Bill James Projections...would you be happy?

[CA-ORIOLE]

No need to rate (back-handedly or otherwise) the quality of someone's thoughts by their appearance and demeanor. In fact, it's sort of totally irrelevant?

Unfortunately, presentation is always relevant to some degree. Especially if you're considered the leader of a movement. Television isn't a good medium for him. I don't see any reason not to point that out.

[Moose Milligan]

Except that until about 10 years ago the majority of the baseball establishment was telling him he's not just an idiot, but the biggest idiot ever.

K, so? You're really trying to sell me on the plight of Bill James?

[DrungoHazewood]

K, so? You're really trying to sell me on the plight of Bill James?

No, I'm not trying to sell you on anything. You think James is a pompus baffoon, and there's little or nothing I can do to change that beyond asking you to read more of what he's written and continues to write. I think you'd change your opinion, although you probably don't care to.

What I do ask is you consider how he got where he is. He began as a guy in Army in the Vietnam era, he wasn't going to college at 20 to become a statistician or a guru or a founder of a movement. He famously had a job as a night watchman, and on his off time he started doing basic research in the 70s, putting out his annual Abstract on a mimeograph machine, selling copies with ads in the back of the Sporting News. In the 80s his books took off, but also the opposition (which was basically the whole baseball establishement). And this lasted until a few years after Moneyball and him getting hired by the Sox. Really he wasn't seen widely as this great figure until recently, except in a small circle of goofballs like me who spent their formative years buying his books from the mall. This idea that the world has fawned over him for many years and stroked his massive ego is frankly kind of ridiculous. For most of his career he's been seen as an eccentric or a propeller-hatted weenie. The "get out of your mom's basement, put away the Commodore 64, and watch some baseball" kind of remark was basically invented to skewer Bill James.

[DrungoHazewood]

Yeah, he has zero personality. Still, it has been interesting to listen to a lot of his input in MLB Network of late. He ventures out into a lot more subjective areas than I would have thought (i.e. skills/scouting/observational inputs). I believe he rated Zach Greinke in the top 3 or 4 of ML pitchers right now and went on to justify the selection based on Greinke's "pitchability".

If you read his writings I don't think that's very surprising. He's never been a guy who advocated throwing away subjective inputs.

In the New Historical Abstract he constructed his huge, sprawling, somewhat controversial Win Shares system to rank all the best players in history, but part of the final rankings was an explicitly called out fudge factor where he would sometimes nudge a ranking one way or the other because he thought the numbers didn't truly represent the player. And that's just one of many examples that I won't bore you with.

[Moose Milligan]

No, I'm not trying to sell you on anything. You think James is a pompus baffoon, and there's little or nothing I can do to change that beyond asking you to read more of what he's written and continues to write. I think you'd change your opinion, although you probably don't care to.

What I do ask is you consider how he got where he is. He began as a guy in Army in the Vietnam era, he wasn't going to college at 20 to become a statistician or a guru or a founder of a movement. He famously had a job as a night watchman, and on his off time he started doing basic research in the 70s, putting out his annual Abstract on a mimeograph machine, selling copies with ads in the back of the Sporting News. In the 80s his books took off, but also the opposition (which was basically the whole baseball establishement). And this lasted until a few years after Moneyball and him getting hired by the Sox. Really he wasn't seen widely as this great figure until recently, except in a small circle of goofballs like me who spent their formative years buying his books from the mall. This idea that the world has fawned over him for many years and stroked his massive ego is frankly kind of ridiculous. For most of his career he's been seen as an eccentric or a propeller-hatted weenie. The "get out of your mom's basement, put away the Commodore 64, and watch some baseball" kind of remark was basically invented to skewer Bill James.

I've actually got one of his Historical Baseball abstracts. I'm not sure which one it is, but I got it for Christmas about 6 years ago or so. I really liked it, damn near read the thing from cover to cover.

It's not like I hate the guy, I just think he's arrogant. I know his story and don't think that he had the entire baseball world fawning over him in the 80's, I know there was a backlash there. But, as I said, if you have people telling you how great you are, you're going to start believing them. That could be 100 people, that could be 10 people. IMO, he didn't have to win over the establishment in the 80's to get his ego stroked, goofballs ( ) like you were doing it for him back in the day.

[Moose Milligan]

I've actually got one of his Historical Baseball abstracts. I'm not sure which one it is, but I got it for Christmas about 6 years ago or so. I really liked it, damn near read the thing from cover to cover.

It's not like I hate the guy, I just think he's arrogant. I know his story and don't think that he had the entire baseball world fawning over him in the 80's, I know there was a backlash there. But, as I said, if you have people telling you how great you are, you're going to start believing them. That could be 100 people, that could be 10 people. IMO, he didn't have to win over the establishment in the 80's to get his ego stroked, goofballs ( ) like you were doing it for him back in the day.

EDIT: You'll also notice, Drungo, I'm not the one attacking his appearance or public speaking skills.

[DrungoHazewood]

I've actually got one of his Historical Baseball abstracts. I'm not sure which one it is, but I got it for Christmas about 6 years ago or so. I really liked it, damn near read the thing from cover to cover.

It's not like I hate the guy, I just think he's arrogant. I know his story and don't think that he had the entire baseball world fawning over him in the 80's, I know there was a backlash there. But, as I said, if you have people telling you how great you are, you're going to start believing them. That could be 100 people, that could be 10 people. IMO, he didn't have to win over the establishment in the 80's to get his ego stroked, goofballs ( ) like you were doing it for him back in the day.

There is something to the idea that you can get a big head by having a small group of like-minded people who know you're right and everyone else is wrong. I'm sure there's some effect on your self-opinion from being vindicated after 20 or 30 years of folks telling you you're an idiot.

EDIT: You'll also notice, Drungo, I'm not the one attacking his appearance or public speaking skills.

Noted.

And I don't mean to come off as a cult disciple of James. He absolutely has his flaws, and is no longer anywhere near the cutting edge of baseball research. But for me he'll always be that guy that a lot of adolescents have, who you discover one day and he teaches you a whole different way of looking at the world. He was the person whose books taught me that a lot of the stuff I knew before was wrong, the people who said this stuff were wrong, and spelled out why. It's hard to overstate the impact of (in a baseball sense) subversive writing like that on a 15, 17 year old baseball fanatic.

[Hank Scorpio]

The guy was a trailblazer and he stuck to his guns through all kinds of ridicule... so I'll give him a pass for being kind of droll.

[Moose Milligan]

There is something to the idea that you can get a big head by having a small group of like-minded people who know you're right and everyone else is wrong. I'm sure there's some effect on your self-opinion from being vindicated after 20 or 30 years of folks telling you you're an idiot.

Noted.

And I don't mean to come off as a cult disciple of James. He absolutely has his flaws, and is no longer anywhere near the cutting edge of baseball research. But for me he'll always be that guy that a lot of adolescents have, who you discover one day and he teaches you a whole different way of looking at the world. He was the person whose books taught me that a lot of the stuff I knew before was wrong, the people who said this stuff were wrong, and spelled out why. It's hard to overstate the impact of (in a baseball sense) subversive writing like that on a 15, 17 year old baseball fanatic.

I understand why you like him...I dunno, he just rubs me the wrong way sometimes.

Getting back to your earlier point, I know he was bashed back in the day but...I don't feel sorry for him since he never really lost anything. He never had anyone to answer to. As you correctly pointed out, he was a night watchmen and started doing this on the side. It's not like he was the head of a company and lost it all and was blackballed by others who could have employed him.

He put his stuff out there and...hey, people started to listen. One should be so lucky.

[CA-ORIOLE]

If you read his writings I don't think that's very surprising. He's never been a guy who advocated throwing away subjective inputs.

In the New Historical Abstract he constructed his huge, sprawling, somewhat controversial Win Shares system to rank all the best players in history, but part of the final rankings was an explicitly called out fudge factor where he would sometimes nudge a ranking one way or the other because he thought the numbers didn't truly represent the player. And that's just one of many examples that I won't bore you with.

Yeah, I suppose so. He's long advocated subjective inputs into fielding and has accomplished that with his influence on the Fielding Bible. I'm sure I haven't read of much of his writings as you (and the bulk of what I have read is probably germane to fielding metrics). He certainly comes off less clinical than some of his contemporaries like Tango and Licthman. I suppose that's why he retains broader appeal. I had a Bill James account a couple years ago, but basically thought I could find stuff just as good or better online for free. Outside of the fielding stuff (which I agree with him on), I didn't find him that compelling.

But if the main point is he was a pioneer, then yeah sure.

[DrungoHazewood]

He certainly comes off less clinical than some of his contemporaries like Tango and Licthman.

So back during either late September or the playoffs there was a thread on Tango's blog where someone questioned Buck bringing Matusz into a game since he was like a 5.00 ERA guy. I responded that his true talent might be better than that as a reliever, and in an offhand way cited his performance since he was recalled from Norfolk and changed roles.

Lichtman responded with a multi-paragraph blast saying I deserved whatever came to me for implying Matusz' 50-some batters faced as a reliever was statistically significant, and that no self-respecting person would post such drivel on that blog.

Some people don't like Bill James. I'm not a huge fan of Lichtman.

[El Gordo]

I understand why you like him...I dunno, he just rubs me the wrong way sometimes.

Getting back to your earlier point, I know he was bashed back in the day but...I don't feel sorry for him since he never really lost anything. He never had anyone to answer to. As you correctly pointed out, he was a night watchmen and started doing this on the side. It's not like he was the head of a company and lost it all and was blackballed by others who could have employed him.

He put his stuff out there and...hey, people started to listen. One should be so lucky.

There's a difference between feeling sorry for someone, which no one is asking, liking someone's style, which no one is asking, and respecting someone's achievements, which I think many are asking. Bill James basically reinvented baseball, and I'm the last person you'd call a stathead.The game is so much more fascinating to me because of his work. I don't care if he spills soup on his tie or acts like he never heard of OPACY. One of the things I admiremost about him is that he is not a fanatic devotee of stats above all else. He recognizes their limits, as well as their strengths, something I wish more here would.

[SrMeowMeow]

So back during either late September or the playoffs there was a thread on Tango's blog where someone questioned Buck bringing Matusz into a game since he was like a 5.00 ERA guy. I responded that his true talent might be better than that as a reliever, and in an offhand way cited his performance since he was recalled from Norfolk and changed roles.

Lichtman responded with a multi-paragraph blast saying I deserved whatever came to me for implying Matusz' 50-some batters faced as a reliever was statistically significant, and that no self-respecting person would post such drivel on that blog.

Some people don't like Bill James. I'm not a huge fan of Lichtman.

Now Mitchel Lichtman is a guy who really comes across as a sociopath. He is often so obnoxious/abusive that it can be hard for me to even finish reading some of his opinions (especially blog comments).

[CA-ORIOLE]

So back during either late September or the playoffs there was a thread on Tango's blog where someone questioned Buck bringing Matusz into a game since he was like a 5.00 ERA guy. I responded that his true talent might be better than that as a reliever, and in an offhand way cited his performance since he was recalled from Norfolk and changed roles.

Lichtman responded with a multi-paragraph blast saying I deserved whatever came to me for implying Matusz' 50-some batters faced as a reliever was statistically significant, and that no self-respecting person would post such drivel on that blog.

Some people don't like Bill James. I'm not a huge fan of Lichtman.

Sorry you had a bad experience with Lichtman. I hate to say it, but I kind of see his point in the example you gave (even though it sounds like he could have been more courteous). That's not to say you were wrong (heck you were probably right), it's just not the sort of dialogue/analysis he'd prefer to listen to on his site. At the end of the day, I think there are more than enough people that think James is a jerk as well. The personality things aren't that much of an issue for me. I can get scouting reports from scouts, even people on this site, or from my own observation. I'm generally looking for analysts to provide strong statistical analysis.

I'm not picking on Bill James. I've always appreciated his humility with respect to the limitations of his knowledge and research. By your own admission you've acknowledged that he's probably not at the cutting edge of statistical analysis anymore. I agree with that.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Apologies because I guess this is somewhat off topic, but somebody asked Bill James (James has also written a book on famous crimes) what he thought about the Ray Lewis murder charges:

I'm sure you've been asked this before. I'm guessing you may have answered before. But knowing your affinity for crime narratives, evidence gathering, I want to ask: What do you make of the double murder after SB XXXIV? Have you any notion of whether Ray Lewis was involved, or how?

Asked by: troobs89

Answered: 2/5/2013

He was involved, in the sense that he tried to prevent it. Ray Lewis was out in a place where alcohol was flowing freely, long after midnight. This was poor judgment, but I can't say I never did that when I was that age. There were rival gangs there, and there was evidence of bad feelings throughout the night. Ray Lewis, according to the testimony of numerous individuals, tried to play the role of peacemaker throughout the evening, and, when the fatal fight started, tried to break it up. This is what the evidence shows. His prosecution for murder was grossly irresponsible, and the Atlanta prosecutors themselves should have faced criminal charges for their effort to prosecute Lewis, when they knew full well that he was innocent.

http://www.billjamesonline.com/hey_bill/