SABR is for atheists

Date: 5/5/2010
Watching: Canucks vs. Blackhawks, Game 3, Round 2; Suns vs. Spurs, Game 2, Round 2

Also today I listened to the Reds take on the Mets, but business day specials kick off at 9:30 AM on a Wednesday on the West Coast, at which point I'm a.) at work, and b.) still waiting for the coffee to kick in. So I wasn't in the correct state of mind for this blog, but I do just want to update all of you (i.e., nobody) on the status of the Cordero-as-closer experiment: not good. The Reds won in extra innings, their ninth win of the season (out of 14) in their final at-bat, after Cordero blew a one-run lead in the ninth. And yes, it was a good win, in the deciding game of a must-win (by early May standards) series. But I wish I was still a kid. When I was a kid, I could know that and think, "this team is solid in the clutch, and clearly blessed in some way, they're going to ride this to the World Series!" But now, I know better. In so far as you classify people as pro- or anti-SABR, I'm in the pro- camp. And the fact is that, over the course of 162 games, you're going to win about as many extra-innings games as you lose, the same goes for 1-run games in general. So if we're winning a lot now, that means we're probably going to lose a lot later. If nothing else, we can't sustain this streak (we are undefeated in extra innings this year), and when that happens, we'll realize this is the same team we have every year: pitching that is just barely respectable, and hitting that is, not notoriously awful, but not respectable, either. They're going to score fewer runs than they allow, and that means they're going to win fewer games than they lose. It's just a fact. I guess I believe in SABR in the same way I believe in atheism: I kind of wish it wasn't the case (that there is no God, that baseball season outcomes can be predicted with reasonable precision in June), but I'm not going to ignore reality either, and there is a beauty to it, in an austere way.

Speaking of things that disappoint but don't surprise me: I wish the tasing of that kid in Philadelphia had been at least SOMEWHAT controversial in the sports-commentary world. And I'm not as in the game as I used to be, so maybe somebody on PTI or somewhere came out against it, but as far as I can tell, everybody in the sports world that talks about it thinks both a.) that was totally appropriate, that kid deserved it, and b.) tasing is hilarious! And it just isn't. I hate to be a buzzkill (really, I do, it's not a pleasant experience), but tasing is much more dangerous than people admit. And it's just not necessary. The kid didn't even have a weapon. Do what cops have always done: tackle him. I saw it at the one-game playoff the Reds lost in 1999 (Good Lord, I haven't thought of that game in a while. I think I blocked it from my memory. What an awful, awful experience.): some kid ran onto the field in like the 7th (at which point it had been clear that the Reds had no chance for approx. 5 innings), and tried to run the bases. IIRC, he nearly got to third before some cop jumped on him. And hey: don't hold back when you tackle him, and if he hits the ground hard, so be it. But that's all you gotta do. It works fine, and nobody risks heart failure.

I had to leave at the end of the second period of the Canucks game, after they'd scratched their way back to within a goal (I'm trying to be more social, to get out more. So every post on this blog is a record of my failure). And I have to say, I was really into the game, I didn't want to leave. So hockey's getting some kind of hold on me, it would seem. Although they wound up losing 5-2, so it's not like staying would have made me happy.