I doubt I'm knowledgeable enough to answer the question. I got into sabermetrics a bit back in the 2010s and quickly realized it would take years of study to fully understand and appreciate them. I think they have value and wish I had the time to learn more about them.
I suspect that many, even most, baseball journalists may likewise be only on the edge of sabermetrics, taking what they can use (as you say, to prove a point they want to make). It may be that the main value of them is for websites like Baseball Reference and us fans and teams that use them to improve their play (ala "Moneyball").
I don't dislike or disqualify sabermetrics and understand the scientific nature of it. I just sometimes find it boring. The only reason I care about stats at all—or the main reason, anyway—is because they are so ingrained in baseball lore. Stats mentioned or referenced, to me, are more like props used in the telling of the story. That being said I understand why people like or enjoy exploring the more advanced metrics of the game and appreciate the outcomes they come up with.
I really like the idea of stats being "props used in the telling of a story." I think that's the right approach — and it matches up quite nicely with the best examples of baseball journalism I've read.
I doubt I'm knowledgeable enough to answer the question. I got into sabermetrics a bit back in the 2010s and quickly realized it would take years of study to fully understand and appreciate them. I think they have value and wish I had the time to learn more about them.
I suspect that many, even most, baseball journalists may likewise be only on the edge of sabermetrics, taking what they can use (as you say, to prove a point they want to make). It may be that the main value of them is for websites like Baseball Reference and us fans and teams that use them to improve their play (ala "Moneyball").
I don't dislike or disqualify sabermetrics and understand the scientific nature of it. I just sometimes find it boring. The only reason I care about stats at all—or the main reason, anyway—is because they are so ingrained in baseball lore. Stats mentioned or referenced, to me, are more like props used in the telling of the story. That being said I understand why people like or enjoy exploring the more advanced metrics of the game and appreciate the outcomes they come up with.
I really like the idea of stats being "props used in the telling of a story." I think that's the right approach — and it matches up quite nicely with the best examples of baseball journalism I've read.
No