THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

As if either Bill James or John Dewan would recognize scientific validity (or lack thereof) if they saw it. The disclaimers from BIS are never exactly in bright, flashing lights.

Of course they have “scientific validity” unless BJ is simply making them up (maybe he is).

Typical BJ understatement (which is flat out wrong).  Understating a case ("no scientific validity") can be as damaging (to the truth and to the scientific method) as overstating it ("deadly accurate").  I am not a big fan of either.  How about instead explaining the methodology and its strengths and weaknesses, rather than using talking points?

Dewan’s “take them for what they’re worth” half-caveat on those projections probably also applies to whatever Dewan does in fielding. Of course, he calls the book “The Fielding Bible” instead of “Some Uncorroborated Measurements of Fielding: Take Them for What They’re Worth.” A bit more implied measurement rigor in the former.

To me the term “Bible” doesn’t imply measurement rigor.  It implies you must possess faith to believe.  Seems appropriate.

#4: But then, The Sporting News was for decades known as the “baseball bible,” and “bible” in that context had nothing to do with faith and everything to do with accuracy of published baseball statistics. I don’t know or care what religion Dewan practices, but I would never believe that Dewan does not know what the baseball bible was.