Fun With Rob Neyer: Let the players vote for everything. Wait, no don't!

Angst over All-Star selections is not something that is limited to saberfans.  Baseball fans of all types get riled up about who was selected and who got snubbed.  Part of the problem is that just about everyone has a different opinion as to what the criteria for making the team should be.

This doesn't stop saberfans from being especially annoying about it.  Saberfans tend to think that because they have advanced stats to back up their argument, they KNOW who the deserving players are.

Naturally, Rob Neyer isn't going to let the All-Star debate go by without putting in his two cents.

I wasn't going to pick on Neyer, because the douchiest part of the column is actually a quote from Joe Sheehan.  Then again, Rob makes a point to mention how much he agrees with Sheehan, so I won't cut him too much slack.

Neyer isn't content to just agree with Sheehan's douchieness.  He needs to add some of his own:

But they're not qualified to evaluate the overall value of players they see a few times a year, because they've got little or no interest in doing the actual work that would require. How many of the players, before filling out their ballots, actually sat down and looked at Baseball-Reference.com or any other source listing something other than batting average and RBI's and wins and losses and ERA? A dozen, maybe?

Is Miguel Cabrera worthy of being an All-Star? 
It's impossible to tell without hours of research.

According to Neyer, only through extensive research can it be determined who deserves to be an All-Star.  Since the players are either unwilling or unable to put in the hard work that is necessary, that responsibility should be reassigned.

Bud Selig should take the All-Star selection duty away from the players and the fans.  He could then assign it to someone who would tirelessly scour reference sites in order to identify the players who are truly worthy of the All-Star honor.  Obviously, there is only one man capable of handling this crucial responsibility: Rob Neyer. 

If Neyer was assigned this sacred duty, he would construct the ultimate All-Star team rosters.  Players would not be foolishly named All-Stars simply because they have a high RBI total. The result would surely be the greatest All-Star Game ever played; one that would be talked about for years to come.

Sigh...if only.

Fun with Rob Neyer

There's going to be a a change here at Sabermetrics Suck.

Since I created this site, updates have been sporadic.  That is mostly because I try to make thoughtful arguments and not resort to the usual taunts of "Sabermetrics are stupid because...Grandma's basement!"  Unfortunately, thoughtful arguments require time and energy which I don't often have.

Fortunately, I have found a muse that will allow me to post more regularly.  I had a lot of fun making fun of Rob Neyer in my last post.  So I asked myself, "Why don't I do that more often?"

Neyer makes an ideal target because he is prolific and comes off as unbearably smug.  The mockery practically writes itself!  And because Neyer shows no reluctance to mock others, I don't even feel any guilt.  It's a win-win situation!

Nice shades (Photo source: Gawker)

Let's take a look at this recent piece where he questions some of the decisions made by Dodgers manager Don Mattingly:

http://www.baseballnation.com/2013/6/11/4420126/don-mattingly-brandon-league-closer-situation

If you've read much of Neyer's work, it becomes obvious that he thinks is smarter than most Major League managers.

Neyer begins by praising Mattingly for using the team's best reliever (Kenley Jansen) instead of the team's closer (Brandon League) in a key situation.  In typical Neyer fashion, the compliment is served in a backhanded manner: 

Hey, that's great! Mattingly figured Jansen's his best reliever and used him against the Diamondbacks' best hitters! Bravo!

But wouldn't it still make sense to use a good pitcher in the ninth?

Neyer takes issue with Mattingly's use of League in the ninth inning since League hasn't proven to be effective in that role.  The criticism is confusing because Neyer goes on to admit that none of the Dodgers' relievers are especially good. 

So what's the problem?  So far Neyer has praised one of Mattingly's moves and defended another.  Shouldn't this article be titled "Don Mattingly: Doing a Swell Job?"

The problem comes when Mattingly gives part of the reasoning behind his moves: League had better career numbers against the scheduled hitters than Jansen did.

I think that Mattingly's rationale was solid.  While the sample size wasn't large, it wasn't like he had many good options.  Why not go with the guy who has had success against those hitters?

Naturally, Neyer disagrees:

... and you really have to wonder about your manager's marbles, since 0 for 5 and five for 10 are utterly meaningless in this context. If tiny batter-versus-pitcher samples are your rationale for bullpen decisions, you're doing it wrong.

But then again, when you're bullpen's got 15 losses, you're probably doing something wrong. Or you're making a lot of solid decisions that just didn't work. That's possible, I guess.

So even though he already admitted that the Dodgers don't have good relievers, the team's problems are obviously the fault of Mattingly because he uses such ridiculous logic.

I'm impressed that Neyer was able to restrain himself.  Here's what he probably wanted to write:

That foolish manager!  The ignoramus actually uses batter-versus-pitcher samples?  Sabermetrics has declared that such things are not definitive therefore they must not be considered in any decisions!

Those 15 losses are clearly all his fault.  If I were the manager, I would have found a way for the team to have won all of those games.  For I am Rob Neyer, Baseball Genius!

Thank you for holding back, Rob.  And thank you for the inspiration!