I think the "debate", as it were, over traditional vs. sabermetrics is fascinating to read about and listen to. While, for the most part I appreciate and agree with the analysis provided by sabr types, the Moneyball zealots are truly obnoxious -- some sort of sociological trend of nerds using calculators instead of muscles.
But, I am no statitician, and really don't even follow baseball all that closely as a Brewers fan, but I am curious to know what YOU think are the flaws in the philosophy. The biggest "flaw" I see is that the propenents -- especially the most religious of adherents -- use the statistics to prove their points after the fact, and also have little if any impact on the stategies within each individual game. Anyway curious to know how you'd critique it.
I think the "debate", as it were, over traditional vs. sabermetrics is fascinating to read about and listen to. While, for the most part I appreciate and agree with the analysis provided by sabr types, the Moneyball zealots are truly obnoxious -- some sort of sociological trend of nerds using calculators instead of muscles.
But, I am no statitician, and really don't even follow baseball all that closely as a Brewers fan, but I am curious to know what YOU think are the flaws in the philosophy. The biggest "flaw" I see is that the propenents -- especially the most religious of adherents -- use the statistics to prove their points after the fact, and also have little if any impact on the stategies within each individual game. Anyway curious to know how you'd critique it.
Commenting by HaloScan
