growing between two factions of baseball writers. In the first group are many of the people that you see on TV and read in the newspaper. They are men like Joe Morgan and John Kruk, newspaper columnists in your hometown paper that have followed the home team for decades, and use their experience in the game to help shape your opinion on what successful baseball entails.

Everybody’s favorite announcer… to poop on.

The other group you may have only recently heard of. Led by early pioneer Bill James and the Society of American Baseball Research (SABR), they have lead to a statistical revolution in baseball, where a large group of writers have begun “the search for objective knowledge about baseball.” Sabermetrics were put into the public eye for many by the book Moneyball, which profiled Oakland A’s general manager Billy Beane, and his use of statistical analysis as a key tool in building the Oakland A’s organization.

The rise of statistics has come at an expense. Many of the “old school” members of the media, men who either played the game or have spent decades reporting on it, have become hostile to the new school of thought. Quick to poke fun at little-known stats like VORP, it feels sometimes that these men cling to their knowledge and experience, and simply choose to look down or dismiss the analysis sight unseen.

The same can be said for members of the “new school.” As more and more members of the SABR community become important contributors within Major League Baseball organizations, it hasn’t stopped a certain complex from continuing to grow amongst its ranks, similar to the inferiority complex that has infected bloggers. While the majority of writers do great work, they also spend great time and get great pleasure pointing out the foolishness in certain journalists point of view.

Friend of RTGD, Aaron Gleeman has been producing great baseball analysis since he started his blog in 2002. With over 5 million visitors to his website, Gleeman has been a vital member of the online baseball community, co-creating the Harball Times, and becoming a member of the mainstream media after accepting a job with NBC Sports. In his usual fiesty fashion, Aaron has taken his fair share of shots at the organization he loves, the Minnesota Twins, as well as certain baseball analysists and writers.

Two of Aaron’s favorite targets are ESPN’s Joe Morgan and Buster Olney. Back in 2004, Aaron wrote his quintessential criticism for Joe Morgan after reading a chat where Morgan stated that RBI and runs scored trump OBP (on-base percentage):

In that short passage, you essentially have Joe Morgan’s bread and butter “analysis.”

Everything is based on Joe’s beliefs in “old school” stuff, like runs and RBIs being more important than on-base percentage. Joe attempts to “play both sides” and avoid taking a strong stance, by prefacing everything he says with talk of him valuing OBP and trying to show others the value of OBP before it was popular to do so… You have a bunch of nonsense being passed off as analysis. Joe says, “How often does a team get four walks in an inning to drive in a run?”, as if on-base percentage does not account for hits. Finally, you have Joe using a specific example, without any sort of factual backing, meant to prove Joe’s thesis or general point. In this case, Joe even goes so far as to say that the example he is using is the perfect example.

Aaron continues by completing his dissection of Morgan, using a superior set of facts to make what Morgan writes clearly look foolish. His ability to use statistical analysis properly is something that sets Gleeman’s ability apart from Morgan’s when discussing the importance of evaluating player statistics in relation to winning baseball games.

Buster Olney is another familiar target for Gleeman. Olney came to ESPN in 2003 after starting his baseball writing career in 1989, spending his six years before ESPN at the New York Times. Gleeman’s main complaint with Olney can best be described here, in an antedote from a journalism class he took at the University of Minnesota, when a guest speaker began her analysis of magazines and publishing with an aside on the writing of Buster Olney:

Hearing that he likes sports writing, she immediately says to him, “Have you heard of a baseball writer named Buster Olney? He has written for the New York Times and ESPN… he’s a really outstanding writer… fantastic.”

I wasn’t sure whether to start laughing, throw up, or get up from my seat to look for the hidden camera crew from Punk’d. Yes, the very day I was… let’s say “very critical of Olney’s ESPN.com work, I was told by someone brought in to teach me about journalism that Olney is “a really outstanding writer” and “fantastic.”

I can see why people enjoy Olney’s work. He is, stylistically at least, a fine writer, and his reporting skills are clearly excellent. Where he gets into trouble is when he injects his opinions and biases into his pieces, or more simply when he tries to be an analyst instead of a reporter.

Olney is one of my favorite baseball writers, and for many of the reasons that Aaron lists in his last paragraph. As a baseball fan, I’m not usually looking for writers to impart wisdom that I don’t know about the game, but for them to tell me something that I can’t see or learn without the access. While Olney might have his failings when using statistics to help his case, he certainly is one of the best pure writers following the game.

Even if your elbow hurts, you can get your fastball down, Glen…

These two examples are a very long-winded way for me to get back to something that Aaron wrote today on his baseball blog. Watching Glen Perkins throw yesterday in his only inning of work, it was clear that he didn’t have his best stuff. Perkins routinely missed up in the strike zone, was lacking some velocity on his fastball, and was quickly taken advantage of by the Yankees’ hitters. News broke last night that Perkins was put on the disabled list with elbow inflammation. Here’s Gleeman’s analysis on the news. (Emphasis added by me):

Even before last night’s first-inning implosion Perkins had given up 18 runs in 22.1 innings during his previous four starts and now we know why: Perkins ‘said after the game that he had been dealing with some soreness in his elbow for some time.’ As usual attempting to pitch through arm soreness ends up simply hurting the team and the player. Instead of being shut down immediately, Perkins allowed 24 runs in 23 innings while delaying a trip to the disabled list and possibly making the injury worse.

If I’m going to spend a thousand words writing about the difference between analysis and opinion, this seems to be a good place to start. While Joe Morgan, or in last night’s case Orel Hershiser, the color commentator working the game last night, might draw the ire of SABR fans with their analysis, these two guys would have a much better idea of playing or pitching with soreness than someone using statistical analysis. While my career certainly never extended much longer than a few innings in college baseball, I can safely say that there was rarely a game that I threw in that my elbow, shoulder, or arm didn’t have some type of discomfort. And from the many pitchers I’ve talked to, that’s fairly common.

This perfect game was thrown with massive arm pain…

There are examples that span from Sandy Kofax to David Cone, about pitchers heroically throwing through pain to help their teams win. Koufax and Cone certainly didn’t do much to hurt their teams while grinding through the pain, and have the championships to prove it. (Although you could look at the end of Cone’s career and make a case.) One of the things I dislike most about today’s generation of pitcher is the propensity to shutdown after experiencing arm soreness. While no one can truly understand what pain threshold people are able to withstand, blanket statements about pitchers battling arm ailments simply hurting the team doesn’t do much to tell the true story of baseball. Aaron is one of my favorite writers to read online, and someone that I’m friendly with on a personal level as well. Yet his criticism of both Morgan and Olney could be leveled against himself for his most recent opinion on Glen Perkins’ arm troubles.

Koufax led the Dodgers even though he was barely able to lift his arm.

The rise of statistical analysis in baseball has been one of the best parts of baseball in the past 10-15 years. New voices like Aaron, Rob Neyer, and the continued work of people like Bill James has reshaped the way many people both inside and outside of baseball think about the game. Yet the work of writers like Olney, and the analysis and experience offered by people like Joe Morgan (even if he does drive many of us nuts), will always have a place in the game. Because while people will forever search to find a statistic or an objective way to quantify baseball, as long as it’s a game played by humans, it’ll be unquantifiable. Which means will continue to have to simply take people’s word for it.

(Sorry this got really, really long. I want my two hours back, too…)

Advertisement