If you read this site regularly you probably already know I’m (and Jackson too) a big fan of the war between the sabermetricians and journalists/scouts. I need to think of a catchy name and category for this. Feel free to help me out and make a suggestion in the comments section.

Here are a couple good examples I found just during the past few hours. Don’t ask me why, but I subscribe to a Reds podcast put out by the Cincinnati Enquirer. The files are just readings (by a computer no less) of all the Reds coverage in the paper. I’d probably be better served just adding it to a feed reader, but for some reason I get a kick out of the computerized voice, which often reads things like “No. 1 starter” as “No one, starter.”

But it was via the computer podcast I heard Comfortably Numbered a story by Jon Eradi, for which he asks a panel of 10 sabermetricians what lineup the Reds should use this year. This is a great setup, because obviously any lineup the panel comes up with will be the bizzaroworld version of what Dusty Baker will use on opening day. Sure enough, the saberheads have Joey Votto batting leadoff and Jay Bruce starting the year in the cleanup spot. If that actually happens I’ll eat my computer.

The approach of the article is a little unintentionally funny, I think, and tries to make the idea of “stats” palatable for the Cincinnati readership, which I guess it’s fair to assume, are freaked out by numbers and math.

If you’re a baseball fan, you’ve been using stats your whole life.

Statistical analysis is just utilizing a few more stats and a few new stats to augment what you already know. It’s just turning the diamond under a slightly different light to get a closer look.

Why should you care about statistical analysis?

Because you care if the Reds win.

I feel for this Eradi guy. I know what it’s like to write for newspaper aiming for an eighth-grade reading level. No, that’s not a joke or an exaggeration. That’s why bloggers have more fun, albeit without much pay.

Anyway, it’s a good piece and Eradi’s stuff will be fun to follow through the year.

There was a counterpoint to the piece, written for the same paper by Paul Daugherty, called Baker judges by his senses — Knowing what makes his players tick more important than their stats

The best baseball managing is done by the seat of your pants, using good, old-fashioned, pre-sabermetric logic. That’s another reason to like Dusty Baker. (Beyond his knowledge of single-malt Scotches and Van Morrison lyrics, which is merely astounding and downright Renaissance.) If Baker manages by a book, it’s one inside his head, not one written by Bill James.

The other day, the Reds manager decided he wanted Joey Votto and Adam Dunn to swing their bats more. “I don’t like called third strikes,” Baker said.

Can we get an Amen?

Let me just say here, I’m very impressed by the fact that Baker is a big Van Morrison fan. Seriously. I’m not a big scotch fan, but I suppose that’s kind of cool as well.

I found myself disagreeing with much of the article, largely because if the Reds screw around with Votto and Jeff Keppinger — and I’m sensing they will — I’m going to be beside myself. But I like this:

Anyone with a laptop can locate the Web site baseball- reference.com and sound like an expert. Anyone with a library card can pick up one of James’ mind-numbing baseball “abstracts,” in which the author makes the game sound like a first cousin to biomechanical engineering.

It ain’t that scientific.

He’s basically correct here. Everyone is using the same numbers, the same basic ideas, and lest we forget, the same game. Sabermetricians are at a distinct advantage because they’re employing numbers, which they often mistake as pure fact. The fact that the saberfellas aren’t writing for an eighth-grade reading level is also a plus for them.

To the surprise of no one the Daugherty piece was found and savaged by Fire Joe Morgan. Of course, it’s a funny piece. Not Golden Globe Best Comedy-level funny, but funny. Although I would point out, the Daugherty piece is a counterpoint piece, written specifically to respond to Eradi’s. It’s exaggerated to begin with and was an easy target.

The second example is a Baseball Prospectus — Unfiltered piece, written as a response to a Rick Morrissey piece in the Chicago Tribune. Morrissey’s article is titled Sox may have (computer) chip on their shoulder.

If computers ran the world, Steven Seagal probably would have won a few Oscars by now, assuming they judged him on the $2 billion his movies have earned. If computers had a way of measuring acting ability, he’d be running a martial-arts school in a strip mall.

But they don’t run the world, yet, which means we can still type in our credit card numbers online without worrying that all our money is being sucked into a fund earmarked for global dominance by a dastardly computer.

Computers have no use for heart, or least they can’t quantify it. They can’t analyze what’s inside an athlete, for example. They can’t tell you who has the heart of a lion or the backbone of an earthworm.

Yep. I guess you know where this is going. I’ll leave it to the pros at FJM if they haven’t already worked it over. Again, what Morrissey is saying isn’t completely wrong. I suppose a lot this comes down to your age and upbringing. To my ears it sounds a little dull and outdated, but there is certainly emotion in baseball that computers are unable to gauge.

Thing is, PECOTA has an amazing track record in predicting baseball standings. I’m sure Nate Silver started writing this as he finished Morrissey’s column. The money shot:

Overall, though, the PECOTA projections have tended to get more and more accurate over time. The average error in our won-loss projections since 2003 has been as follows:

2003 5.91 wins
2004 7.71 wins
2005 5.14 wins
2006 4.94 wins
2007 4.31 wins

You’re wasting your time, Rick Morrissey! The more you ignore PECOTA, the closer it gets.