KPucks wrote:And wrveres, I can't believe you wrote that post. As someone said earlier, the only reason you think these things are so obvious is because James' research forced people to realize they were obvious. And considering this was written in 1988, almost none of those things were as self evident as they are today. Also, every one of them can be backed up with statistics, so I would love for anyone to explain how they are not true (the draft one certainly has changed in the time since history, as pointed out in the linked BP articles, but at the time, it was true by a long shot).
I agree. You think that people don't evaulate pitchers by wins and losses? Why didn't Santana and Clemens win the Cy Young last year?
And as for minor league batting numbers. Do realize that in the 1980's teams barely looked at minor league numbers and depended almost entirly on the players tools, and they still do. COmpare Peodria to Lastings Milledge. Which is the higher regarded prospect? LAstings. Which has the better minor league numbers...
"I do not think baseball of today is any better than it was 30 years ago... I still think Radbourne is the greatest of the pitchers." John Sullivan 1914-Old athletes never change.
Never understood why some people bash stats, or evidence? The eyes are good for looking at girls, but in bb, stats tell a better story. It doesn't have to be James, it could be anyone. James is just the known name, some like to hate. It's funny that these same people play fantasy, which is nothing but stats next to a name. I respect Mookie and WR alot, but i'm baffled in their stubbornness on stats.
Smells Like Teen Spirit
Hall of Fame Hero
(Past Year: 209)
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pearl Jam country, right next door to Nirvana, Soundgarden, and Alice in Chains.
As well as completely ignorant of what baseball "knowledge" was prior to 1988. Take #9, for example. Most teams prior to the 1990s constructed their lineup not with a top OBP man in the #1 slot, but with a high average, fast player. They over-emphasized BA and speed over the most important factor.
Or #4. Conventional wisdom in the 70s and 80s was that players peaked in their early 30s, with 30-33 believed to be peak performance. James and later studies have clearly showed that this was wrong, with the peak centered on 27, not 31-32.
I have a lot of respect for wrveres, but he clearly shows a lot of ignorance in these posts about what people beleived in the 1970s and 1980s and what James showed to be true.
Like I said before .. he wasn't doing anything ground breaking, and he certainly wasn't the first. This alter you all have put the man on would have Branch Rickey rolling over in his grave.
Its sad. I should run a word count to see how many times we have said "groundbreaking" in one thread ..
Kolbsaves wrote:Wr, I can't believe you wasted your time on that pointless, ignorant post. Oh well
I was about two scothces in before I realized how huge it had become. But I had to finish ...
HOOTIE wrote:Never understood why some people bash stats, or evidence? The eyes are good for looking at girls, but in bb, stats tell a better story. It doesn't have to be James, it could be anyone. James is just the known name, some like to hate. It's funny that these same people play fantasy, which is nothing but stats next to a name. I respect Mookie and WR alot, but i'm baffled in their stubbornness on stats.
To be honest, the spite has alot more to do with the 'cult' following than the actual results.
I have said it before, and I will say agian. ..
He didn't do anything, or create anything that wasn't already known, and in some case already practiced decades before.
When was the last time you used the Brock2 system to do your projections for fantasy baseball Hootie?
He ceratinly didn't 'Create' OBP. stat head decades before him were pushing for it to be implemnted, as shown by my link above.
my only point to the using relievers at the most crucial points of the game, how can you predict the future? I mean it might seem like the MOST crucial point at the time, but something more crucial may arise.
Although, I think the idea has merit, and you need to be flexible. Obviosuly, when you have a lead in the 7th or 8th and the tough part of the lineup is up, then use your closer instead of the ninth.
GotowarMissAgnes wrote:To take on a few of the other comments:
#2 Actually, no, life isn't like that. Most things in life--height, weight, intelligence, etc.--are distributed normally or close to it.
I believe GTWMA's point is proven by the very fact that they call it a normal distribution.
Although I struggle to understand James' actual point: surely if talent is distributed as he claims, a significant majority of players are below-average? Which is a contradiction in terms.
It's not a contradiction in terms. Suppose we just assess talent on a 1 to 10 scale:
10, 2, 2, 3, 3: The average is 4, so 4 out of 5 are below average.
James point, if placed in the context of the rest of his writing at that time, as well as what the early studies in the economics of sports were showing at that time, was actually focused on salaries and talent. Too many teams, he was arguing, skimped on paying REAL talent what it was worth, and overpaid for average and below average players. When you have a pyramidal distribution of talent, you ought to have a very inequitable distribution of salaries--a few guys making $20 million plus and lots and lots of guys making a million or less.