THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

I enjoy the discussion, and I’ve learned a lot here.  Does that mean I’m in utopia?

For me, it’s one of the top 3, depending on my mood.

I always throw in a few negative answers, because, well, I’m interested as to why someone who’s not happy here is doing here.

To the one person who is hoping to get something but doesn’t: tell me what it is you want.  I’ll see if I can help you out.

To the three people who learn a bit, but find the place itself offputting: tell me what it is that puts you off.  I’ll see if I can make it more comfortable for you.

Post anonymously if you like.

My feeling is that whenever I read an interesting study, I can come here and it’s usually linked and I get to read the reactions about it from people I know to be knowledgeable and interesting.  If I have a theory about something, I’ll post it in the appropriate thread and have it addressed.  I also read the archives a lot looking for old posts about batted ball bias and the earlier Pitch f/x work.

So I guess I voted for “sabermetric utopia”.

I don’t post here since I know I am out of my league, but I love to learn about the game and read studies posted or done here, along with the comments. So I come here to learn as much as I can. Probably my favorite baseball site on the web.

I could have very easily voted for “hope to get something out of it, and I hardly ever do” simply because so much of what I read here — both in the posts and the comments — goes way over my head. But that’s just a reflection of my ignorance, and the reason I come here is “to learn as much as I can.”

That’s very interesting.  So it’s not that it’s something negative, but simply that you might not be in-tune with the way things are being presented.  Interesting, that’s helpful.

Hi Tom,

I’ve never posted here, but I have visited daily for the past few months. I voted one of the “negatives” (hope to get something out of it but I hardly ever do) just because most of it goes over my head. It’s not a negative thing to me; it’s that I’m trying to learn as much as I can, but I find most of my learning comes from Fangraphs, BTB and the Mariners blogosphere because there are so many writers there who do a good job of breaking down what I find complicated so I can understand it more. Here, I feel like things are too advanced for me, but that’s certainly my fault and not yours. I love what you and mgl do and I hope you continue for a long time. I just need to do my best to catch up and keep up.

If this blog were a class, I’d probably be getting Ds and Fs because I haven’t taken the prerequisites yet. But I’m working on it.

So it’s not that it’s something negative, but simply that you might not be in-tune with the way things are being presented.

I wouldn’t agree with that, though it’s great if it helps you. In my case, I think it’s simply the fact that I have not put in enough work building a solid understanding of the fundamental principles and ideas commonly employed by more advanced writers.

The way I think of it — and maybe this isn’t the best analogy — is that by coming here I’m sitting in on a 300-level course when I’m actually still making my way through the 100-level materials. What I feel like I should be doing is taking a step (or three) backward to thoroughly learn the basics so I can eventually take the steps forward that such understanding enables.

I enjoy the content here quite a bit and usually learn something. I can follow along fairly well, but I’m not as mathematically advanced as I could/should be. As a result some things do fly over my head, but that doesn’t really diminish the site for me.

I also really enjoy the hockey content.

If there’s something new and interesting in the sabermetrics world, it will be here.  And the best minds in the business will be here to quickly determine if it sinks or swims.

Another answer you might want to let people choose is “I’m bored at work and my boss isn’t looking over my shoulder right this second”.

Though if that’s your answer, there’s a good chance he’s monitoring your browsing habits.  Good thing I’m posting this from home.

This site is great; the posters are great.  I voted “c” but “b” was close.  I don’t know enough to contribute but I enjoy reading the linked articles and following the discussions.

I like Bill James’ characterization: “If it seems like you are walking into the middle of a conversation, you are.”

He said that 25 years ago.  That’s basically the way it is and always will be.

I’m impressed that people characterize it as 300-level course, with 100-level prerequisite, and are keen on continuing anyway.  That’s pretty cool.

I will say that when I was writing articles, I would set up the article in such a way as to bring in the reader up to speed.  With blogs, I simply don’t do that, exactly because a blog is alot more like a conversation.

Anyway, it’s good to know how everyone thinks.

Tango, you might find this amusing. 

For my stats course this year, you have no idea how many times I’ve referenced some of the stuff in this blog, regarding Intra Class Correlation, Bayesian Inference, Odds ratio, Binomial probability etc.  It makes it so, so, so, so, so much easier to understand those things when they are expressed in their relation to baseball.

I’m new around here, but certainly come because I’m looking to learn more and get a solid analysis/numbers perspective on the game. One thing I will say about the previous comments: I don’t think anyone needs to blame themselves, or apologize, for not having the stats or econometric chops to keep up. These aren’t requisite life skills; they’re useful in life and baseball, but there’s no need to apologize for not having R installed on your computer. Btw, R is not installed on my computer.

But on a more lighthearted note: I do work at a research company that specialized in quantitative analysis and dabbles in qualitative work. Tangotiger, I wonder if you should have consulted a survey specialist before publishing this survey. Not sure how valid or reliable this instrument is.

"If there’s something new and interesting in the sabermetrics world, it will be here.  And the best minds in the business will be here to quickly determine if it sinks or swims.”

Yep, that’s why I keep coming back.  Between FanGraphs, BP, Hardball Times, BTF, etc., I don’t have time to read everything.  But I know that the important stuff will show up here, and we’ll get to the bottom of it very quickly.

Plus, and this is no small thing, I’ve been made to feel very welcome by Tango, MGL and all the other posters.  I started here last spring when we first began to discuss whether home runs were traveling farther in 2009, I added my two cents to the discussion.  People disagreed with my methods, but rather than call me an idiot, they explained their position reasonably.  Whenever I have questions, they’ve been answered quickly and thoroughly, and without condescension.  This may be a 300 level course, but those of us with 100 level understandings have always been welcomed and encouraged.

Much like #5, I come to soak up some knowledge, but much of the math flies over my head.

Partly, that’s because I allow it to.  I wasn’t terrible at math, and could probably attain a better understanding of the nuts & bolts if I tried.  But I don’t actually have much interest in the nuts & bolts.  My eyes glaze over when I see the formula for, say, SIERA.  But I find many of the discussions here interesting.  Despite my skimming over the math, I think I understand many of the basic concepts of sabremetrics reasonably well because I’ve been reading Neyer, BP, Replacement Level Yankees Weblog, River Ave. Blues, USS Mariner, Fangraphs, BBTF, Hardball Times, Baseball Analysts, and other sites like that for years now.

I voted for option #2.  What I enjoy most is that the blog regulars have an enormous amount of sabermetrics experience.  I’ve only been delving into the field since the fall of ‘08 when I decided my history and economics capstones were going to be on baseball statistics.  I thought I was a fancy-pants stathead because I knew that my fantasy leagues should be using OPS instead of AVG...Now I’m working on composing a primer series for a new Phillies blog targeted at a more mainstream audience. The best part of this blog is that when I have a question about something like WPA, I can turn to the regulars (or just shoot tango an email) to get guidance.  You guys teach rather than tell which is what makes the blog worthwhile.

One of the things that inspired me to post the survey, was that a semi-regular around here said to me something I either couldn’t believe, or frankly, I didn’t want to believe.

At some point in the discussion, I ended up saying this:

Call me naive then.  I truly believe that eveyrone who reads and posts at my blog do it for the pure knowledge transfer, and nothing more.

If you are suggesting that ...others, come to my blog to somehow make yourself a name, and even not be completely truthful in your posts in order to advance a personal cause, I would be highly disappointed.

Otherwise, I believe that everyone posts there for the greater good.

...

Sabermetric-utopia.  Great, right?

Rally:

If there’s something new and interesting in the sabermetrics world, it will be here.  And the best minds in the business will be here to quickly determine if it sinks or swims.

Mitch:

Plus, and this is no small thing, I’ve been made to feel very welcome by Tango, MGL and all the other posters… Whenever I have questions, they’ve been answered quickly and thoroughly, and without condescension.

The A Team:

The best part of this blog is that when I have a question about something like WPA, I can turn to the regulars (or just shoot tango an email) to get guidance.

I agree with all of these points, and they’re such strong points about this blog and its community that I thought they were worth repeating.

Another thing I would add is how I appreciate the fact-driven nature of what is discussed here. Opinions are fine, but they need to be supported by evidence. As Tango once said, in a way I found quite memorable,

Summary opinion without evidence is bullsh!t.

This applies to things like statistical analysis, of course, but also to less quantifiable discussions, like the time Tango posted about eliminating the intentional walk and requested that people chiming in with alternative approaches place themselves in the role of a consultant hired by MLB.

Perhaps best of all, this blog seems like one of the few places where people truly agree to disagree. Elsewhere, folks seem to have long, begrudged memories. Here, a disagreement one day seems to have no bearing on what transpires another day.

One reason I come here is because I have a statistical background (only Bachelors level, mind you) and I like reading up on the details of the various baseball metrics to try to figure out how much I trust them and how much weight I should put into them, from WAR to projections to FIP/xFIP/Siera, etc., and I generally find the details here - whether the calculations/explanations of methodology itself are on this blog or just linked from here.  One complaint I have is I struggle to find older posts I’m looking for with the search function on this site.  Maybe I’m just bad at using it, I don’t know, but it often takes me a lot more effort than I feel it should.

I have no control on the Search.  But, it should be pretty good.  The main search is from the software itself, and if you click Advanced, you can really focus in on what you want.

The other search is from google, and so, it’s limited to whatever google has indexed.

But, yeah, sometimes I don’t find it fast in either way.

I did add another good search feature last year.  For example, I knew Dave Cameron said something.  Well, I can see all his posts:

http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/member_posts/?name=David%20Cameron

(There’s a “see all posts” next to each of your names.)

Once there, I did a search for “groundball”, and boom, I got the thread I was thinking about.

I am similar to #16 (Rob in CT).  I don’t feel like there’s a poll answer that corresponds, so I didn’t answer the poll.

I voted B, but C definitely would’ve been applicable. Like a lot of others, much of the math is beyond my abilities, but it raises my confidence that new stats are consistently dissected and re-dissected on this blog and others. But I come here basically for the same reasons as Rally: it’s a veritable sabermetric highlight reel of important advances and most of the top analysts comment, lending any consensus opinions a great deal of credibility. And(as has also been stated before) it’s a very question-friendly community - if I want to know something and Google doesn’t do the job, I know I can come here and get thoughtful and enlightening responses.

Guess that all adds up to something a lot closer to sabermetric utopia, now that I write it up.

I voted for “C” because it was closest to my motivations, but it’s not quite on point.  I was indoctrinated into sabermetrics in the late 80s when I was too young to do anything about it, and only discovered the sabermetric blogosphere a couple years back.  Now I visit this site a couple times a week, for two primary reasons:

[1] Trying to learn as much as I can.  I have had a fair amount of catching up to do, bridging from the Abstract era Bill James writings to the modern constructs.

[2] Getting a rigorous but fair review of baseball analysis done by others.  I have a pretty strong undergrad math/stats/economics background, but I just don’t have the time to rigorously evaluate each new piece of research that comes down the pike.  I rely on this community to screen out the junk and point me towards the articles that are worth pursuing in depth.

After reading this blog for a year I picked up The Book, and have now pretty well achieved [1], so [2] is my primary motivation these days.  I hope to begin participating in the discussion here more in the near future, but my work schedule doesn’t leave me much flexibility currently.