Buy The Book
I’m as big a fan of Pete Palmer as there is (which is why we asked him to write the foreword to The Book). And I had no idea he had a book out since last September. And I know I’ve corresponded with Pete a few times since, and he never said anything to me. Thanks to Phil’s latest BTN issue, I see that he has one.
I had a link on this a year or two ago, but, I liked the book, and I like Lee, so, since he has another blog post on it, I’ll give him one here as well.
I’ve read three-fourths of the book so far. (I’m around page 320. I read the book while waiting for my kid at his Y class, at his last two sessions. So, I’ll finish the rest in his next session next week.)
Rany’s chapter on the amateur draft is fantastic sabermetrics right there. Definitely worth a read. That one was a home run, and I don’t give those out lightly. You can read portions of it in Amazon’s Look Inside, if you want a good preview. I also quite enjoyed the juiced ball chapter. Good read, good historical perspective. A double.
Rest of the book (so far) was decent discussion material, opinions, or a primer on various topics. Most were singles, a few I just skimmed right through for lack of personal interest on the topic (I’ll call those IBB), and there was only one strikeout in there (which all things considered in a book of such scope, is to be expected).
Anyway, I’ll read the rest of the book next week, and I’ll update this thread. But, really, just check Amazon’s Look Inside, and skim through it there yourself. If you find five or six chapters that interest you, then buy the book, and support the gang over there.
Ok, I finished reading the book two days ago. There are plenty of good things in the book, and plenty of so-so things in the book. The feeling I got was that the book felt disjointed. It’s a worthy read, because you’ll get a couple of doubles, maybe a triple. Chris Dial’s article is a good read especially for those new to fielding analysis. The methodology section and other articles is a good attempt at trying to bring everything together, but in a couple of places it falls flat. Bill noted his issues with the shift data. I think the replacement-level section left alot to be desired.
The data portion is a double or triple, even a home run for some.
For the hard core guys, you’re left disappointed in some places, but still enough to keep you reasonably happy. For the newbies and those who have dipped their toes already in the fielding water, you’ll be inspired, or at least be quite satisfied with the book.
I think Chris Dial hit the nail on the head when he described the target audience, and for someone who has an obvious conflict of interest, he was quite impartial:
I think the book works for everyone. My article was read by people I work with who didn’t have much of the base knowledge that FanGraphs has and they got it and understood value in the analysis. Yes, they asked some very basic questions, so I think it works on the beginner level. I think it works on the intermediate sabermetric level the best, and I think at the highest levels, it will present a different way of looking at information, and will allow the open-minded experts, like yourself Tom, to say “I hadn’t considered that before”, even if you find some other flaw in methodology.
This thread is to discuss the nuts and bolts in the back of the book. I only read a couple so far. The first is a preamble, and the rest are going to seem like I’m being nit-picky. If that’s how it looks to you, then you are not able to read my mind. If on the other hand, it looks to you that what I’m saying is relevant, then congratulations, and you are on the path to sabermetric insanity. How you choose to see what I’m about to say will lead you to two different paths.
1. Why, why, why call something a “vector” and then compound that by using seemingly meaningless numbers? A ball is hit at the “150 vector”. Wouldn’t it be more helpful to say that it was hit 30 degrees to the right of the 2B bag? And that the 210 vector was hit 30 degrees to the left of the 2B bag? If you subtract 180 for ever vector number presented, then you get 0 degrees over 2B bag, +45 degrees down the 3B line and -45 degrees down the 1B line. Those vector numbers as presented in the book don’t jump out as spray angles.
I understand that BIS stores the numbers as they are, but in terms of presentation details, and making something meaningful to the reader, spray angles is what you want, and forcing the angle at 0 degrees up the middle, so that +30 and -30 degrees are mirrors of each other are all reasons to make the change. Indeed, had FB3 started with this idea first, there’s no way in the world they would then convert to the “180 vector = 2B bag” as being better.
2. The Run Expectancy Matrix: never ever ever use one year of data. Some times you will get lucky, but, 2011 is NOT that year. How so? Question: would you score more runs from 3B or 2B? While that’s an easy answer, as it turns out that with two outs, more runs scored from 2B than 3B. In 2011 though. Historically speaking, you get .04 to .05 more runs scoring if you are on 3B than 2B with 2 outs. And you can guess that if you have a small sample size of runner on 2B-only and 3B-only situations with 2 outs, then random variation will rear it big disgusting head to make it seem like what we saw in 2011 is actually the truth.
3. After going out of their way to talk about run expectancy, they then look at “enhanced plus/minus” in terms of bases saved on the hitter only, and then credit a triple with three times the value of a single, and a double twice the value of the single. So, they completely ignore the run saving of runners on base (not to mention the fact that even at the batter level only, a double is not twice the single in terms of runs, and a triple is not three times, though it’s not terribly off).
That’s all the sections I got through.
An interesting project.
***
On a related note: Can the Straight Arrow readers propose something better than “Very Good”, because that’s what I see in many different forums. As it stands, that term legitimizes the existing Hall of Fame’s treatment of Hershiser, Saberhagen, Dennis Martinez, et al, and cements them as not great. These guys have legitimate cases for a “Hall of Greats”. Just because the BBWAA hasn’t adorned them with that pin doesn’t mean that we should only talk about them as “very good”.
This is an excerpt from BPro’s upcoming book. It details some of the shifts in play, even though overall run scoring looks the same.
This is a followup to BPro’s Between the Numbers. The intriguing sabermetric articles seem to be:
2.How Does Age Affect The Amateur Draft? (Rany Jazayerli)
2.Are Relievers Being Used Properly? (Colin Wyers)
4.What Has Pitchf/x taught us? (Mike Fast)
1.Is It Possible to Accurately Measure Fielding Without Shoving a GPS Device Up Derek Jeter’s Ass? (Colin Wyers)
2.How Do We Value Hitting vs. Fielding? (Dan Turkenkopf)
1.How Did Jose Bautista Become a Star? (Colin Wyers)
2.When Does a Hot Start Become Real? (Derek Carty)
3.What Is the Effect of the Increase in Strikeouts? (Christina Kahrl)
The word of the day here is: options!
***
I know people are going to complain about the typos at some point. Seriously, try editing something. And then re-edit it. And then re-edit it again. Tell me how many typos you find on the third pass through per page. Multiply that by 300 or 600 text pages. It’s scary how much stuff can get through.
This is not a novel that takes a year from manuscript to finished product.
I said this before with regards to The Book, but I’ll say it again. The worst experience of the book process was the editing. The way we did it is that one guy wrote a chapter, and the other two edited it. It was perfect. We went chapter by chapter, fixing all the errors, and then bundled it into a book. And how many errors did we find the first pass-through of the bundle? Over a thousand. This was AFTER we did the chapter-by-chapter corrections! I was so deflated after that. Here I thought, we were almost ready for production, and boom, that happened.
Those were all corrected, and we had a second pass-through. We were in the hundreds of errors. And then a third pass-through. I can’t remember how many pass-throughs we had. At one point, we simply said: we’re going to stop now.
So, hats off to all the editors out there. It’s a thankless job, like being an umpire.
Looks interesting. And as a bonus, new articles too.
I know I’ve often thought about doing a “Best of” of my blogs and articles, but it’s a fairly daunting task. So, good job to Ben and the gang for doing all the hard work on it.
My favorite annual publication by far.
If you want to support studes and the gang, just following the purchase instructions at the bottom of his article.
Mike did a bang-up job on PITCHf/x in the THT Annual a couple of years ago, and studes has made it available for free for the public (pdf). Tremendous stuff.
There are two other must-haves as well in book form. Dave Allen did one (I don’t remember where), and I think John Walsh or Harry Pavlidis did another. Heck, there might even be more, and I don’t remember.
In any case, thanks to studes for opening up the vault on this one. I’m looking forward to getting the new THT annual. This will be the first one where I haven’t contributed something in a while. I think I wrote in each of the last 3 or 4.
The Hardball Times is looking for new areas of research to publish in this year’s Hardball Times Annual. If you’ve got some research you’ve been working on (or have wanted to research but haven’t had the motivation), THT might be interested in your work.
Please contact Dave at if you’re interested.
The Hardball Times Annual is the #1 place to get the best that sabermetrics has to offer. So, I’d encourage many of the contributors of my blog here to write for them. Kincaid, Millsy, etc. Lots of great talent out there, and you’ll get a couple of bucks for your trouble.
Emma Span has the number one baseball literature on Amazon.
If someone has a sabermetric review, feel free to post.
Great stuff:
As with The Extra 2%, interviews will form the backbone of the book. Charles Bronfman and Pierre Bourque, Tim Raines and Dave Van Horne. Bill Stoneman and Dan Duquette, Pedro Martinez and Rodger Brulotte. Rusty Staub and Andre Dawson, Felipe Alou and Vladimir Guerrero. I’m anxious to talk to all the principals who made the Expos the Expos for 35 years. As a journalist, I’m consumed by a desire to learn more about the life and death of the franchise. As a die-hard Expos fan, I just think it will be really cool to break bread with Casey Candaele.
I want to know what the management team was thinking when they hired Tom Runnels, even though they had Felipe Alou in the minor leagues. I hope to g-d Keri can devote an entire chapter to that.
Patriot on James’ Gold book.
***
On a related note:
I worry about the future of Sabermetrics and it’s appeal to the masses. It seems that much of what I see today is 1 of 2 things. First, something like pitch f(x)where it seems like an attempt to impress a MLB team into a job. Or second a mathematical exercise, binomial distributions, Bayes, regression etc. Most of these things are god awful boring.What happened to asking an interesting question, and then figuring out how to study it?
Asked by: rempart
Answered: June 11, 2011Well. . .I’m boring enough myself; I shouldn’t talk. It was my theory, in the 1970s, that since sabermetrics could not sustain itself with academic funding, for the field to succeed it would have to speak directly to the public, therefore would need to avoid the kinds of language and expression that are common in academic circles. I’ve done all that I could to discourage sabermetricians from talking to one another in a way that shuts out the public, but honestly, I don’t know that I have reached a lot of people on this point.
Reader rempart says “god awful boring”. Well, I agree, some of it is god awful boring, which is why I don’t read those. (Anything with regression as the piece de resistance is god awful boring, and I will skim that article.) But, rempart, why do you read those? I am overwhelmed by the number of interesting questions being asked and the research to support it.
I also don’t accept Bill’s conclusion. There is tons of great articles that are public-accessible. There’s no reason all of it has to be, but there are enough saberists out there that do a good job of reaching the public. I personally don’t try to do that, but sometimes I will try (like the ESPN articles). And, I hear from more than one person how they prefer that I do NOT try to do that.
***
Then another reader noted in an article:
By: ‘Monahan’
The recent question in “Hey Bill” by rempart concerning the future of sabermetrics helped me recognize how I’ve been following this discussion on both sites. It simply boils down to… Bill’s explanations are both simpler and clearer. I certainly respect the work put in by Tango (whose pedigree is unquestioned), but I find his explanations to be inaccessible-- I’m not a mathematician, I’m a baseball fan. While Phil seems able to fully square the two viewpoints, I see one that makes sense to me and another that does not.
This was in reference to this article I wrote. I responded:
Bill has a different audience than I do. Bill writes for himself (and whatever readers he wants to reach), and I write for myself (and whatever readers I want to reach, which is smaller than Bill’s audience). And I am quite content with whoever I happen to reach. The way I see it, I’m inviting people into my world, rather than going out to the world of others. If that means I get 10 people, then that’s 10 more than I had a minute ago.
***
We all have different objectives. Some write for clarity, some write for precision, some write for accuracy, and some write for entertainment. Some write so we learn, and some write to inspire. There’s a whole bunch of reasons.
And whether we get paid or not is a huge reason for what and how we write. Patriot in the above expected more accuracy from Bill James, especially since he paid for it. He doesn’t want a tidy clean mess that he has to clean up (even though we are all actually better off for it). Monahan however prefers that tidy mess, because he prefers clarity to accuracy. Bill has often said he simply puts his ideas out there, and they live or die on their own.
Me? I’m just a caveman. I’m scared and frightened of cleanliness and regression. These things confuse me. But, if you have a chance to use Bayes theorem with a valid prior (or PythagenPat), so we can bypass the shortcuts even if it will overwhelm the reader, you do it.
BJOL readers:
Bill, Do you have any recommended baseball books or websites for a bright 7 year old who is just getting intersted in baseball and says he wants to be a sabermetrician when he grows up? What did Issac like at 7? Is there a Bill James for kids somewhere?
...
Sabermetrics for seven year olds? Why not just encourage him to read baseball books. I liked the John Tunis series when I was that age. Or maybe it was some other guy… who wrote “Good Field No Hit” and “Long Ball to Left Field”.
...
On a personal note, I started getting into baseball when I was 7 (1977-1978) and began collecting baseball cards… I became really interested in the stats on the back of the cards and then found the 1969 Baseball Encyclopedia at the library around 10 years old, which was like finding a gold mine. I started reading the Abstracts when I was 14. 7 is not too young to enjoy this stuff.
...
Just a comment re seven year olds. My nephew is 7, lives in Alabama, and follows the Braves. Immediately upon learning of the Posey injury, he said “I guess Eli Whiteside will get a lot more playing time now.” He plays simulation games with his dad and can name the entire roster of the 62 Yankees. He studies the game cards looking for every edge.
When and how do you become a saber-zombie? For me, the first moment was probably when I saw the Plus/Minus figures in The Hockey News Yearbook. I was probably 10. It could also have been when I played my first Table Top game (Extra Innings). Around the same age. I also collected baseball and hockey cards at the same time. At some point, I guess I got interested in the tradeoffs and player comparisons. Then there was a Baseball Digest article on Linear Weights, comparing Robin Yount and Dwight Evans. That led to Hidden Game, and somehow I also ended up with Bill James Abstracts when I was a teenager. In between there, I used to collect the Who’s Who (red cover).
But before all that, I played baseball (or softball) and (ball) hockey a lot as a kid. That, I think, would be the first thing to do, to make sure that given the choice between playing and reading, that the kid would rather play. And given the choice between watching a game on TV or reading about baseball, that the kid would rather watch the game. It has to be a part of you first. Otherwise, if he holds more interest in reading about baseball than playing and watching, then it’ll be something that he will dispose of at some point.
If he wants to read, the library is filled with far better books than those about baseball.
May 26 13:33
Do pitcher’s reach back for velocity when needed?
May 26 13:18
What makes for a successful GM?
May 26 07:27
“Why Kickstarter works”
May 26 03:03
Pete Palmer’s new book: Basic Ball
May 26 01:11
Largest demonstration in Canadian history?
May 25 19:41
What sabermetrics is NOT
May 25 16:59
Howard Stern
May 25 12:51
Chad Curtis
May 25 11:26
Lack of hustle during a game
May 25 10:58
Rooting for laundry
THREADS
May 26, 2012
What makes for a successful GM?
May 25, 2012
Pete Palmer’s new book: Basic Ball
May 25, 2012
“Why Kickstarter works”
May 25, 2012
Chad Curtis
May 25, 2012
Which pitchers are the forecasters betting on a good rest-of-season?
May 25, 2012
What sabermetrics is NOT
May 25, 2012
Sports pic of the year?
May 25, 2012
Do pitcher’s reach back for velocity when needed?
May 24, 2012
Largest demonstration in Canadian history?
May 24, 2012
Rooting for laundry
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 1 of 344 pages 1 2 3 > Last »Complete Archive – By Category
Complete Archive – By Date