Why is 'Protection' the Final Frontier?

[Pavelb1]

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/9...oblem-to-solve

I read this, and the guy may as well have said "Jobu is angry with Mark Teixiera, he no sacrifice chicken....in other news, the great dragon Jormundgand ate the sun today so we're looking at 50,000 years of darkness."

And what's worse is 20 or so people comment, and not a one says anything like "It doesn't frigging matter where Teixiera bats, Arod is one of the alltime greatest batters ever.....and by the way 'Protection' is a myth".

[Arctic Blast]

I have to ask...why does it matter? I have to say, dude, that your response here comes off as either absolute and total arrogance or absolute and total weakness in being able to defend your stance, so you resort to mockery. Believe what you want, let others believe what they want.

[HoustonGM]

I have to ask...why does it matter? Seriously, THIS right here is the one aspect of Sabermetrics that continues to bother me...the absolute need to seemingly 'convert' everyone to your 'side' of things. It creates quite an image for people...either such a level of arrogance that anything not in lockstep with your feelings must be mocked...or such absolute weakness of argument that, since you can't apparently have a debate you just attack everything.

I just wanna say that that is not an "aspect of sabermetrics." It's an aspect of people...people that exist on both sides of the issue.

Personally, I see it much more from the "anti-sabermetrics side", who continually make snide comments about "nerds that live in their mother's basement" and what not. Those people refuse to even engage in discussion of any sort with the other side, civil or otherwise. Instead of being open to the evidence and data, they just dismiss it right away, and mock whoever brings it up, often resorting to the tried and true "Get your head out of the book and watch baseball for once" nonsense. These people think that they know everything just by watching games, and if there's evidence that proves them wrong, they respond to it with "If you'd watch a game, you'd see I'm right." Personally, I find that attitude way worse than similar people on the sabermetric side, because at least those people are usually willing to participate in a discussion, and provide evidence in support of their views.

A lot of times, from the sabermetric side, it's not that "we need everyone to convert to our side." It's that the evidence is so overwhelming for something, yet people still refuse to believe it, and well, that's frustrating. Take, for example, that on-base percentage and slugging percentage are more conducive to run-scoring than batting average. This isn't a matter of feeling one way, and being upset when people disagree. It's a matter of being right and there being a group of people that refuse to change their beliefs even when the evidence is incontrovertible.

[Arctic Blast]

Yeah, I already went back and changed the entire thing.

[HoustonGM]

Personally, I'm not quite following what Pavelb1 is saying throughout most of his post. Judging from past posts and this one, though, "protection" is a sort of pet peeve of his, so he's just expressing angst over a column fawning over protection and people not commenting to point out that protection has largely been debunked. Nevertheless, the first post in this thread is a bit...odd.

[Arctic Blast]

Well, I'm glad to have contributed to the bizarreness as I once more saw red and took off typing before stopping to think first.

[Swampdog]

It goes both ways. It's not like the stat geeks dont foam at the mouth when someone makes a comment like "Well, Smith had 20 more homers and 40 more RBI's than Jones did".

Any sabermetrician wannabe is going to respond with "RBI's? Are you SERIOUS, man? Jones beats Smith in overall TWERP ratings by three ten-thousands of a point! Compare their GLOB rankings. Look at the SLOOP averages. No way that Smith was better."

That doesn't help, I assure you. The vast majority of baseball fans have absolutely no idea what the stat-of-the day is. Citing VORP, DIPS, WARP, etc, makes you look just like that geek in mommies basement that was mentioned. I'm not saying that these stats have no merit...anyone who has read a few of my posts knows that I embrace the sabermetrics world. I'm saying that both sides contribute to the gulf that exists between the traditional, casual fans and the new age statheads.

Note- The traditional stats do have merit as well. They are just not the end-of-discussion-stats that they were believed to be for decades. I still put a lot of stock in Wins and Losses for starting pitchers, particularly over several seasons.

On subject, "protection" is pretty much the stuff of legend, and nothing else, its true. Yet, just a few months back, there were many, many posters who claimed that Manny Ramirez made ALL the Dodgers better, due to the protection he provided in the lineup. This was false, of course. Some players did hit better the final two months, and some tanked. It had next to nothing to do with Ramirez. That didn't stop everyone from giving Ramirez all the credit though.

[dps]

I thought space was the final frontier.