Conventional Wisdom or Crap:
Part II: Statheads

Michael Cox

Last time, we talked about such wacky baseball platitudes as "good pitching beats good hitting", "games are too expensive for 'common folk' to attend", and "Peter Gammons knows what he's talking about". Well, we didn't have the space for that last one, but trust us, it's a myth.

Well, we're back, and taking on a more difficult target: the "statheads". Although they've already spent considerable time, and used many derogatory epithets, debunking the stuff we shot down Tuesday, sometimes the more bookwormish of fans get caught repeating certain things on faith. To be fair, the "thinking fans" usually are somewhat close to the truth, but tend to get a little, er, overzealous in their assertions. Let's begin:

"Protection is a myth."

Oh, how emphatically you hear this one. The main reason? It's difficult to prove, because it depends on a pitcher thinking differently when Griffey is at bat with Edgar Martinez on deck than the pitcher would with, say, Rich Amaral following. There is one large piece of evidence that a hitter is treated differently depending on the on-deck batter: the intentional base on balls. How this translates into everyday "protection" is anybody's guess.

It might be safer to say that on the whole, "protection" doesn't make a large difference, but for an unknown quantity (e.g., Alex Rodriguez, 1996) it can pay dividends.

"He's a crappy fielder. Defensive Average says so."

It is agreed that the official defensive stats - errors, fielding average - are under the arm. However, the reaction of "putting a lot of stock", as one stat book editor put it, in DA (or Zone Ratings or other, similar stats) ended up going too far in the other direction. DA and its kin are based on the noble idea of dividing the field into a grid and making each ball hit to that zone the "responsibility" of a fielder. Every double laced into the gap, every ball off the top of the Green Monster was charged to the nearest defender. However, park factors and pitching factors have been largely ignored.

Things like Ken Griffey going from worst to first in Defensive Runs rankings in a two-year period would be good evidence that a true measurement of defense is yet to be discovered. Some of the statmakers are figuring in park and pitching variables and discovering that yes, they make a difference, so the best is yet to come where measuring defense is concerned. And suddenly, the stat-minded don't make quite so many jokes about Griffey's "bad" defense...

"The playoffs don't count. They're just luck. It's the regular-season wins you should judge a team by".

Fair enough, but at least with more playoff rounds a team has to be lucky for a longer period of time. Still, I've never seen a parade down Main Street because the team won 100.

"A team who clinches early should rest their players for the postseason rather than risk injury in meaningless games."

But...wait...you just said...?!?

Besides, with prime seats going for around $200 per in some parks, it's likely that teams might start requiring their stars to play that final meaningless weekend series vs. Cincinnati, if not for "the fans", for the "cash cows".

"Top draftees deserve star salaries up front."

Usually shouted in defense of someone like J.D. Drew's demand for Albert Belle money before playing an inning in MLB. Pro sports already pays unproven employees more up front than almost any other profession - even other entertainment fields (music, movies, TV) require a track record at the top level before doling out up-front cash. Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't get $25M per because of his guest stint on "The Incredible Hulk", you know.

"'Buying a pennant' is a myth."

This used to be true, but looking at the pennant winners of recent years and the top payrolls of the same period tells us it's a different story now.

"Who cares what players do off the field."

Let's look at this one by starting with a patently ridiculous example first: If, say, Frank Thomas killed a man in cold blood but was acquitted on a technicality, almost everyone would have trouble helping pay his salary even if he hit like Frank Thomas. So take it down a few steps, and ask yourself how you'd feel about a rapist on your favorite team. How about an arsonist? A hit-and-run drunk driver? A spousal abuser? A guy caught smoking crack?

Point: everyone has a line they draw. Everyone *does* care, just in varying degrees.

So while not as out-and-out cockamamie as the stuff your hometown announcers and columnists may spew, these (and other) statements shouldn't be taken at face value either. Because a guy can rightly tell you that Tony Gwynn has mainly hit for empty average and that whatever positive traits Mike Bordick supplies don't justify his paycheck doesn't mean he's always right.

Michael Cox would like to assure you that no statheads were injured in the compiling of this column. Ask for evidence at mc@strikethree.com.