As for the park factors – if he seriously did understand the issues as expressed in his followup comment, then it was either reckless or dishonest or both to phrase his criticism of them the way he did. As he acknowelges himself, Halladay’s impact on his home park’s RPG is offset by his impact on his team’s road RPG. If you want to argue that there are differences in playing time between a player on the road and at home, that’s fine, but that’s not what the original article said, and I don’t see how it’s unfair to call it an ignorant criticism in that it ignores that fact. (Ignoring the fact even after you are aware of it is not, by the way, a defense. It is in fact the refuge of the worst cheats and scoundrels – to make a point by ignoring the facts inconvenient to the point you are making.)

As for Wieters, simply Googling “wieters projection” would lead you to this critique (full disclosure: I wrote it) of that projection, from a “cultist” in Brian’s argot, written before the start of the season. Far from being an arguement against the sabermetric community, the Wieters projection is a moment where the community actually went out, questioned something and found a different answer. If you want to know why the Wieters projection, as-is, was published in that form, don’t use it as an excuse to blast those of us who are in the analytic community.

As a company owned by Baseball Prospectus, it seems to me the height of insult to mock the sabermetric community for the Wieters projection, when we’ve known damn well for a while now that it was full of hot air. Why don’t you instead direct your critical energies at your bosses who have yet to make a correction to the projection in the face of the outcry from the sabermetric community?

For example, on the topic of “park factors”, a few years ago, I posted about one way in which park factors could be improved, and since that time, it’s found its way into usage in some calculations of such factors. And I think there are many further advancements in that one tiny area which are available. Some thoughts:
- I’d suggested that the Beltre/Sexson signings by Seattle years ago weren’t great for their park, but multiple M’s bloggers told me that those two guys hit their homers in such a manner that they go out wherever they are. Such “hit location” charts alter any standard “park factor”.
- In chatting with Brian, it occurred to me that there are imbalances in Home/Road. I personally think his example here about Halladay doesn’t show anything, but what about Nolan Ryan’s Rangers years. Most years, he saw 50% more IP at home, with some being just silly (132 IP at home, 41 on the road in ‘91, seriously) That had to influence the Texas “park factors” to some extent!
- I know managers rarely adjust their starting rotation, but they will adjust their lineups and reliever usage for ballparks… so perhaps a park like Petco really has a different impact than the amalgamated numbers suggest, as managers are going to tend to tailor their lineups to the park, at least inasmuch as being more likely to use flyball pitchers and to give power hitters their off days in that park. A personnel-adjusted set of park factors would be fun to see.

There’s a fun, exciting world of new innovations being made. While it’s certainly easier to dismiss anything that seems different as “idiotic”, it isn’t about ease.

I do happen to have a bit of a clue on Park Factors… just because you don’t agree doesn’t mean I don’t have a clue… I know, I know, that is a sabermetric axiom that is consistently prevalent in sabermetric arguments but it is just not true… I’ve read the Park Factors description on Baseball-Reference and have toyed with ideas on how to improve on it so I’m not completely ignorant to it… I just choose to not accept it wholely as the end-all, be-all authority on the matter… although I’d say it is the best thing we have at the moment.

I used Roy Halladay for a reason and actually, he can be used to argue against me because he actually threw 132-1/3 innings on the road and 113-1/3 innings at home so he actually impacted the Blue Jays more on the road than he did at home so you could have easily disproved my statement with that little fact… however, you chose to call me names. That’s ok, too… just doesn’t do much for your argument. Except show off your Internet muscles. (Tank top or sleeveless?)

Anyway, I used Halladay for two reasons, one the obviousness of him being a dominant pitcher independent of the ballpark he is in… the other being, well, you’re the sabermetrician, you tell me…

Thanks for the discussion… much appreciated!

–It is pretty obvious by your silly attempt to take down park factors that you do not have the faintest clue about how they actually work and how they are actually used. Since you don’t know or understand park factors, it is completely pointless to attempt to bash it. There has been a lot of work and research done on park factors by very smart people who love to watch baseball, and to brush it aside based on an inaccurate characterization of how you think they are (as if no-one had ever thought of it before,) is both ignorant and arrogant.

So, thank you, JeffK, by calling me ignorant and an idiot… that pretty much makes my point about that.

I do understand sabermetrics… I may have not made myself clear in my writing on my stance because I find most of sabermetrics very useful. Part of my disdain for those who use/analyze statistics is that typically they take their amazing piece of filet mignon and slap it on the top of a trash can lid and serve it to me for dinner and then tell me I’m a moron if I don’t like their choice of service.

Comparing value to weight is an interesting way to look at science vs. sabermetrics… however, I would contend that if you get specific weight becomes more objective while you still have some work to do when it comes to value in baseball due to it being more complex. If you want to argue that batting average is pretty objective (since it is a percentage of how often a player gets a hit in a given period of time) then I’d have to agree. But value is so difficult because there are so many variables.

Back to the weight v. player value argument… if I specify parameters, it is easier for me to make weight objective than it is with player value:

“What is your weight on Earth?” (Pretty much the same and kilograms and pounds have a mathematical conversion to equal each other so that doesn’t count as a variant in the answer.)

“What is Matt Wieter’s Major League level value?” (Does your valuation factor in defense? Does it overvalue defense? Does it favor OPS, is it altered by Park Factor? (which I would then ask if we considered the complexities of Park Factor))

Anyway, I don’t think you are understanding my argument. I’m not deriding sabermetrics, I’m deriding those who think we can get true understanding of the game solely by sabermetrics and that the current accepted ratings may be flawed in certain ways.

But I am completely ok with you bashing it without attempting to understand my point. That’s your choice.

Thanks for your comments and criticisms, I appreciate the discussion.

Let’s just start with this right here. This is a flat-out ignorant statement. Whether or not it is intentionally so, I have no idea. As it is for all intents and purposes a thesis statement for your article, its inclusion shows a lack of understanding without resorting to the same passive-aggressive defense of sabermetrics that you employ in deriding it.

Science claims to be objective, as well. In much the same way, as there is a method (the scientific method, which may or may not surprise you to learn) that outlines procedures and avenues for offering proof of claims and providing numbers and data so that others can reproduce and test results. The concept of mass, and hence ‘weight’ is a result of that method. If I ask you “What do you weigh?”, you may or may not have an immediate response, just like if I ask someone next to me at a game “What is Matt Wieter’s value this season?” And yet, just like the question of his value has a number of different answers depending on the assumptions made (Which method are we using?), so does the answer of your weight. The answer differs depending on what the level of gravity is. Is your claim that science is not objective because there are multiple answers to the question?

If so, you’re an idiot who can be dismissed on face. If not, then you’re simply someone who didn’t think through your claim, your thesis, that sabermetrics cannot be objective because it can objectively provide different answers to the same question. Regardless, you should attempt to understand something before you bash it. That’ll do for now.

Anything specifically you feel I’m missing the boat on here or is it just the fact that I offered some fundamental criticism of sabermetrics in general?