Outsports Discussion Board > the original sabermetrician -- Branch Rickey!?

Full Version: the original sabermetrician -- Branch Rickey!?

Outsports Discussion Board > Outsports > Baseball

Bill W

Feb 23 2004, 10:27 AM

QUOTE

Jim Allen in another thread:

* Bill W. will be a stats-obessed contrarian all season. \"But he only has a .235 OBP!! He SUCKS!!!!! His stats on Friday during day games on turf are AWFUL!!!\"

Har de HAR har ... c'mon, that \"Friday turf\" joke is about stupid stats that are utterly loathed by SABR folk and beloved only by TV graphics guys...

But to my point...Hey, look who embraced \"stathead\" thinking in a 1954 LIFE magazine article... the man who signed Jackie Robinson, Branch Rickey:

QUOTE

Batting average is only a partial means of determining a man's effectiveness on offense. It neglects a major factor, the base on balls, which is reflected only negatively in the batting average (by not counting it as a time at bat). Actually walks are extremely important.

As a statistic, RBIs were not only misleading but dishonest. They depended on managerial control, a hitter's position in the batting order, park dimensions and the success of his teammates in getting on base ahead of him. That left two measurable factors - on base average and power - by which to gauge the over-all offensive worth of an individual.

Fielding averages? Utterly worthless as a yardstick. They are not only misleading, but deceiving. Take Zeke Bonura, the old White Sox first baseman, generally regarded as a poor fielder. The fielding averages showed that he led American League in fielding for three years. Why? Zeke had \"good hands\"! Anything he reached, he held. Result: an absence of errors. But he was also slow moving and did not cover much territory. Balls that a quicker man may have fielded went for base hits, but the fielding averages do not reflect this.

These ideas have been around a long while ... So, unfortunately, has ossified deadball-era thinking...

SheaBoy

Feb 23 2004, 11:18 AM

Bill,

Do you know of a relatively easy-to-grasp book that would make a good intro to sabermetrics?

Bill W

Feb 23 2004, 12:10 PM

Wow, a single book is tough to recommend. The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract is the most "introductory" of his books, I suppose, and it deals with statistical interpretation as part of the entire history of pro ball. A recent edition of Total Baseball -- the best all-time reference book that employs (and explains) sabermetrics -- is certainly vital too (the 8th edition is due in April). There's also a "classic" of the genre called The Hidden Game of Baseball that seems to be out of print; check your library.

Here's a non-subscription Baseball Prospectus Basics column they just ran...

[ February 23, 2004, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: Bill W ]

faydman

Feb 23 2004, 12:22 PM

the historical abstract is absolutely MUST reading...

SheaBoy

Feb 23 2004, 03:32 PM

Has anybody read Curve Ball: Baseball, Statistics, and the Role of Chance in the Game by Jim Albert?

[ February 23, 2004, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: SheaBoy ]

Jim Allen

Feb 23 2004, 07:02 PM

QUOTE

Har de HAR har ... c'mon, that \"Friday turf\" joke is about stupid stats that are utterly loathed by SABR folk and beloved only by TV graphics guys...

Tsk, tsk, Bill. I didn't think that you'd actually rise to the bait. Alas.

QUOTE

Hey, look who embraced \"stathead\" thinking in a 1954 LIFE magazine article... the man who signed Jackie Robinson, Branch Rickey

Buwahahaha! It figures. A Dodger.

QUOTE

Actually walks are extremely important

Give me a double in to the corner any day. Walks are \"important\" only inasmuch as they help tire out pitchers. While the old Little League cliche of \"a walk's as good as a hit\" is true, so is the converse.

QUOTE

As a statistic, RBIs were not only misleading but dishonest. They depended on managerial control, a hitter's position in the batting order, park dimensions and the success of his teammates in getting on base ahead of him.

So only sabremetrics can supply that analysis? Rod Carew was roundly criticized in the Los Angeles Times for not driving in runs as a lead-off hitter when he was an Angel. The writer was quickly shouted down just by people saying "He's depending on Jimmy Anderson to get on base. How's he supposed to drive in runs when the bottom 3 in the order is hitting a combined .210?".

Bill W

Feb 24 2004, 08:56 AM

QUOTE

Jim Allen:

QUOTE

Actually walks are extremely important

Give me a double in to the corner any day. Walks are \"important\" only inasmuch as they help tire out pitchers.

Well, sure a double's better, Jim .. but which is easier to get?

A walk is not always as good as a hit, BTW. I think current analysis shows the average walk is about as 80% as valuable as the average single. (eg, a walk doesn't advance a runner two bases.) And I think a walk with the bases loaded in a 9th-inning tie is important whether it tires the pitcher or not, don't you? Walks also indicate that batters aren't making outs on lousy pitches.

Walks and power are the mother's milk of a productive offense.

[ February 24, 2004, 07:57 AM: Message edited by: Bill W ]

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.