Are Statheads Pro Ownership?

[Parker Hageman]

Thanks to Rob Neyer and Bill Baer, there was a mini flare-up on the internets regarding the issue of statheads and their tendency to be pro-ownership. 

 

https://twitter.com/Baer_Bill/status/834885829893980160

 

Friend of Twins Daily and Winter Meltdown guest Mike Bates weighed in on the complicated issue at MLBDailyDish.com.  Bates' take was that, yes, analysts tend to have "pro ownership" leanings in their writings but that isn't necessarily because they sympathize with ownership. Here is Bates' words on the matter:

 

Unwittingly, I think, we ally with ownership. When a player signs a free agent deal, and we talk about whether it’s a “good” or a “bad” deal, we’re framing that in terms of whether it helps the team that the player signs with. 

 

{snip}

 

But I don’t think that’s out of some sympathy with owners. Rather, I think that most analysts, whether they’re into analytics or not, are fans first and foremost. Or at least have trouble taking off their fan caps entirely when they do analysis. As fans of teams (or laundry, as Seinfeld once said), we want what’s best for the team or teams we support..."

 

 

It is an interesting notion, to be sure. More often than not, the analytics community does tend to speak in terms of how the team has won or lost a particular signing or trade rather than from the perspective of the player. Nobody really says "Good for Kurt Suzuki for getting $1.5 million from the Braves", most gripe about the team "wasting money".

 

I could be wrong. Maybe some genuinely good people out in the Twins Daily community truly do care about the players. Either way, it's a good read.

[gunnarthor]

Yeah, fans tend to be pro-ownership in the sense that we root for the uniform.  And I think you and Mike hit it on the head about how we view players - their worth to the team first and foremost.  But even the analytical side seems to see players as cogs and very rarely do we talk about how the player's as people.  

Look at the scorn people have for the idea of Torii Hunter helping in a locker room.  You can't measure it, it doesn't happen.  But people (think) they can measure a player's value on the field and the player either is worth it or not.

 

But at the end of the day, I suspect most people, when they stop and think about it, really dislike the owners, too.

[Parker Hageman]

Look at the scorn people have for the idea of Torii Hunter helping in a locker room.  You can't measure it, it doesn't happen.  But people (think) they can measure a player's value on the field and the player either is worth it or not.

 

 

It is interesting to see that after the Twins made their analytics-focused hire, Falvine immediately added Hunter, Hawkins and Cuddyer to the staff and tried to target veterans to infuse life into the clubhouse culture. You can't measure it but there is something to it. 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2015/08/24/field-front-office-many-believe-chemistry-still-matters-baseball/32271291/

[Thrylos]

 

Yeah, fans tend to be pro-ownership in the sense that we root for the uniform. 

 

Agreed.  And fans have short memories, otherwise players like Jim Thome and Bret Favre would be ran out of town.

 

As far as the big question goes,  I really think that there are more stats about players than teams/owners.  

 

Unfortunately for the owner, the stats for them are W-L and $MM spent.  I suspect that there are people who are calling Pohlad "cheap" and the same time argue that Mauer did not live up to his contract.

 

I think that it is a non-issue.

 

 

[Craig Arko]

 

I could be wrong. Maybe some genuinely good people out in the Twins Daily community truly do care about the players. Either way, it's a good read.

Players and owners are human beings, generally. It's okay to care about both.

 

Umpires, on the other hand...

[Mr. Brooks]

I don't think it's wrong to wish players were more aware and appreciative of the fact that their fortune is thanks to the fans.

Playing a sport produces nothing of any actual value. They are only valuable because fans watch.

Without fans, they'd be a bunch of working stiffs playing baseball in their spare time for free.

The owners, on the other hand, would be wealthy with or without the fans, as nobody makes their fortune off owning a sports team anymore.

They might be slightly less wealthy, but unlike most of the players, they'd still be wealthy.

 

That isn't to say that players owe us anything. Just that it irritates me when they are jerks to the fans and/or the media.

[spinowner]

 

 I suspect that there are people who are calling Pohlad "cheap" and the same time argue that Mauer did not live up to his contract.

 

I never really thought about it like that and I'll bet $100 if you look at the Strib comments there are many people saying both things. It seems the expectation is that ownership should overpay, the players should overproduce, and the team should go 174-0.

[spinowner]

 

Yeah, fans tend to be pro-ownership in the sense that we root for the uniform.