THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

I use graphs.

I insult people…

I don’t think it’s a minority-majority issue at all. I think it’s the way that you each communicate.

Poz appeals to shared experience and emotion, and talks about things most people can relate to (even when they can’t understand it, which is what I think Poz’s real talent is—he can make you feel like you understand golf even if you aren’t a fan, or a decathalon, or...)

You use a lot of really complicated concepts without thoroughly explaining the fundamentals of what you’re trying to do. The people here who love your stuff have been reading you long enough to be able to fill in the gaps you don’t. Even so (like with the Strasburg projection discussion), sometimes there’s a communication gap even here.

I think your ideas could appeal to the majority no problem. You just have to explain it in a way that most people can relate to without understanding all the math (or feeling like they need to), and without understanding your personality or ways of looking at things.

WPA, for instance, is awesome for the normal fan. Tremendous! But it took fangraphs using that to tell a story of each game that sucks normal fans in. Show even a casual fan one of those graphs during a game and they will get it. Up is good for our team, down is bad for our team, and the bars on the bottom are how important this moment is.

I’m not telling you to stop explaining the thinking/the numbers—those are important too—but maybe you could have a “simplified book blog” where you try to explain with as few numbers as possible?

Sal, I get what you are saying, but, I like the way it works out this way.  If it means readers have to try harder, and in the process lose some readers, sobeit.

I introduced WPA here:
http://www.tangotiger.net/archives/stud0163.shtml

Readers got it immediately.

Poz of course makes his living primarily as a writer and Tom makes his as a sabermetrician (and in this case I use the “metrician” entirely advisably), so it would be bad news for Poz if his writing weren’t better than Tango’s or for Tango if his math weren’t better than Poz’s.  I just feel fortunate to live in an era where I can read the writings of both for free and nearly every day.

What I am saying is anything but a criticism. I know you write the way you do for a reason, and I certainly am not suggesting you change it. I just think your writing is closer to Poz’s than you think, and that it’s just the cosmetics that are different.

Half the time I read through threads here I get lost, and I’ve been reading you for half a decade (as scary as that is). There’s nothing wrong with making people think, but a lot of the time the discussion gets so deeply into specifics that readers like me who love the concepts (but are ambivalent about the nitty gritty of the math) get lost in the details.

Like your WPA article. All the average fan has to know about WPA is on this graph:
http://www.fangraphs.com/wins.aspx?date=2003-10-15&team=Cubs&dh=0&season=2003

You put the drama of the game into the article to explain the graph, and you’d get a Poz article. What you have there instead is a decidedly Tango article where the numbers (or the concept) takes center stage over what actually happened on the field—the language is support for the numbers (rather than vice versa).

Again, I’m not trying to criticize you or your writing. I learn a Hell of a lot more from discussions here than I do on fangraphs or Poz’s site. I just think that you make a conscious choice to put the numbers/concept first, and use language to support the numbers, rather than vice versa.

If anything, this is criticism of people like myself who should be trying to turn your concepts into more approachable articles that can get more people interested in the nitty gritty. I’m pretty sure I found this blog by reading articles on THT in 2004 or whatever that referenced you/The Book. Having people who understand and can translate it to be more accessible lowers the barrier to entry on discussions here, and gets more people willing to try to get over the hurdle in understanding what you’re talking about.

It’s a pretty steep learning curve though. Do you know how hard it is to understand Bayesian probability the first time?

Isn’t “Poz v Tango” akin to lion v shark? The winner is decided by the venue: If the battle is on land, Leo is victorious; if in water, Jaws rules. Also (#2): If MGL insults someone but that someone is not insulted, is MGL insulted?