Coleman
Defends Roto
By John Coleman, statistical expert at the Shrink
July
5, 2001
As you have likely guessed, Rotisserie is my game. An ardent
reader of Bill James since 1982, I became equally devoted to Rotisserie in
1984. I've kept the stats, organized leagues, done work for a Roto website, and
promoted the game for years. With all due modesty, I am nominally accepted as
an "expert", having participated in Ron Shandler's Tout Wars since
1998 and the LABR league since 1999.
Now, I'm not claiming to be accomplished or even
particularly knowledgeable when it comes to the game its own self, but I'm
certainly a man who'll take up this gauntlet.
I'll take it point-by-point, in the hallowed tradition of flamed
emails.
I'll not argue with the fact that you dislike the game. Bill James disliked the game, and although he provided a deep understanding of simulation games such as Strat-O-Matic, he was never much help when it came to Roto. (I understand he was a terrible Roto player!) James is still one of my favorite authors, and his ability to take a new look at an old subject still amazes me. I'll read nearly any article he's ever written with the same response: "Wow! Why didn't I ever see that? This sure changes things!" Let me assure you that I still love you and all of BP just as much.
The real meat here is your statement: "it's also a missed opportunity, and an amazingly effective obstacle to promoting greater understanding of real baseball among a subset of fans who have a very high level of interest in the game."
And I'd like to reply: You have shown no proof that this has
occurred, and I think you've ignored the amazing influx of outstanding analysis
that the Roto industry has caused.
I think you are dead-ass wrong in making the assumption that
Roto has reinforced reliance on inadequate statistical analysis. I've been
breathing heavy about OBP since my very first game of Strat (1977), so trust me
when I say I understand its importance. The same goes for ERA, Wins, RBI's,
etc.
Here's the thing: In order to play this game well, you must completely understand Avg, HR, RBI, SB, W SV, ERA, RAT. And there's an awful lot of depth to projecting those stats. Not that it's rocket science, but believe me, you need to understand what a player's climbing strikeout frequency can mean. You profit from noticing a trend in doubles, you need to get excited by Bobby Abreu's minor league triple totals. Bottom line: to play Roto, you need to avail yourself of every tool and theory you encounter.
You prefer simulations because they "don't do what Roto does, which is allow 'gamblingesque' results that depend on the ongoing drama of the current MLB season."
I'm not sure why you eschew this drama, but you have a
right, I suppose. All I can tell you is this: Baseball has become terribly
exciting for me since Roto. I find nearly the same interest when viewing the
Padres as I do when watching my own Cleveland Indians.
Am I wrong in viewing your statement as a puritanical disdain for other people's happiness?
"Roto is popular in large part due to its simplicity and familiarity."
I've heard that said an awful lot about baseball in general. Apparent simplicity often belies a complexity, which can provide endless fascination.
"I think those are the same two reasons why I hate it."
Similarly, I've heard that said about baseball as well. You must be aware that an enormous portion of the Earth's populace considers baseball to be quite an inferior pastime. (Not to sound xenophobic or anything...) If you think my Roto team bores you, try taking a German to an Indian's game. Talk about disdain!
"Roto attracts the serious baseball fan, (as opposed to the disturbed, borderline obsessive/compulsive baseball fan that reads things like Baseball Prospectus) and then immediately reinforces a bunch of canards in the minds of people who probably have a genuine interest in learning more about the game of baseball."
I'd say exactly the opposite is true.
There's no better education on the
meaningfulness of statistics than sweating through a pitcher's duel watching
your man lose 2-1, while your competitor collects credit for another win on the
strength of Jay Witasick's .2 IP 2 ER vulture job.
Nobody, I mean nobody who plays Roto seriously thinks
that wins is a way to determine pitcher effectiveness.
But it's widely known that the opposite is true: Pitcher effectiveness will
generally determine win totals. In order to generate those win totals, a great
amount of patience, foresight and understanding of the true nature of baseball
is required.
And Most Importantly: Roto provides a tremendous desire to attain that understanding.
That's my main bone of contention: Roto provides an amazing incentive to Understand. I have to believe that you do not realize this.
I believe that your dislike is not the same as that of Peter Gammons, whose predictions prove consistently useless, and has adopted an anti-rotisserie stance as a means to discredit the very readers who he has disappointed.
I'll wrap up this rambler now. I don't wish to annoy or insult you, despite the fervor with which I disagree. I don't want you to file me under the "clueless, but outraged" label, either. No matter your opinion, I've been a consistent buyer and reader of yours, and will continue to be.
Rotisserie reaches out and wins fans. Baseball fans.
