THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

I forget who said it, maybe Einstein?  But regarding how hard it was to get established scientists to change their minds about anything, someone said that scientific theory changes one death at a time.

As more and more ballplayers who understand FIP, WAR, etc become scouts, writers, and executives, we’ll see the acceptance of sabermetrics grow.

Silva seems like a nice and reasonable guy.  If you listen to him on the radio, you would think so too.

He is just writing about things that are way out of his league, so they really make little sense.  He is not quite reasonable or smart enough though, to realize or admit that, which is the failing of many an otherwise rational person.

It is really not worth commenting on the substance of his arguments, IMO…

Yeah I think you’ve hit diminishing returns with engaging Silva, Tango. Time to just let it go, he doesn’t let facts lead to conclusions, he works backwards from what he already believes to be true.

I think he brings something worthwhile to the table.  I’ll keep engaging for the foreseeable future…

I tend to agree with #2 and #3.  Silva clearly has an open line to Tangotiger, should he have any questions about FIP and the like.  But instead of directing those supposed questions to someone who is graciously willing to provide answers, he chooses to write these bizarre posts. 

Had he emailed Tango (or any number of other people) with his concerns about FIP after reading the Happ article, received feedback, and THEN posted his findings, I’d say that’s pretty cool and something worthwhile. But he didn’t, and proceeded to ramble on (again) about how sabermetrics aren’t used by “real baseball people” and how those in the saber community are only motivated by $$$ ("It [sic] the case of Baseball Prospectus it’s become a profit center.").  The onus is on him to ask questions of things he is unsure about.  No one else has any obligation to provide answers to someone who doesn’t even bother to ask questions.

I don’t do it so much to educate Mike, but those who listen to Mike.  He asks really good questions, and his readers deserve some decent answers.

Yes, I realize that Tango engages these things for the benefit of the blog readers and not for the blogger, and that is fine…

Thanks for engaging Tom.

The points about incorporating Tom’s thoughts before publishing the article are fair. I can assure you that I am not just talking out of my A** about organizations and agents thoughts on advanced metrics.

I think many that come here or BYB forget that for every one person who enjoys this type of stuff there is 9 that don’t. This includes individuals like Rich Dubee who seemed to take offense about the “luck” factor.

I see value in FIP, i have cited it numerous time, but as you see in the case of Tom Glavine, it doesn’t always shake out.

Tom makes a great point about how FIP gives you ONE PERSPECTIVE, but I often see those that support it rely on it too much - which is just as bad as not considering it at all.

I do appreciate and learn from this stuff. I am not looking for it to benefit me or my site. Just want to create dialogue.

Also, as for the $$ comment by James. Is BP and now Bloomberg not creating stuff for subscriptions? I don’t think B-Rank or Prospectus is trying to advance the game.

That is all my point, not a criticism or judgment. There is a market for all this.

Not sure why this simple fact angers not just you, but many bloggers.

In the end, we all want to get paid for our work.

Aaaaaaand it continues…

http://nybaseballdigest.com/?p=22648

At this point, I really have no idea what the hell he is even talking about.

I didn’t criticize Tom - I complimented him, not sure what you mean by that?

I didn’t say anything about you criticizing Tom.  I said I have no idea what you were trying to get at with your post.  It was a weird combination of praising the idea of sabermetrics in the front offices, attacking the legitimacy of sabermetrics with the fabricated Bill James example, and your strange fascination with saberists trying to make money.  I appreciate your post as it was complimentary; however, you have to stop with the BS, especially when you clearly have a direct line to Tango and other knowledgeable saberists.

I was criticizing the writer at the Star for providing misinformation and correlating the 04 Red Sox win and sabermetrics - I don’t think that is a good example (maybe 2007), just a weak attempt IMO

I don’t think it was a particularly bad piece.  However…

This:

The failed theory of James sabermetrics on how “anyone could close in 2003” led to a porous bullpen and the need to sign Keith Foulke in the offseason.

is a cheap (and ignorant) shot.  Neither you (Silva) nor I have any idea to what extent, if any, James’ work with the Sox had an effect on their 2004 season.  Why would you even say that?

Any piece which begins (more or less) with this:

sabermetrics....a topic that I have been skeptical about

is in trouble.  Are you skeptical about engineering?  Computer technology?

Do you (Silva) know what an applied science is?  Here is a definition from Wikipedia:

“Applied science is the application of scientific knowledge transferred into a physical environment. Examples include testing a theoretical model through the use of formal science, or solving a practical problem through the use of natural science.”

Sabermetrics is an applied science.  You can be “skeptical” of a partcular theory proposed by a sabermetrician (IF you knew much about sabermetrics, which you clearly don’t). You can be skeptical of how or whether it enhances the viewing pleasure of the average fan or some subset therein.  You can be skeptical of a particular team’s use of sabermetrics. Etc.

But to proclaim that you are “skeptical of sabermetrics” evinces a certain ignorance and false arrogance that is frankly beyond my comprehension. If you have a question about something you don’t understand or even disagree with (not that you are in ANY position to disagree with something sabermetric), feel free to question away and you will be embraced by the sabermetric community. Writing treatises about your “skepticicm” is ridiculous.  You do have much company of course in the world of journalism, which is one reason why I have very little respect for 95% of the sports journalists out there.  In fact, calling people like yourself a journalist is an affront to real journalists who actually write about what they know or find out about what they don’t know.  You know virtually nothing about sabermetrics and your attempts to find out are extremely back-handed.

As I’ve said before, I give Tango a gold star for engaging in discussions with Mr. Silva…

MGL

There is plenty of examples where science could be work. Remember, the theories are based on if- then philosophies of the scientist.

For example WAR values 1b less than I personally would. It makes assumptions based on that person’s bias.

That’s all I meant. No arrogance or disrespect at all.

The problem is many people focus on “one paragraph” and I think Cribb’s should be taken to task for making a statement about James value to the 2004 Red Sox. I see no reason to believe their title would not have happened if James wasn’t hired.

That was my only point

Mike is correct that correlation is not causation, which is why I said what I said about quantifying mine, or anyone’s, impact.

***

Mike I think took an unnecessary swipe with the closer argument, but he basically represents the horrible way mainstream media at the time characterized James’ argument.

Indeed, if there’s one place you DO want a player that is very arepresentative, it’s in the bullpen.  It’s the one place where you can leverage a player far beyond his intrinsic value.

Mariano is a great pitcher, and even better in limited one-two inning roles.  On top of that, he can be deployed when the game matters the most (he can affect the outcome more, pound-for-pound).

The 2003 Redsox however were completely miscast to take advantage of what James said.  You absolutely needed someone who could be leveraged to the hilt.

The ONLY issue that James presented was WHEN to bring in the ace.  He did NOT say if you should even have an ace reliever.  That is mainstream media doing its worst reading in recent sabermetric history.  A big F to the media for missing the boat on that one, not reading at all what James actually said, and instead, reading what people who didn’t understand were saying about it, and reporting on their own peers.

***

I keep all my emails, and I suppose I could write a good story.  But, I’d have to get the teams to sign off on the NDA, otherwise I’d get sued for breach.

***

As for the non-compete agreement, MGL is right that everything is a negotiating point.  If a team wanted to have non-compete, they’d pay for it like the Cards paid for it with MGL.  As it stands, I have different price points for different levels of non-compete, and for different lengths of engagement.

***

I disagree that if I were to work for all 30 teams that it would cancel out.  I don’t think that us writing a chapter on batting orders or sacrifice bunt, of which all teams and managers have access to, means that all teams are now in the same boat in that regard.

Only to the extent that what we do actually becomes the status quo will that happen, and I don’t think it will happen for at least the next 10 years.