Sometimes I wonder if I'm a self-hating sabermetrician or simply a member of the reformed sect. I mean, on the one hand, I know and appreciate all of the arguments and I've internalized all of them in my understanding and analysis of baseball. On the other hand, however, I have cut way back on the extent to which I speak in the unadorned language of objective analysis (example: instead of simply saying that Baker doesn't understand what a leadoff hitter is supposed to do, a year ago I might have broken out charts and linked to people's work on run expectancies, etc.)
This is partially because the audience around here has grown far beyond the core of statheads that formed my initial readership and I don't want to alienate anyone, but a lot of it has to do with an independent relaxation of orthodoxy on my part in which I've allowed myself to enjoy the simple pleasures of baseball, even when they involve less-than-optimal play. I mean, I'll never endorse a sacrifice bunt in the early innings of a 0-0 game, but I sure as hell enjoy them from time to time.
Against that backdrop, I link to a post by MGL from the Inside the Book blog, in which he lists all of the things he'd do if he worked for a team and was given free reign over on-the-field strategy. In it, MGL (a) makes a lot of good points about strategy; while (b) providing a pretty good example of just about everything traditionalists and casual fans hate about sabermetricians.
I'm with you on the merits, MGL, but if your post goes wide, you're going to be a punching bag for stathead-bashing traditionalists. It probably doesn't matter, but I get tired of the fight from time to time and would prefer not to have it again.