Why do people resist change/improvement in understanding baseball...

[Omar 382]

or even just resisting the pursuit of understanding baseball in general? I have found that a lot of times I read things on this board specifically, and then respond with information to either expand upon or refute their point, I'm presented with hostility. On most boards when I have been presented with hostility in my <10 years of posting on message boards, the hostility is accompanied with that person's own information that is founded and intended to convince me of their opinion. In this board, it's all just name-calling and/or subjective statements that are unverifiable. Now I'm fine with name-calling, it's fun, and I do it myself, but it's always accompanied with substance to back it up.

So why do people dislike trying to discuss things with objective and quantitative statements? For example, many people on these boards write:

(1) "It is hot outside today."

While I might write something like:

(2) "It is 90 degrees outside today, with an 80% humidity. Relative to the average recorded June temperature of the last 200 years, it is 20% hotter today, assuming 'hotness' is contingent on temperature and humidity factor."

(I'm not a weather guy, so if I said something wrong with the use of this analogy, I apologize)

Now, you would never say statement (1) to your cousin when you see him at a cookout. It'd be fucking weird. Neither of you are weather experts, and furthermore, nobody is challenging the fact that it's hot outside that day. I experience similar situations all the time. When I see someone wearing a Phillies shirt around UD campus, I say "Go Phillies" to them. One time, I said it when I was in the lounge and someone walked by with a Nat's shirt while I was watching the Phillies and he said "we took you guys to the cleaner with that Papelbon trade! How could you guys just give away a dominant closer? He might get 40 saves this season!" Now, this statement is very flawed, and I could easily respond to him. But, I don't. I thought about it and wondered why, and I came up with these reasons:

1. He may not follow baseball very much
2. He isn't claiming to follow baseball
3. He isn't challenging my thought process or statements
4. He may not even be trying to be didactic. He could say that statement, not as gospel, but as a way to ask my opinion of it

So there are numerous reasons I don't respond. And then I read this board, and I do find myself constantly responding to Nos, Iffy, handicappers, broncosmitty, and others. I wondered why, and I came up with a few reasons

1. They are claiming they follow baseball, by posting about it on a baseball forum
2. They have access to numerous resources online that could teach them things that are objective and/or factual, like Babe Ruth is better than Roberto Clemente, how FIP is calculated, W/L are useless in measuring a player's performance, hitting was dominant in the '90s, pitching was dominant in the '60s, you don't have to play baseball to understand it, fans affect real-life baseball outcomes, ects.
3. They directly and openly challenge my thought process
4. They make assertions that they are more knowledgable about baseball, and are thus right while I am wrong

So now that we know why I respond, the question is, why are my responses met with contempt. More directly, why don't people want to learn more about baseball. I have been constantly ridiculed for utilizing advanced statistics, reading Fangraphs, reading baseball history books, etc. Why are people so angry about me attempting to learn more about something I love? Doesn't that seem odd? Like, you're a US history teacher, and you're reading a book on the Vietnam War, and a co-worker is like "You nerd! Why are you wasting your time reading about Vietnam? Don't you have better things to do?"

Now, one might logically ask, "Well, if you're confused about why people take exception with how you view and understand baseball, isn't it hypocritical for you to take exception and challenge how other people view baseball?" The answer is that, by taking the time to post about baseball on a baseball forum, you are interested in it and want to learn more about it. If handicapper gave convincing evidence that was quantifiable that Bernie Williams was indeed better than Babe Ruth, I would be wowed and amazed and thank him for allowing me to look at something in a better view. I would be happy because I would be enlightened with (what would have to be) new statistics that actually proved Bernie Williams is better than Ruth, and then I could apply that knowledge to other players and situations.

But alas, that is not the case. I am not presented with knowledgable counterpoints, I am presented with chiding for using statistics or reading about baseball. Could someone explain this?

TL;DR
Lots of people on this board say things that are wrong. When I tell them they're wrong, and give statistics to back up what I'm saying, I'm called a nerd and loser. Why is the pursuit of learning about something you love so much met with so much contempt from this board?

 

[Dolemite censored]

I'd respond to this, but my rates for counseling are $25 a word for reading and $15 a word for responding.

I take all major credit cards. No checks.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

On another private board, I am dubbed the "calculator," so I am often in a similar position.

Generally speaking, most construct a variety of worldviews, and often the case is when someone pokes a hole into that, it's met with denial. Works in a variety of contexts in situations. For example, challenge deeply held conservative- and/or liberal- viewpoints in politics and you'll get blasted by partisan opposition immediately regardless of facts. The pro-analytics folks (including myself) are generally not in the majority anyways. I find myself at a loss trying to explain anything like FIP to family members for instance- just doesn't compute for people.

 

[Cedrique]

or even just resisting the pursuit of understanding baseball in general? I have found that a lot of times I read things on this board specifically, and then respond with information to either expand upon or refute their point, I'm presented with hostility. On most boards when I have been presented with hostility in my <10 years of posting on message boards, the hostility is accompanied with that person's own information that is founded and intended to convince me of their opinion. In this board, it's all just name-calling and/or subjective statements that are unverifiable. Now I'm fine with name-calling, it's fun, and I do it myself, but it's always accompanied with substance to back it up.

So why do people dislike trying to discuss things with objective and quantitative statements? For example, many people on these boards write:

(1) "It is hot outside today."

While I might write something like:

(2) "It is 90 degrees outside today, with an 80% humidity. Relative to the average recorded June temperature of the last 200 years, it is 20% hotter today, assuming 'hotness' is contingent on temperature and humidity factor."

(I'm not a weather guy, so if I said something wrong with the use of this analogy, I apologize)

Now, you would never say statement (1) to your cousin when you see him at a cookout. It'd be fucking weird. Neither of you are weather experts, and furthermore, nobody is challenging the fact that it's hot outside that day. I experience similar situations all the time. When I see someone wearing a Phillies shirt around UD campus, I say "Go Phillies" to them. One time, I said it when I was in the lounge and someone walked by with a Nat's shirt while I was watching the Phillies and he said "we took you guys to the cleaner with that Papelbon trade! How could you guys just give away a dominant closer? He might get 40 saves this season!" Now, this statement is very flawed, and I could easily respond to him. But, I don't. I thought about it and wondered why, and I came up with these reasons:

1. He may not follow baseball very much
2. He isn't claiming to follow baseball
3. He isn't challenging my thought process or statements
4. He may not even be trying to be didactic. He could say that statement, not as gospel, but as a way to ask my opinion of it

So there are numerous reasons I don't respond. And then I read this board, and I do find myself constantly responding to Nos, Iffy, handicappers, broncosmitty, and others. I wondered why, and I came up with a few reasons

1. They are claiming they follow baseball, by posting about it on a baseball forum
2. They have access to numerous resources online that could teach them things that are objective and/or factual, like Babe Ruth is better than Roberto Clemente, how FIP is calculated, W/L are useless in measuring a player's performance, hitting was dominant in the '90s, pitching was dominant in the '60s, you don't have to play baseball to understand it, fans affect real-life baseball outcomes, ects.
3. They directly and openly challenge my thought process
4. They make assertions that they are more knowledgable about baseball, and are thus right while I am wrong

So now that we know why I respond, the question is, why are my responses met with contempt. More directly, why don't people want to learn more about baseball. I have been constantly ridiculed for utilizing advanced statistics, reading Fangraphs, reading baseball history books, etc. Why are people so angry about me attempting to learn more about something I love? Doesn't that seem odd? Like, you're a US history teacher, and you're reading a book on the Vietnam War, and a co-worker is like "You nerd! Why are you wasting your time reading about Vietnam? Don't you have better things to do?"

Now, one might logically ask, "Well, if you're confused about why people take exception with how you view and understand baseball, isn't it hypocritical for you to take exception and challenge how other people view baseball?" The answer is that, by taking the time to post about baseball on a baseball forum, you are interested in it and want to learn more about it. If handicapper gave convincing evidence that was quantifiable that Bernie Williams was indeed better than Babe Ruth, I would be wowed and amazed and thank him for allowing me to look at something in a better view. I would be happy because I would be enlightened with (what would have to be) new statistics that actually proved Bernie Williams is better than Ruth, and then I could apply that knowledge to other players and situations.

But alas, that is not the case. I am not presented with knowledgable counterpoints, I am presented with chiding for using statistics or reading about baseball. Could someone explain this?

TL;DR
Lots of people on this board say things that are wrong. When I tell them they're wrong, and give statistics to back up what I'm saying, I'm called a nerd and loser. Why is the pursuit of learning about something you love so much met with so much contempt from this board?

 

[Cedrique]

But yeah, some people think they know everything already, so aren't interested in learning

 

[Omar 382]

CinemaSins much?

 

[Used 2 B Hu]

Hey, I just like watching baseball. I don't really get into dissecting stats and stuff. I don't even understand half of these new Sabremetrics dealies, so I don't bother to get into protracted discussions on them.

I sympathize with your frustration, though. Maybe the Team boards are better places for those kinds of extensive dialogues, but main boards are usually just for name calling, trolling, and bullshitting.

Also, the Phillies stank

 

[Omar 382]

Hey, I just like watching baseball. I don't really get into dissecting stats and stuff. I don't even understand half of these new Sabremetrics dealies, so I don't bother to get into protracted discussions on them.

I sympathize with your frustration, though. Maybe the Team boards are better places for those kinds of extensive dialogues, but main boards are usually just for name calling, trolling, and bullshitting.

Also, the Phillies stank

2 games back of your Muts

 

[Used 2 B Hu]

2 games back of your Muts

That's the spirit! Hoorah fer Philly!

Seriously, you guys have some insane young pitchers. It's too bad they have 81 games in that bandbox.

 

[johnson]

or even just resisting the pursuit of understanding baseball in general? I have found that a lot of times I read things on this board specifically, and then respond with information to either expand upon or refute their point, I'm presented with hostility. On most boards when I have been presented with hostility in my <10 years of posting on message boards, the hostility is accompanied with that person's own information that is founded and intended to convince me of their opinion. In this board, it's all just name-calling and/or subjective statements that are unverifiable. Now I'm fine with name-calling, it's fun, and I do it myself, but it's always accompanied with substance to back it up.

So why do people dislike trying to discuss things with objective and quantitative statements? For example, many people on these boards write:

(1) "It is hot outside today."

While I might write something like:

(2) "It is 90 degrees outside today, with an 80% humidity. Relative to the average recorded June temperature of the last 200 years, it is 20% hotter today, assuming 'hotness' is contingent on temperature and humidity factor."

(I'm not a weather guy, so if I said something wrong with the use of this analogy, I apologize)

Now, you would never say statement (1) to your cousin when you see him at a cookout. It'd be fucking weird. Neither of you are weather experts, and furthermore, nobody is challenging the fact that it's hot outside that day. I experience similar situations all the time. When I see someone wearing a Phillies shirt around UD campus, I say "Go Phillies" to them. One time, I said it when I was in the lounge and someone walked by with a Nat's shirt while I was watching the Phillies and he said "we took you guys to the cleaner with that Papelbon trade! How could you guys just give away a dominant closer? He might get 40 saves this season!" Now, this statement is very flawed, and I could easily respond to him. But, I don't. I thought about it and wondered why, and I came up with these reasons:

1. He may not follow baseball very much
2. He isn't claiming to follow baseball
3. He isn't challenging my thought process or statements
4. He may not even be trying to be didactic. He could say that statement, not as gospel, but as a way to ask my opinion of it

So there are numerous reasons I don't respond. And then I read this board, and I do find myself constantly responding to Nos, Iffy, handicappers, broncosmitty, and others. I wondered why, and I came up with a few reasons

1. They are claiming they follow baseball, by posting about it on a baseball forum
2. They have access to numerous resources online that could teach them things that are objective and/or factual, like Babe Ruth is better than Roberto Clemente, how FIP is calculated, W/L are useless in measuring a player's performance, hitting was dominant in the '90s, pitching was dominant in the '60s, you don't have to play baseball to understand it, fans affect real-life baseball outcomes, ects.
3. They directly and openly challenge my thought process
4. They make assertions that they are more knowledgable about baseball, and are thus right while I am wrong

So now that we know why I respond, the question is, why are my responses met with contempt. More directly, why don't people want to learn more about baseball. I have been constantly ridiculed for utilizing advanced statistics, reading Fangraphs, reading baseball history books, etc. Why are people so angry about me attempting to learn more about something I love? Doesn't that seem odd? Like, you're a US history teacher, and you're reading a book on the Vietnam War, and a co-worker is like "You nerd! Why are you wasting your time reading about Vietnam? Don't you have better things to do?"

Now, one might logically ask, "Well, if you're confused about why people take exception with how you view and understand baseball, isn't it hypocritical for you to take exception and challenge how other people view baseball?" The answer is that, by taking the time to post about baseball on a baseball forum, you are interested in it and want to learn more about it. If handicapper gave convincing evidence that was quantifiable that Bernie Williams was indeed better than Babe Ruth, I would be wowed and amazed and thank him for allowing me to look at something in a better view. I would be happy because I would be enlightened with (what would have to be) new statistics that actually proved Bernie Williams is better than Ruth, and then I could apply that knowledge to other players and situations.

But alas, that is not the case. I am not presented with knowledgable counterpoints, I am presented with chiding for using statistics or reading about baseball. Could someone explain this?

TL;DR
Lots of people on this board say things that are wrong. When I tell them they're wrong, and give statistics to back up what I'm saying, I'm called a nerd and loser. Why is the pursuit of learning about something you love so much met with so much contempt from this board?

I actually think it was Bill Murray (doesn't really matter though) who said something like: "It's really hard to win an argument with an intelligent person; it's impossible to win one with a stupid one." This board has a lot of stupid people and since they are behind a computer screen, they tend to drown out the adults attempting to have a conversation.

And we all fall into the trap in responding to them because, sadly, on this forum, there are so many active ones.

Honestly, if you want an intelligent conversation on something non-sports related, go to reddit. I like talking sports with fans of my teams on here. I'm lucky in that I don't think there's a single arse clown that is an AZ fan of any team I like. Even a few guys on the Bills board where we constantly disagree conduct themselves like grounded people.

 

[rmilia1]

I like advanced stats but at the end of the day I judge teams, and therefore the players on those teams, based on the ultimate statistic. Wins. Baseball is cool because individual stats are super important to the history of the game and an ability to understand then is awesome but it doesn't mean they are the only relevant measure. I took heat last year on my position as it pertained to Harper bring MVP. I understood his individual stats were better I just simply didn't correlate that to being Most Valuable. There are different ways to dissect information. In any event no one should get mad when presented with a valid argument but you in turn should not get upset if someone else defines their argument differently as long as they make a valid argument ( even if you don't agree )

 

[Omar 382]

I like advanced stats but at the end of the day I judge teams, and therefore the players on those teams, based on the ultimate statistic. Wins. Baseball is cool because individual stats are super important to the history of the game and an ability to understand then is awesome but it doesn't mean they are the only relevant measure. I took heat last year on my position as it pertained to Harper bring MVP. I understood his individual stats were better I just simply didn't correlate that to being Most Valuable. There are different ways to dissect information. In any event no one should get mad when presented with a valid argument but you in turn should not get upset if someone else defines their argument differently as long as they make a valid argument ( even if you don't agree )

Yeah but they're not making valid points

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I am a stats head... I graduated college with a statistics major...

But I find that the biggest problem is that people use stats wrong... People will spit out numbers and don't understand how they are using it...

Most sabremetrics statistics are used to predict... and most people don't understand the difference between the better player and the better career... Sabremetrics is really good at measuring talent, and what a player should be doing... But there is nothing better than the classic stats to show what a player has actually done....

Then when you get to adjusted statistics, half the time you don't agree with the adjustments, so you are relying on someone elses views of the sport... I personally like to create my own statistics so I can use my own weights, so I never get into the more complex stats out there...

I find that the more complex the stat gets the more subjective it gets...


I tend to use the more classical stats first, if they don't answer the question I need answered clearly enough, then I will make my own stats the way I value baseball...

 

[Chewbaccer]

The advanced statistics have their place, but IMO, the best way to judge a player is by watching them play. I trust my eyes more than I do some formula thought up by some nerd that can't be calculated with a calculator.

 

[DweeberAZ]

Basic stats of what happened are interesting, detail prediction stats are boring to me. Being told your team will go nowhere because it is based on details stats isn't any fun. Seeing the team beat the odds... if more fun.

I'd rather watch the game to see the result that seeing if the prediction comes true.

 

[Chewbaccer]

And there's certain things about players that no stat can quantify and the only way you see these qualities is by watching the game.

To my knowledge there is no stats that shows how well a first baseman can pick it at first base. A first baseman's ability to stretch and hold the bag, and scoop up short hops is vital, and many times, it is the difference between out and safe.

And the value of being a good base runner. Not necessarily base stealing, but the ability to read the ball off of your teammate's bat and go first to third on a single, or score from first on a double. Or even the guy who might be the most swift of foot, but has the ability to get a read on the pitcher and pick the right spots to take second. A guy like Chase Utley is is the all time leader in stolen base%.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

The advanced statistics have their place, but IMO, the best way to judge a player is by watching them play. I trust my eyes more than I do some formula thought up by some nerd that can't be calculated with a calculator.

I hate the eye test... personally, I think it is the worst way to judge a player... I understand why people love it... But it is not for me... Luckily for me, I very rarely attempt to judge players while watching the game...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

And there's certain things about players that no stat can quantify and the only way you see these qualities is by watching the game.

To my knowledge there is no stats that shows how well a first baseman can pick it at first base. A first baseman's ability to stretch and hold the bag, and scoop up short hops is vital, and many times, it is the difference between out and safe.

And the value of being a good base runner. Not necessarily base stealing, but the ability to read the ball off of your teammate's bat and go first to third on a single, or score from first on a double. Or even the guy who might be the most swift of foot, but has the ability to get a read on the pitcher and pick the right spots to take second. A guy like Chase Utley is is the all time leader in stolen base%.

Defensive metrics still suck... In my evaluation, I generally just rank a player defensively into 6 groups,
1. Terrible
2. Below average
3. Average
4. above average
5. good
6. Special

 

[MilkSpiller22]

SB% is also a difficult stat, I like to only count percentage if they have 20 or more SBs...

 

[Omar 382]

And there's certain things about players that no stat can quantify and the only way you see these qualities is by watching the game.

To my knowledge there is no stats that shows how well a first baseman can pick it at first base. A first baseman's ability to stretch and hold the bag, and scoop up short hops is vital, and many times, it is the difference between out and safe.

And the value of being a good base runner. Not necessarily base stealing, but the ability to read the ball off of your teammate's bat and go first to third on a single, or score from first on a double. Or even the guy who might be the most swift of foot, but has the ability to get a read on the pitcher and pick the right spots to take second. A guy like Chase Utley is is the all time leader in stolen base%.

There are statistics that measure that