FanPost

Research is the Future

simpsons-sabermetrics.0.jpg

It's time to retire the term Sabermetrics.

When Bill James coined the term in 1980 he had no idea Sabermetrics would become a popular buzzword used by baseball fans and media. James defined Sabermetrics as the search for objective knowledge about baseball. To many who talk or write about baseball for a living - objective knowledge is not what Sabermetrics means.

Sabermetrics has been used as a derogatory term by some. To the lazy baseball pundit Sabermetrics has little to no value and is done by weirdos in their basement who have never played the game. It's used as a crutch for people who say phooey to a bunch of complicated numbers.

I have no access to Bill James to ask him what he thinks about how the term Sabermetrics is now used. Maybe he loves the term and thinks its use should be continued. He probably is just happy knowing that his influence has helped lead all MLB franchises to recognize the benefits of improved objective baseball research. Regardless of what Bill James thinks of the term, baseball conversations and analysis would be better if we replaced the Sabermetrics with a more idiot-proof word.

Let's just call it Research.

The next time you hear an announcer say "Some sabermetric guys think sacrifice bunting is bad for scoring runs but obviously others in the game disagree." Instead that announcer should say "Research has shown sacrifice bunting is bad for scoring runs but others in the game disagree." This changes the conversation. Now the casual fan can't as easily dismiss this sort of data as weird or foreign. Its research. Its objective discussion. It puts the onus on the people who disagree to look at the research and dispute it.

I'm not going to scour the web for pull quotes of people dismissing Sabermetrics. It might make this article stronger but anyone who follows Joe Strauss on twitter or watches Michael Wilbon or Harold Reynolds or Hawk Harrelson sees ad-hominem attacks on people who use research to try to better understand baseball. Hawk believes in "The Will to Win" not Sabermetrics. Ok Hawk, what's your opinion on research? Do you do any research about baseball? What part of the research do you disagree with?

Getting rid of the term Sabermetrics shouldn't really be necessary. But it's clear that there are a lot of baseball writers, analysts and former players who need the help. They can't be bothered to read a few hundred words about studies on the predictability of clutch hitting or ERA. They WATCH the game, and to some, that's all that is necessary to understand baseball. These folks don't need Sabermetric bullshit coming from some silly blogger to know clutch hitting exists. They saw Derek Jeter for Christ sakes. (Never mind that Jeter's stats didn't improve in the postseason.)

The change from Sabermetrics to research also allows the casual baseball fan or un-acclimated analyst to realize that people who study baseball don't all have homogeneous views on the game. Some people who research baseball think the replacement level player isn't the proper benchmark to measure success. There's an argument that players should be measured against the league average player. Some people prefer FIP others prefer SIERA. Some like fWAR and others bWAR. And so on.

For this change in terminology to happen first the more widely read Sabermetricians need retire the term. Hopefully that will lead others to do the same.

Bottom line, Sabermetrics is a loaded term that causes some baseball media and fans to shut their eyes and jam fingers in their ears and not even consider the evidence. The objective study of baseball should be called research. It might make the data more palatable and improve discourse and the level of analysis around the league.

Maybe this plan is hopeless and Joe Strauss would just start using #DontResearchMeBro. Whatever.