Sabermetrics ruining sports by Jason Whitlock

[CBAreject]

When Jason Whitlock is in your corner, you're generally correct.

My favorite part of this article is where he calls sabermetrics "the plague ruining sports" and then says "That is not intended as a shot at Bill James" in the next line...Bill James, who invented Sabermetrics. Whitlock then realizes 2 things...one, he has a lot of cheetos crumbs in his keyboard, and two, that sounded really, really stupid, so he corrects himself, "Wait. Hell, maybe it is a dis...of James".

Whitlock's argument against sabermetrics in baseball centers on 3 points:

1) Sabermetrics are boring ("they reduced the game to a statistical bore")

2) Abner Doubleday didn't intend for people to use computers to analyze baseball ("Sports were never intended to be a computer program")

3) It's difficult to beat "stat geeks" in an argument when they can support them so well with all those stats

Whitlock then says that sabermetrics undermines debate in sports. Why? "They try to interject absolutes". OK, we'll get back to that.

Whitlock then proceeds to make what he believes will be the most impactful point of his article--to show through the example of Elway just how flawed statistical analysis is. How? By using the trusty "no one will convince me" position. It's a doozy. He acknowledges that Elway is overshadowed in every way by multiple other QB's (including in terms of championships won), but he emphatically states "I CAN and HAVE argued CREDIBLY and PASSIONATELY that Elway is the best QB and player in the history of the league". So the key is PASSION. The most passionate arguer wins, see? Facts be damned.

Now the best part. Whitlock then says "I invite you to disagree. I'd love to refute your erroneous position." Oh, but I thought that debate was undermined by the interjection of absolutes. I guess as long as the absolute is Whitlock's infallible opinion, it's OK. Nice. I think I'm beginning to understand how sports debate works.