Murray Chass v. Baseball Prospectus

An interesting little tiff opened up today between NY Times baseball writer Murray Chass and Baseball Prospectus.
Chass, if you recall, is the writer who continues to insist that the Red Sox should face tampering charges for the J.D. Drew situation, apparently unable to fathom how Scott Boras would advise his client to seek more than the guaranteed 3 year, $33 million deal he had with the Dodgers.
Chass started the fracas with his latest column, in which he rails about "Things I don’t want to read or hear about anymore."
While most of us probably agree with some of his topics, this one caught the eye of BP:

Statistics mongers promoting VORP and other new-age baseball statistics.

I receive a daily e-mail message from Baseball Prospectus, an electronic publication filled with articles and information about statistics, mostly statistics that only stats mongers can love.

To me, VORP epitomized the new-age nonsense. For the longest time, I had no idea what VORP meant and didn’t care enough to go to any great lengths to find out. I asked some colleagues whose work I respect, and they didn’t know what it meant either.

Finally, not long ago, I came across VORP spelled out. It stands for value over replacement player. How thrilling. How absurd. Value over replacement player. Don’t ask what it means. I don’t know.

I suppose that if stats mongers want to sit at their computers and play with these things all day long, that’s their prerogative. But their attempt to introduce these new-age statistics into the game threatens to undermine most fans’ enjoyment of baseball and the human factor therein.

People play baseball. Numbers don’t.

Without mentioning the obvious fact that Chass only gets that email from BP because he pays for a subscription, Executive VP Nate Silver had this response:

Fans today have a lot of choices about how they consume baseball in general, and their baseball media in particular. Baseball Prospectus’ mission is to provide them with an informed and independent perspective that helps to accentuate their enjoyment of the game.

Sometimes, our arguments involve statistical analysis and sometimes they do not. To the extent that we use statistics, we look at them as part of the puzzle rather than the whole picture. We do, however, try and ensure that where statistics are used, they are used correctly. We have argued, for example, that the writers who selected Justin Morneau over Derek Jeter in the American League MVP balloting made a mistake not because they didn’t use statistics, but because they used statistics in the wrong way. They focused on Morneau’s RBI total, while ignoring that Jeter did a far superior job of getting on base, plays a much more difficult defensive position — and actually did a better job than Morneau of knocking runners in from scoring position when he had the opportunities.

We have found that millions of baseball fans appreciate our perspective on issues like these. At worst, we hope to offer them a choice. At best, we hope to increase the caliber of baseball discussion, and to give them another way to love and enjoy the game.

I would personally invite you to attend one of the events on our book tour, to appear on Baseball Prospectus Radio, or to participate in a baseball prospectus chat. I think you will be pleasantly surprised by how much you have in common with our readers. We are all baseball fans first, and we come carrying neither agendas nor pocket protectors. Alternatively, I am in New York frequently, and would invite you to attend a Yankees or Mets game with me. You have done a lot for the game of baseball and it would be a pleasure to meet you. I hope that your comments today reflected nothing more than a lack of familiarity with our people and our product.

Seth Mnookin, author of Feeding The Monster, had this to say:

Murray Chass defends his right to be ignorant, uninformed:
It’s been a good long time since I’ve heard a reporter actually brag about his total and utter lack of curiosity regarding his work. One of the biggest changes in baseball over the last decade has been the emphasis on using everything possible to understand the game. This doesn’t undermine enjoyment of the game any more than learning the historical references contained in Shakespeare plays leeches the enjoyment out of a night at the theatre.
Information is knowledge, as that hoary old cliche goes. Lord knows Murray ain’t much one for knowledge — he practically shouts his ignorance from the rooftops every time he puts pen to paper — but it’s embarrassing for him to beat his chest about it.
If a fan doesn’t want to get bogged down in the minutia of VORP or OPS or equivalent averages, that’s all well and good; I loved watching baseball in the days when I couldn’t identify a breaking ball from high and tight heat. But if it was my job to watch baseball games and then inform the public about these very same games, I’d sure as shit make sure I knew everything I could about the sport, regardless of what language I used to write about what was taking place on the field.
And anyone who thinks that being better informed makes for a less enjoyable day at the ballpark clearly hasn’t ever watched a game with Bill James.

I'll try to do a note on VORP and it's pros and cons later this week, but any thoughts?