Much to his credit, J.A. Adande of the Times responded online on his blog, Overtime, to critiques of his Sunday column, "Stat Electricity Provides No Buzz," whose theme could probably be summarized in his closing paragraph: "The lesson: Don't focus on the spreadsheets. Just watch the games."

Here's a longer excerpt of the original piece:

People turn to stats because they have a need to control the uncontrollable, to find certainty in a chaotic world. Of course, that goes against the essence of sports. We watch the games precisely because we don't know what will happen next. If we really wanted an assured outcome, we'd spend all our time watching ESPN Classic instead of ESPN.

Sometimes people become so obsessed with the formulas they forget what works on the field. The Dodgers' acquisition of Nomar Garciaparra and dismissal of Hee-Seop Choi didn't fit into the stats perspective, but it's working pretty well right now. When Garciaparra is healthy, he can hit.

You can tell right away that Adande was taken aback by the response he received.

"The last column I wrote before I took some time off apparently hit on a touchy subject," Adande writes today. "Not Kobe-touchy, but I didn't realize diminishing the value of statistics would hit some people like a dentist's drill without the Novocain. At least when you anger the stats crowd they come back with more rational responses than 'You're just a stats-hater!' "

Among other e-mails, Adande published the one I sent him:

J.A. -

Can I just make these points about your column today?

1) Clearly, you are okay with using some statistics, just not others, since you cite statistics such as ERA and points differential to back up your arguments throughout your column.

2) How do you measure the things you prize - "pitching, defense up the middle and clutch hitting" - without statistics? You can't, unless you have the omniscient ability to just look at someone in a vacuum and discern that they're great, as if sports were American Idol.

3) You make an assumption that people who use different stats from you neither understand that the unexpected happens, like a Hideo Nomo double off Randy Johnson, nor enjoy when the unexpected happens. I don't see any basis for this argument.

4) For every Hee Seop Choi-Nomar Garciaparra example of things going against what statistics might have predicted (and by the way, many analysts were in favor of the Garciaparra signing on a one-year deal), there are plenty of examples that go in favor of what statistics might have predicted.

No one - seriously, no one - is saying that statistics are the be-all and end-all, and that we shouldn't play the games or watch them. But what you've done is confuse a search for more effective statistics with a rejection of the game on the field. You're not the only one to do so, but it doesn't make any sense. No one would take the time to find better statistics if they weren't passionate about the game. And if someone name-called you "stats-happy" for using ERA, I don't think you would respond by saying, "Oh, I'd better find a more simplistic statistic than ERA or ignore stats entirely."

The people who use OPS (which, believe me, is hardly the nerdiest stat in the book) are no different from you. They love the game, they thrill at the great moments, and they just want to understand the game better. But we know we never will understand it completely.

You're perpetuating an Old School-New School battle that needn't exist, and frankly, it does a disservice. You may still disagree, but I wish you'd reconsider some of what you've written.

Best,

- Jon Weisman

As I've written in the past, I believe that even though subjective qualities such as confidence can't be measured individually, many are ultimately, cumulatively reflected in stats. If confidence helps a player hit, then those hits will register in his batting stats. If selflessness makes a player dive, than that selflessness will manifest in his fielding stats. It's not that stats are perfect - and certainly, the unexpected always happens - but I would argue that many sports fans, and certainly many sportswriters, undervalue stats as opposed to the opposite.

"Statistics don't really tell me what I need to know," Adande writes, "they don't provide the best answer for the question I get asked more than any other: who's gonna win?"

True. But neither does anything else from Adande's list of "confidence, determination, intelligence, poise and so many other things that are impossible to quantify." Confident, determined, intelligent, poised players lose every day. That's why I'm still mystified by Adande's line of thought, which seems to demand more of statistics than it demands of these other things he values even more. Ultimately, e-mails like mine don't seem to have been very persuasive for him.

But I appreciate his at least giving attention to them.