Purtians vs. Staticals

Here we go again - The Great Debate.  The right-brained Puritans vs. the left-brained Staticals.  I've written articles here espousing both positions; the relevance of statistical analysis and the "magic' of baseball.  I've got my feet firmly planted in the middle.  This article was originally intended as a comment to a posting on another site, but once I started writing, I knew it'd be too much for that...too long and probably under-appreciated (not that it'd be appreciated here, but at least this site will get the credit).  Anyway, I was pointed to this article which I had thought was trying to downplay the significance of statistical analysis in baseball.  After reading it a couple of times, I get the idea that the writer was trying to do something that I'm completely behind; the melding of stats and "the human element" in baseball.  Believe it or not, there is middle-ground in most things in this world, including baseball.  Many people are of the opinion that baseball is either a free-flowing game of random moments caused by the ability of humans to rise above the elements, or that baseball is a calculated series of statistically predicted events that can be proven with mathematical theory.  I have read and heard people vehemently argue their side on this issue and completely ignore the other side's point.  Why can't people agree that statistics don't tell the entire story, but statistical analysis does have a place in modern "fandom"?

The Problem I have With Staticals
Sabermatricians have continually championed the thought that "clutchiness", or the ability for a player to perform better in pressure situations does not exist because they don't have the ability to quantify the numbers.  They claim that since the numbers fluctuate so much during a player's season or career, the ability to hit in the clutch doesn't exist.  They will claim that since a player will bat .300 with runners in scoring position during one season and then the next year the same player will hit .200 proves that the consistent ability to drive in runs doesn't exist.  Another element of baseball that a Statical will claim doesn't exist is "team chemistry", or a team's ability to play better based on the influences of player personalities surrounding each team.  How can this be dismissed when in almost every other situation in life a version of "team chemistry" is an influence?  Doesn't a person do better at their job when they are surrounded by other people they like or admire?  And on the other side, doesn't production go down when co-workers don't get along?  Or don't some people have the ability to "rise to the occasion"?  I'm sure we all know people who we either work or live with who do handle pressure better than others.  Why would baseball be any different?  The human element is an accepted dynamic in every other situation, but not in baseball?  Just because you can't put a number on "team chemistry" doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  Another problem I have with Staticals is recently someone came up with BABIP (batting average of balls in play) which is supposed to express a player's "luck".  How can someone who claims something is either "black or white" such as clutch ability, and then claim something happened because of some mysterious outside force called "luck".  You can't have it both ways.  Claiming everything is quantifiable and binary, or everything is affected by outside influences is narrow minded.  Everything is influenced by everything.  Physical ability, mental ability, luck, nerves, random events all play a part in the outcome.  If it didn't, then why play the games with people?  Let's just have the World Series played with Strat-O-Matic cards.

The Problem I Have With Puritans
Puritans think they are the "true" baseball fans and that Staticals over-analyze baseball to the point that their numbers pollute baseball, taking away from the pure enjoyment.  However, they ignore statistics and how they relate to baseball performance limiting their ability to completely understand the game of baseball.  That's not meant to sound condescending as I've known many people who were huge fans, but didn't care about stats.  It didn't mean they weren't real fans or were less of a fan of the game.  To me it meant they liked baseball for the spirituality of it and there's nothing wrong with that.  I think it'd be interesting to go to a game and just watch for the beauty of it.  To appreciate the athleticism of turning a double play or of robbing a homerun, the color of the grass, to watch a person throw a baseball 90+ mph, the pleasure of your team winning.  To watch the game played "with joy, verve, and vitality".  But there's a whole other layer of the game that'd be missed if you didn't understand the "why" of what happened.  Puritans understand most statistics, or they put more importance on certain stats than others.  They'll say so-and-so is a great pitcher because he won 17 games, ignoring the fact that his ERA is approaching 5.00 and he had the benefit of the best run support in the league.  Or a player is a great pitcher because he saved 62 games without looking at any of the other numbers that point to a different conclusion.

This season, the Angels were middle of the pack statistically.  They didn't lead any statistical category...except wins.  Their Run Differential would have suggested their record was more in line of an 88-74 team, rather than a 100-62 team.  Staticals will claim they got lucky to get those additional 12 wins, while Puritans will say they were clutch when a game changing situation occurred.  Statistically, the Angels were a good team, but not the best team.  They were the perfect example of a team who used something other than a statistically measured ability to win games.  Was it team chemistry?  I can't answer that since I've never been in the Angels clubhouse, but as a person who reads so much about baseball, I'm under the impression that the signing of Torii Hunter added something to the personality of the Angels.  From his quotes in the papers and on the internet he seems like the kind of player who would bring a team together.  Like the person you work with that puts things in perspective, fosters teamwork and increases the desire to get things done.  Were they more clutch than other teams?  This can be measures by the teams' batting average with runners in scoring position...kind of.  The stat will tell us how the team did over the season with RISP, but that could encompass at bats where the Angels were already ahead, which isn't really clutch in my mind.  To me, a clutch hit is one that puts your team ahead.  (note: the Angels were 6th in the American League in batting average with RISP).

I don't know how the Angels won or what led them to the best record in baseball, but I'm sure some of the story can be explained statistically, while some will have other unquantifiable reasons for their success.  And I'm sure both sides are right.