I think this if this season has shown us nothing, it’s that while all this new-age baseball sabermetrics crap may have a place in the game, it’s hardly the end-all, be-all and shouldn’t be the primary basis for decision-making.

For every Andrew Freidman who succeeded, you had young-gun Sabermetrics GMs like Jon Daniels, Kevin Towers and Josh Byrnes whose teams underachieved and/or flat-out bombed. Sabermetric grandpappy Billy Beane himself didn’t exactly impress with his Oakland A’s. Rebuilding yet again.

Meanwhile, who stands atop the MLB landscape? Old-schoolers like Pat Gillick and Chuck Manuel. I don’t think they’d know and VORP or a BABHIP if their very life depended on it.

More importantly, I recall an offseason of moaning from Phils fans on this and other sites about the geek-stat failings of our acquisitions. Pedro Feliz for one. His signing was met with moaning and derision over his OBP, OPS, and every other O imaginable. How ironic that he mashed the game-winning hit that handed the Phils the World Series.

Blanton was another. Too many hits per inning! His park-adjusted stats are indicators of futile success in Philly! Oh my!

And on and on it went. The purpose of my post is not to upset some of you, who will no doubt be upset. I would urge you to let go of your inner geek and trust your eyes. If a guy knocks in 100 runs, he’s a run producer. Period. If a pitcher gets people out, he’s a good pitcher. Period.

As predicted. Anybody who doesn’t conform to the company line (idiot line?) is called a “troll” and banned.

How about you sack up and refute the point instead? Do you know how to make a point?

You provide facts from multiple sources and build upon one another to form a cohesive and, hopefully, intelligent thesis.

Now run along and gather up some facts. Name-calling and banning are not forms of debating.

is not realy any kind of legitimate argument anyway. Gillick and Manuel and others in the Phillies organization understand that getting on base and hitting for power (slg. pct.) is what drives in runs. They understand all of that stuff I’d guess. It’s their job and their team reflects a ton of alleged “new school” though as I’ve said many times in the past.

What is BABIP? It’s “hitting in tough luck” and it’s “hitting ‘em where they ain’t” and all of that stuff baseball folks have been saying for more than 100 years. If it’s “new school” than it’s an awfully old new school.

What is VORP and EqAve and that kind of stuff? It’s a guy who wins you games doing stuff that doesn’t show up in the box score. Again, something that’s been said for a long, long time.

Anyone who thinks the “old schoolers” don’t understand the new metrics just aren’t paying attention. Every team has statistical analysts on their staff. The one for the Phils went to the GM meetings this past week with Amaro and company.

Here’s another thing. Understanding the “new fangled statistics” is not the sole domain of math and computer geeks. I had to take math 5 twice just to pass it with a C. I am about as low tech as you can get. I don’t have an I-pod an I-phone or an X-Box. (I tried to use a blackberry to send an e-mail once but the stupid thing just went “squish” — I dont’ know how these guys communicate with those little pieces of fruit). Yet, this supposed “new school” stuff is pretty easy to understand and use. It just ain’t that hard. It’s baseball common sense for the most part really.

You don’t have to be a math whiz or a computer genius to understand any of this stuff. It’s baseball explained in a newer and better way than some of the old timey expressions like “pitching is 75 percent of the game.” some “old school” expressions and phrases have proved to be nonsense. But so have some “new school” phrases already. For example, the so called new schoolers love to talk about “fungible” relievers. Geoff Geary is an example. Yet Geoff Geary has been good for four straight years. And other guys — Madson, Eyre, Romero, Linerbrink, Qualls, and many others are good pretty much every year. And many, many starters’ performances are up and down. Yet no one calls a starting pitcher fungible.

So called new school guys also talk about a guy standing up there taking a lot of pitches as having a good at bat while a guy who swings at the first or second pitch as having a bad at bat. It’s pretty clear to me there’s a lot more to it that that. But you still hear new school conventional wisdom like this.

Dajafi is 100 percent correct. There is a ton of information out there. Whether it’s new school or old school or Montisori (sp?) school isn’t important. The good stuff is valuable and the bad stuff you need to disregard and you use as much good info as you can to make your best judgment. And the smartest amongst us still don’t know nearly close to everything. That’s why baseball is the best game ever.