Move Over, Holyfield & Tyson:
It's Fan vs Stathead!

Dave Paisley

There is no sadder sight than a pitched battle between lovers of the game of baseball. Sadly, this occurs quite regularly, especially on Usenet's baseball newsgroups. There's something about the relative anonymity and impersonality of the medium that lends itself to invective that, had it been spoken face to face, would have resulted in a punch in the kisser. Many of these arguments arise in discussions between "fans" and "statheads". This is not to imply that "fans" are not knowledgable about stats, nor that "statheads" are not fans of the game, but that they approach the game from opposite ends of the spectrum, and only rarely meet in the middle.

The strange thing is, these heated debates usually revolve around the middle-of-the-road players. Few question the ability of Griffey, Bonds, Thomas, Maddux or Clemens. These guys produce at a consistently high level, are usually taken for granted, and the only time anyone pays attention is when they play poorly. (For example, when one brings up Bonds' lack of production in the post-season...I'm sorry, did I say that out loud?)

No, usually in the great Fan vs. Stathead debate, it's not the superstars that cause the friction. It's usually the light-hitting shortstop or second baseman clinging tenaciously to a full-time major league job that sparks the acrimony.

A good example is Mark Lemke, new Red Sox second baseman, formerly of the Braves. In ten major league seasons, he's a career .248 hitter, even though he switch hits. In 1994, he batted .294, but hasn't cracked .255 before or since. He sports a career .319 on-base percentage and a .327 slugging average. He does have an excellent defensive reputation, and that's what keeps him in the lineup. He may be the epitome of the light hitting, good fielding second baseman.

Let's listen in on a hypothetical conversation between a stathead and a fan...

STATHEAD: My Aunt Agatha can field at second base as well as or better than Lemke, hit better, and cost less. So Lemke should be shipped off to the great scrub second baseman graveyard in the sky.

FAN: That's hogwash! Mark Lemke, as everyone who loves baseball knows, is a smooth fielding, gritty, clutch player who helped the Atlanta Braves win a World Series. He was a key member of the best team of the nineties, and his leadership in the clubhouse is invaluable.

Who is right? What is it that endears Mark Lemke to the fan?

How about post-season play? Offensively, Lemke has had two excellent postseason series ('91 WS, '96 NLCS) and one decent one ('92 NLCS) out of eleven. For the remainder, he has been generally below even his own dismally low standards. On average, his post-season offense looks much like his regular season offense. The stathead remembers this, and knows where to look it up. But what the fan remembers is the '91 World Series, where Lemke got 10 hits in 24 at bats, including three triples and a double. For a week, he was on fire, and it was just his second full year in the majors - definitely a good time to make an impression. Also, Lemke is actually a pretty good-fielding second baseman, so in this case the stathead's comment is just an inflammatory insult. Not that that ever happens in real arguments...

I see this conflict primarily as a difference in personality styles. The stathead leans to the analytical side of the argument and is more apt to view Lemke dispassionately as a high-priced slab of beef, out there to make plays and get hits. The fan leans more to the emotional and is more likely to remember that great World Series play, and blank out the more mundane performances. Every good play she sees him make, every key hit he gets, just reinforces the notion that he's a good, gritty player.

So again, who's right?

I'd say, hedging my bets seriously, neither or both. There are few baseball fans at either extreme of the spectrum. Most of us fall somewhere in the middle, and it's this fascinating blend of objective stats and visceral reaction to the play on the field that makes baseball such a great game.

I tend to be a stathead in the off-season, where I can be objective about the kind of moves that a team needs to make to get better. During the season, and especially at games, I like to be the emotional fan, rooting for the last scrub on the bench to drive in the winning run in the bottom of the ninth.

So I say, let the stathead and the fan bury the hatchet (just not in each others heads). Let's concentrate on more important things, like figuring out when Bud Selig will give way to a real commissioner. Or when the players will admit they make too much money. Or...

...well, maybe we better just keep arguing about Mark Lemke. And Joey Cora. And Wil Cordero. And will Barry Bonds ever show up in the post-season?

Dave Paisley is currently looking for a handicapped individual to pit against Jay Buhner in a footrace. High school shop teachers can contact Dave at drdjp@strikethree.com.

Custom Search