Thoughts on a couple of points not answered individually:
As to "sunk costs": I am in reality a major advocate of ball clubs learning to understand what they are. I noted the studio's sunk costs only to emphasize how far the project had gone when it was cancelled, that it was not just a concept that was being killed.
"Total Average" isn't the standard measure because it isn't very good for anything. It is not enough to include the components of run-making to get a useful equation for it: those elements have to be combined in a way that reliably produces actual real-world runs results, not some arbitrary relative measure. The whole point of modern analysis is that it is not just another round of arbitrary, made-up relative comparison measures suitable only for fueling tavern debates, but rather measures that do--within the known limits of accuracy of probabilistic analysis--reliably produce absolute, not relative, measures that can be compared with actual results.
A note on the photo: being less vain than many of the folk who post snide cracks here, I don't have photos of myself lying about; that one was cropped down from one sent to us by friends at whose wedding reception it was taken, and was the only one I could find when asked for one. I assumed--ever-dangerous thing to do--that it would be seen as intentional humor.
Also, you've got to be pretty fucking full of yourself to claim all "analysis" for your own term, which would be more accurately called "hyper-statistical analysis." You think "old time baseball men" aren't analyzing situations, just because they don't have a specific stat to express their beliefs?
@Chris Hanson's Axe: The bare word "analysis" in a baseball context today usually means, and is understood from the context to mean, statistical analysis. Google Is Your Friend: search on
@owlcroft: Somehow the post lost the search terms, probably because I put them in angle brackets. The term is simply "baseball analysis" (no quotation marks).
You should mention that a lot of the Oakland A's late 1980s-1990s success was due in part to steroids. Buckets and buckets of steroids. oh and a dash of analysis from a bitter old man.
@Artie Fufkin: Such nonsense is why I made a whole site on the topic, but I have found that the old saw is correct: you cannot use reason to get a man out of a position that he didn't use reason to get into. People believe what they want to believe about PEDs, and there is no mountain of contrary evidence large enough to dissuade those who will not examine that evidence with an open mind. I get awfully tired of emails and posted comments from people who say, in so many words, that they didn't go past the first few paragraphs of the first page of the site before they stopped reading. As it says there, this is not a show for season ticket holders to Short Attention-Span Theater.
And "bitter old man"? Dear me. I kept quiet about my work when I was doing it and for years after. It was Michael Lewis and Alan Schwarz who came to me with questions and who put my name out in public; I never wrote anything, including the articles here, save by invitation. I am not bitter, I am thankful that I got to do what I got to do. I am, though, sorry that so many hard-working others still have little or no public recognition.
@EroticTangerines: Obvious today, that is. A quarter-century ago, it was rather less than obvious to most baseball men; even today, as certain national baseball broadcasters demonstrate, it is not univerally grasped.
As Alan Schwarz put it in his New York Times article on it, "One of the most influential baseball minds of the last 40 years is angry. And he is coming out of retirement to vent
Jesus Christ, self promotion is one thing, but you're going to separate your shoulder patting yourself on the back
Anyone else confused? I could see if Craggs had used his intrepid reporting skill to uncover the true founder of the Moneyball theory, but to just let this guy rub himself down for 2 columns makes no sense. I do agree with most of the stuff on his PED related website, but this was terrible.
What is next week, a two-parter from the ghost of Pop Warner patting himself on the back because he isn't getting props for being the genius behind the Wildcat offense?
@Gus Johnson's Cardiologist: Look, I was in those places at those times and did those things; asked to write a story about those places and times, what was I supposed to do? Say that I didn't do those things, or did them badly, or that they didn't end up being influential? Maybe an article by Eddie Epstein about the joys of trying to explain runs created per nine innings to Roland Hemond would have been as interesting, but I was asked about what happened where I was, not what might have happened elsewhere. Eddie is an insufficiently lauded hero who didn't have the luck I did. There are--as I tried to take pains to point out--many more.
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
10/12/09
Defense
Muscle
Putting on Weight
10/12/09
-Robert Dozier, Introduction to Advanced Mathematics, University of Memphis, 2006
10/12/09
10/10/09
As to "sunk costs": I am in reality a major advocate of ball clubs learning to understand what they are. I noted the studio's sunk costs only to emphasize how far the project had gone when it was cancelled, that it was not just a concept that was being killed.
"Total Average" isn't the standard measure because it isn't very good for anything. It is not enough to include the components of run-making to get a useful equation for it: those elements have to be combined in a way that reliably produces actual real-world runs results, not some arbitrary relative measure. The whole point of modern analysis is that it is not just another round of arbitrary, made-up relative comparison measures suitable only for fueling tavern debates, but rather measures that do--within the known limits of accuracy of probabilistic analysis--reliably produce absolute, not relative, measures that can be compared with actual results.
A note on the photo: being less vain than many of the folk who post snide cracks here, I don't have photos of myself lying about; that one was cropped down from one sent to us by friends at whose wedding reception it was taken, and was the only one I could find when asked for one. I assumed--ever-dangerous thing to do--that it would be seen as intentional humor.
10/08/09
10/11/09
10/07/09
No, it's not and therefore I discount anything you say about baseball, even if I agree with some of it.
10/10/09
10/07/09
10/10/09
10/10/09
10/07/09
10/10/09
And "bitter old man"? Dear me. I kept quiet about my work when I was doing it and for years after. It was Michael Lewis and Alan Schwarz who came to me with questions and who put my name out in public; I never wrote anything, including the articles here, save by invitation. I am not bitter, I am thankful that I got to do what I got to do. I am, though, sorry that so many hard-working others still have little or no public recognition.
10/07/09
10/07/09
No fucking shit, Sherlock.
10/07/09
10/10/09
10/07/09
JUST NO MIDGETS
--
I have the same sign taped to my headboard.
10/07/09
10/07/09
5?
10/07/09
/fixed
10/07/09
Jesus Christ, self promotion is one thing, but you're going to separate your shoulder patting yourself on the back
10/10/09
10/07/09
What is next week, a two-parter from the ghost of Pop Warner patting himself on the back because he isn't getting props for being the genius behind the Wildcat offense?
10/10/09