Link
I'm sorry my post takes a bit of text to get to the point, but I find this incident humorous. Some of you interested in sabermetrics may appreciate it, and others of you who aren't, but follow Justice's blog also might find it interesting.
Mitchel Lichsman (who also posts under "MGL") is one of the more well regarded sabermetric experts (he has consulted for the Cardinals in the past), the creator of the UZR defensive rating system, and co-author of "The Book: Playing the Perecentages in Baseball."
Richard Justice posted a blog entry criticizing Cecil Cooper's call for a sac bunt by Loretta in San Diego, and asserted that statistics have proven the move to be wrong. When some of his readers disagreed with him, Justice responded that what he said is a "fact" which is beyond debate, and that you could find that out by googling.
MGL, who says he didn't know anything about Justice, posted a lengthy comment on Justice's blog summarizing points on the sac fly from the relevant chapter in The Book. MGL says that his intent was to show that many variables are involved in analyzing the sac bunt, and it is incorrect to say that sabermetric "wisdom" opposes the use of sac bunts.
Justice's response:
[I'll bet you're a lot of fun at the office Christmas party.--Richard]
When another reader posted a comment pointing out that Lichtman is a well known analyst and author on the subject, Justice responded:
I don't care if he was nominated to the Supreme Court. I just want to know if it was the right move for Cecil Cooper to bunt in that situation. That's the problem in dealing with the stat geeks. They've got so much stuff in their brains they can't get a coherent thought out.--Richard]
MGL responded:
Wow. If you are serious with that statement, you are a real asshole. I'd rather be incoherent.
Thanks for the appreciation for the time I took to write a thoughtful primer on the value of the sac bunt attempt. Clearly you know little about it
yourself, despite "checking with stat people" or whatever it is you said you did.
Justice responded:
[Now you send in a post with a profanity. What's wrong with you? All I wanted to know is if Cecil Cooper should have bunted. The bottom line is you don't know if he should have or not. Just say, ''I don't know.'' Everyone knows there are eight thousand possibilities. It's the same way at Whataburger, but I've got enough sense to say ''No. 1 with cheese.'' It's ''yes'' or ''no'' on bunting. Did you expect Cecil Cooer to convene a geek convention and hold a six-hour roundtable. Good Lord.--Richard]
In his Inside the Book blog, MGL said he took Justice's initial comments as a joke, but as he saw more responses, he changed his mind:
I have no idea why the vitriol, other than this guy (Justice) is a jerk, and for no good reason, at least in this case. I wasn't criticizing or attacking anyone at all in my post. I thought it was a great post that would be much appreciated, and I was looking forward to comments and questions. People are usually pricks for pretty good reasons. I can't think of a good reason why this guy would be acting like a prick other than he simply is one.
Post-scripts: Justice later changed his mind and said that the sac bunt might have been an acceptable play; MGL's description of Justice was read by many and linked in other sabermetric blogs; and, get this, Justice states in his most recent blog that Mitchel Lichman will be a guest on his radio show.
