Great Read...

Sportswriters, in my opinion, almost never use baseball statistics to try to understand baseball. They use statistics to decorate their articles.

Very true in the case of the guys covering the Braves. DOB and Bowman. They are just awful with the stuff they put up.
 
I never had a problem with James in the least. The next couple of generations who have multiple-regression analysised baseball to death is another matter. I had a bunch of early Bill James stuff I tried to unload, but ended up giving it Half Price Books for $0.50 (not a misprint). His stuff quantified in a straightforward manner how a bunch of statistics are really misleading. You look at statistics now at Baseball Reference and mlb.com and you see things like inherited runner stats for pitchers and that all comes from James' influence.
 
I've always considered statistics a useful barometer in gauging specific values of a player (offensive capability, defensive prowess, and permutations of the two) in combination with 'intangibles' and other judgments that are more subjective in nature.

It's always disheartening to see fans whip out statistics as a sort of trump card in debate, treating the game as though it were a basic simulation and ignoring the definition of variable and the very factors which contribute to statistical variance. That type of thinking cheapens the game to me, because I see so many components in baseball that go far beyond the measurements of meaningful numerical observance. I'm glad to see that James finally appears to realize this on some level, too;

"He groans whenever he hears people discount leadership or team chemistry or heart because they cannot find such things in the data. He has done this himself in the past … and regrets it.

"I have to take my share of responsibility for promoting skepticism about things that I didn’t understand as well as I might have,” he says. “What I would say NOW is that skepticism should be directed at things that are actually untrue rather than things that are difficult to measure.

“Leadership is one player having an effect on his teammates. There is nothing about that that should invite skepticism. People have an effect on one another in every area of life. … We all affect another’s work. You just can’t really measure that in an individual-accounting framework.”"
 
Hawk said:
I've always considered statistics a useful barometer in gauging specific values of a player (offensive capability, defensive prowess, and permutations of the two) in combination with 'intangibles' and other judgments that are more subjective in nature.

It's always disheartening to see fans whip out statistics as a sort of trump card in debate, treating the game as though it were a basic simulation and ignoring the definition of variable and the very factors which contribute to statistical variance. That type of thinking cheapens the game to me, because I see so many components in baseball that go far beyond the measurements of meaningful numerical observance. I'm glad to see that James finally appears to realize this on some level, too;

"He groans whenever he hears people discount leadership or team chemistry or heart because they cannot find such things in the data. He has done this himself in the past … and regrets it.

"I have to take my share of responsibility for promoting skepticism about things that I didn’t understand as well as I might have,” he says. “What I would say NOW is that skepticism should be directed at things that are actually untrue rather than things that are difficult to measure.

“Leadership is one player having an effect on his teammates. There is nothing about that that should invite skepticism. People have an effect on one another in every area of life. … We all affect another’s work. You just can’t really measure that in an individual-accounting framework.”"
Click to expand...

I agree with this. Statistics are a tool. Nothing more. I think Bill James did some good things early on and opened some eyes to the faults of general stats that were the only things considered at that time. Now, there are so many new stats where you have to have a phd in calculus to figure out that the stats revolution has been watered down. Some of these newer stats should draw the skepticism that "stats" guys have towards character, make up, and leadership.
 
I found it fascinating that James does not think WAR is a very useful stat. As much as some people eat them up, I try to write using as few "modern" stats as others because you will lose a certain number of readers right off the bat, as it were.

Call me old school, but if a guy walks more than he strikes out, then he's a good hitter. These monster strikeout totals simply tell me they lack discipline at the plate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top