Do You Have to Have Been Good at Baseball to Understand It?

[Fountain City Blues]

As I recall in little league on up, I played 2nd base (batted lefty, threw righty; don't ask why, I don't have a good answer either) and it certainly does provide perspective you just aren't going to get sitting on your ass looking at graphs and what not. What I will say, as with football, is often those who have never played one inning, or down, are sometimes the most knowledgeable about the game. So, the answer is no to the OP.

Perhaps one thing I always tell people is it's a very mechanical game. It's just as much about not making mistakes or going outside of yourself. Swinging for a homer often is a popup (or more likely a hilariously bad miss for non-MLB'ers) or worse for instance.

 

[broncosmitty]

As I recall in little league on up, I played 2nd base (batted lefty, threw righty; don't ask why, I don't have a good answer either) and it certainly does provide perspective you just aren't going to get sitting on your ass looking at graphs and what not. What I will say, as with football, is often those who have never played one inning, or down, are sometimes the most knowledgeable about the game. So, the answer is no to the OP.

Perhaps one thing I always tell people is it's a very mechanical game. It's just as much about not making mistakes or going outside of yourself. Swinging for a homer often is a popup (or more likely a hilariously bad miss for non-MLB'ers) or worse for instance.

That's an absolute bullshit answer man.

The most knowledgable people on football never played? Horseshit.

Not even sure how someone could pretend that's the truth.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

To understand sabers, statistics, etc... Of course not.

However, baseball is a game that has a lot of little intricacies that you can't possibly know about unless you played at a competitive level. Sure, you can understand most things, and that a certain hitter struggles with a certain pitch... this pitcher throws this pitch well with two strikes... you should shift the infield/outfield a certain way when this batter is up... all of that, you can learn.

However, to understand WHY a hitter struggles with a pitch from a mechanical standpoint. To understand why a pitcher is having a rough patch and what he is struggling with mechanically. Why does or doesn't a base stealer get good jumps? What should the catcher have called in that situation? Small intricacies like that cannot just be learned, if you never played at a competitive level. College or above... or some high school guys if they were smart enough at that age. There are some, no doubt.

This is actually a reasonable post as a saber-friendly poster, I don't play college ball (wish I took baseball more seriously when I was younger and maybe was bigger, faster, stronger, but that's life sometimes) but there's quite a bit of intricacy and nuance that goes into baseball. Maybe much less at the High school level, college, etc, but it's a pretty taxing game to be good at. There's a lot of things that saber helps out with if you know how to use it, but too often it's used as a bad excuse to claim overarching knowledge.

Some of these things kind of behave similarly (like hitting streaks) to just variable-interval schedules which can be attributed to small mechanical glitches and just plain ole variance and luck. So there are some blurry lines here and there, but I do think we need to approach questions with an open mind for the most part. Both Traditionalists and Saberheads are kind of guilty of being overly opinionated at times, imo.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

That's an absolute bullshit answer man.

The most knowledgable people on football never played? Horseshit.

Not even sure how someone could pretend that's the truth.

Some are, most probably are not. I can't have a rational discussion about most anything on the NFL general board for instance. If I start talking Leos? Going to get some dumbfounded looks from a lot of fans. But that's just it- some are. We shouldn't invalidate rational and insightful information- regardless if they played or not. FTR, I didn't play much football.

 

[broncosmitty]

Some are, most probably are not. I can't have a rational discussion about most anything on the NFL general board for instance. If I start talking Leos? Going to get some dumbfounded looks from a lot of fans. But that's just it- some are. We shouldn't invalidate rational and insightful information- regardless if they played or not.

People on this site are fans. That's all we are. Nobody here has a resume that would get them a professional front office or coaching gig. Some may kid themselves, but deep down, they know they're a fan. Some may take offense to others pointing out the obvious, and start threads like this one here.

The NFL Big Board is for trolling and polls, little else imo. Which isn't really an issue for me.

You can get decent football talk on the Lions Board. Or will be able to once the season starts. All the "Pro" Fanboys quit posting. (More time for face painting now.). Lions fans are going to be informed on all things Lions more than other fans. But Id hope they don't think that qualifies them to call plays.

It's more than ridiculous to try and say someone with no expierience at any certain craft is more knowledgable than someone who does it for a living. Sports or not, people need to be realistic with themselves. Sadly, that isn't all that common.

A lot of the blame for this modern trend in thinking can be placed on Michael Lewis' shoulders, imo.

 

[broncosmitty]

Who do you think is a non football playing football expert?

John Clayton?

 

[Fountain City Blues]

People on this site are fans. That's all we are. Nobody here has a resume that would get them a professional front office or coaching gig. Some may kid themselves, but deep down, they know they're a fan. Some may take offense to others pointing out the obvious, and start threads like this one here.

I don't know anyone in here on a personal level so that's a pretty good bet. I fashion myself as not entirely incompetent, but yeah, I do have to admit I am more than a few notches below a scout, GM, coach, etc. My dad insisted on chatting with the Cards' majority owner (probably jokingly since he hates saber) on one occasion (we happen to be friends with a relative of the DeWitts) for a job but there was some hub-bub about owner's considerations or what not that year. Dunno if it had anything to do with the Royals being in STL att.

You can get decent football talk on the Lions Board. Or will be able to once the season starts. All the "Pro" Fanboys quit posting. (More time for face painting now.). Lions fans are going to be informed on all things Lions than other fans. But Id hope they don't think that qualifies them to call plays.

Oh, I don't doubt that. There were a couple insufferable posters I avoid on another site that fit that description to a T.

Who do you think is a non football playing football expert?

I would say guys like Schatz and Kacsmer have made contributions that are either brand new entirely or have flown in the face of the established thought on a subject; certainly not observations you'd likely come to by just playing or watching. I am not sure I would quite go so far they are the pillars of knowledge for instance but I wouldn't be comfortable saying they aren't knowledgeable about football either. There are different ways to be knowledgeable about a sport, and that's ok. Villain earlier in the thread covered the Manager vs GM dynamic, so I won't rehash it, but I think that should help. Quite a few GM's coming in now have backgrounds that more resemble a hedge fund manager from an elite school than a former player.

On another note, didn't baseball prospectus have brain drain from real live baseball organizations like the Astros? I'd be surprised if all of them played baseball without researching it.

Edit: Didn't someone on the NFL board claimed Kacsmer was on KFFL a while back?

 

[RegentDenali]

Didn't play baseball past elementary school age, but I can recognize what a dumpster fire org the Mariners are and how they're always destined for slumps that wreck any chance at the playoffs...year...after year...after year.

Doesn't take someone with a high baseball IQ to figure shit like that out. It's common sense.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

Didn't play baseball past elementary school age, but I can recognize what a dumpster fire org the Mariners are and how they're always destined for slumps that wreck any chance at the playoffs...year...after year...after year.

Doesn't take someone with a high baseball IQ to figure shit like that out. It's common sense.

Cheer up- they actually look pretty decent this year.

 

[broncosmitty]

I don't know anyone in here on a personal level so that's a pretty good bet. I fashion myself as not entirely incompetent, but yeah, I do have to admit I am more than a few notches below a scout, GM, coach, etc. My dad insisted on chatting with the Cards' majority owner (probably jokingly since he hates saber) on one occasion (we happen to be friends with a relative of the DeWitts) for a job but there was some hub-bub about owner's considerations or what not that year. Dunno if it had anything to do with the Royals being in STL att.



Oh, I don't doubt that. There were a couple insufferable posters I avoid on another site that fit that description to a T.




I would say guys like Schatz and Kacsmer have made contributions that are either brand new entirely or have flown in the face of the established thought on a subject; certainly not observations you'd likely come to by just playing or watching. I am not sure I would quite go so far they are the pillars of knowledge for instance but I wouldn't be comfortable saying they aren't knowledgeable about football either. There are different ways to be knowledgeable about a sport, and that's ok. Villain earlier in the thread covered the Manager vs GM dynamic, so I won't rehash it, but I think that should help. Quite a few GM's coming in now have backgrounds that more resemble a hedge fund manager from an elite school than a former player.

On another note, didn't baseball prospectus have brain drain from real live baseball organizations like the Astros? I'd be surprised if all of them played baseball without researching it.

Edit: Didn't someone on the NFL board claimed Kacsmer was on KFFL a while back?

I don't know who Kacsmer is tbh. Or if he posted on KFFL. But I don't doubt people would make claims to be anyone or anything, this is the internet.

But I think we have a major difference of opinion on what knowledge of a sport is. I don't view statistical observations as anything more than observations personally. That doesn't mean I don't see value in those who can find an edge via statistics either. But I don't associate it with knowledge or expertise of a sport.

Sports to me is dominated by the human aspect. While DeepBlue may whipass as the best chess player in the world, it only is able to do so because it's participating in a game where the human aspect is of no importance. And that can't be said about any "sport".

 

[broncosmitty]

Use your words Omar.

 

[Omar 382]

Sure, eat a dick

 

[richig07]

This is actually a reasonable post as a saber-friendly poster, I don't play college ball (wish I took baseball more seriously when I was younger and maybe was bigger, faster, stronger, but that's life sometimes) but there's quite a bit of intricacy and nuance that goes into baseball. Maybe much less at the High school level, college, etc, but it's a pretty taxing game to be good at. There's a lot of things that saber helps out with if you know how to use it, but too often it's used as a bad excuse to claim overarching knowledge.

Some of these things kind of behave similarly (like hitting streaks) to just variable-interval schedules which can be attributed to small mechanical glitches and just plain ole variance and luck. So there are some blurry lines here and there, but I do think we need to approach questions with an open mind for the most part. Both Traditionalists and Saberheads are kind of guilty of being overly opinionated at times, imo.

I couldn't agree more. It has become a battle of its own. Guys are so stuck to their way of doing things, that all logic goes out the window. Whether they're traditionalists, or saber geeks.

I think there's room for both ways of thinking. Taking both view points into account when evaluating a player. I don't see why that is so hard. Don't stack up all of your chips on one way of viewing things. Take it all into account, and then make whatever decision it is for your ball club.

Each side could learn something from each other, IMO.

 

[gohusk]

I actually thing the opposite... I find people who played or had a significant role in any high level baseball have a problem with understanding what is really important...

They will look at a players swing instead of his results... How clean their defense is instead of whether they make the play or not... or whatever... They tend to evaluate talent much more than others... and baseball is probably the most results driven sport...

Coaches are obviously result-driven. The coaches can see a sweet swing and they'll stick with it to see if the results finally come in. They also have to deal with the politics of a first rounder who clearly doesn't have it but the FO doesn't want to look stupid. They also have to look at things like team chemistry and trying to keep the press at arms length.

Yes, results are obviously more important than how pretty you look. But the fact is that the guys with the pretty swings usually do produce some good numbers. You might have the one guy who does have the talent that's apparent, but doesn't produce. The reason behind that might be he's just out partying all the time and trying to ride on natural talent (Darryl Strawberry?). I think people can judge the game at arms length but somebody that doesn't have a real grasp of the sport from playing it at a high level would be lucky to get less than 100 losses with a team that isn't absolutely loaded.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I was a good ball player (semi pro), and got invited to minor league spring training. I never made it on a team. I learn many things there, but most of all; I leaned how GOOD each and every player was. Where I played before I was a superstar, when I reach the lowest level of professional baseball I couldn't make the team. I wish all the people who criticize the players could spend one day playing at a Major League level.

I don't doubt it... And of course making it to the bigs is very hard... But why cant we fans criticize?? Isnt that part of what a fan is?? There is an understanding, that all these players are better than we are/were... When we call players terrible, it is relative to the rest of the players... No, I don't think I could hit over .100 or even have an OBP of over .100, but that doesn't mean I cant call someone with a .235 OBP or a 6.35 ERA sucky...

I do think someone who was never a good athlete can GM or manage a team, BUT if they are the manager or coach, they better have other coaches that have playing experience... Its not about the knowledge, it is about the trust and advice... Why would a player ever accept the advice of a never was??

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Who do you think is a non football playing football expert?

John Clayton?

I don't think knowledge of a sport is dependent on skill... So even someone with very little playing experience can easily have as much knowledge of a sport...

And I do think statistics can tell the full story... The problem is not about the knowledge it is about sharing it and expressing it... Players wont listen to a never was... taking advice from someone with no experience is very hard, even if the advice is good...

 

[Voltaire26]

I don't doubt it... And of course making it to the bigs is very hard... But why cant we fans criticize?? Isnt that part of what a fan is?? There is an understanding, that all these players are better than we are/were... When we call players terrible, it is relative to the rest of the players... No, I don't think I could hit over .100 or even have an OBP of over .100, but that doesn't mean I cant call someone with a .235 OBP or a 6.35 ERA sucky...

I do think someone who was never a good athlete can GM or manage a team, BUT if they are the manager or coach, they better have other coaches that have playing experience... Its not about the knowledge, it is about the trust and advice... Why would a player ever accept the advice of a never was??

With all due respect, I disagree. Sure there are a few exceptions (Connie Mack - he owned the team). You may not have to been great but professional experience extremely important. Now anybody can be a fan, just remember when you yelling at that "marginal at best" ballplayer, he pretty frickin' good!!!

 

[Fountain City Blues]

I don't doubt it... And of course making it to the bigs is very hard... But why cant we fans criticize?? Isnt that part of what a fan is?? There is an understanding, that all these players are better than we are/were... When we call players terrible, it is relative to the rest of the players... No, I don't think I could hit over .100 or even have an OBP of over .100, but that doesn't mean I cant call someone with a .235 OBP or a 6.35 ERA sucky...

I do think someone who was never a good athlete can GM or manage a team, BUT if they are the manager or coach, they better have other coaches that have playing experience... Its not about the knowledge, it is about the trust and advice... Why would a player ever accept the advice of a never was??

Trey Hillman had this problem when managing the Royals. Was too busy trying to play teacher rather than leading er, well, managing. Yost might be tactically inferior to many, many managers, but he does have the trust and respect of the players. And by all indications, his management is downright libertarian at times. Lot more positive than bad has come out of it.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

With all due respect, I disagree. Sure there are a few exceptions (Connie Mack - he owned the team). You may not have to been great but professional experience extremely important. Now anybody can be a fan, just remember when you yelling at that "marginal at best" ballplayer, he pretty frickin' good!!!

Honestly, the point is moot... It is not like we will ever see a manager/coach without playing experience... The thing with all crafts is the more time you put into it the better you get... Someone who wasn't good at the sport is likely not going to put the effort in to knowing HOW to coach...

 

[jdwills126]

No!

But it helps with the nuances like who is cutoff, who covers the bunt, the double switch and things like that. To many people criticize managers and don't understand the moves they make or why they had to make them. But for enjoyment hit, pitch and field is all you need to know to enjoy watching a game.