Chicago Fanatics Message Board :: View topic

My intuition was to try to project end results based on previous years' end results; in other words, if a pitcher won 14 games last year, I would try to project that he would win 14 again next year, just as you might do with home runs.

But that doesn't work, because wins and losses are large-scale results, and consequently are subject to many different influences. A pitcher might go 19-8, not because he has pitched well but because his team has scored six runs a game for him. Also, pitchers get hurt a lot, and pitchers' careers take unexpected turns. Jake Arrieta in 2012 was 3-9 with a 6.20 ERA. Now, if he is not Cy Young, he is at least Walter Johnson.

It took us longer to learn to project pitchers, because we had to back away from the end products, and project the pitcher forward based on the elements of his performance, rather than the summary of his performance.

http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2015/11/3/9663222/2016-bill-james-handbook-cubs-projections

James has written before that pitcher projections are likely to be much less accurate than hitter projections. He writes in this year's book:

Quote:

IMU wrote:

Quote:

I'm sorry I sucked at pitcher projections over the past 2-3 decades. This year I promise to be better. Buy my book!

The sign of a truly learned man is the ability to remain open to new information and not be afraid to back off of a previous hypothesis.

He really didn't need much more than to compare the 1990 seasons of Bob Welch (Cy Young winner) and Dave Stewart (who was the unquestioned ace of that A's staff). Smoke took on the Ace of the other team, had generally better numbers and was far, far more the feared pitcher. IIRC, Welch had the far better W/L record, but he often got his shit knocked all around (or out in Oakland :shock:

) the park.

But now 25 years & many more examples/stats had to show him the error of his long held ways? It's further confirmation that in part he won't allow himself to trust his own (or seasoned scouts') eyes. No thanks.

IMU wrote:

The sign of a truly learned man is the ability to remain open to new information and not be afraid to back off of a previous hypothesis.

I think a truly learned man doesn't hold onto a false hypothesis for three decades.

rusty staub would get a $200M contract today.

you know, when i got into baseball i chose vladimir guerrer and the montreal expos. i made the right choice even tho 1) my team got taken away after 3-4 years and 2) everyone loves to give me shit like HEYYYYYY EXPOS!

rusty staub would get a $200M contract today.

IMU wrote:

The sign of a truly learned man is the ability to remain open to new information and not be afraid to back off of a previous hypothesis.

I think a truly learned man doesn't hold onto a false hypothesis for three decades.

Bill James is an intelligent guy, a talented writer, a tireless researcher, but he isn't a scientist. And he isn't really objective. In fact, if you're familiar with his work, he doesn't even pretend to be.

Just look at his crusade against Dick Allen. According to all of the statistics and metrics developed by James himself, Allen shines as bright as almost anyone. But Bill James just doesn't like him. So he's come up with this idea that "Dick Allen did more to keep his teams from winning than anyone else who ever played major league baseball.” That isn't science. It's vendetta.

Here's the type of "scientific method" Bill James often uses. He'll develop some aggregating statistic to establish a player value. He'll run the numbers of various players through his formula. He's very happy for awhile. But then he'll find out that the formula tells us that Rusty Staub was as good or nearly as good as Joe DiMaggio. Now, Bill knows that Rusty Staub wasn't as good as Joe DiMaggio. Just as anyone who ever paid more than the slightest bit of attention to baseball knows it. So instead of accepting what the formula is telling him, he changes the formula. His defenders would say he's improving the formula. But the improvements are arbitrary. He doesn't change the formula when it tells him Darrell Porter was a better player than Tony Perez. Darrell Porter was one of his beloved Kansas City Royals, by the way. To me, saying Porter was better than Perez is crazier than saying Staub was as good as DiMaggio. Regardless, it isn't science.

Bill James is just like JORR. they say all kinds of crazy shit just to get people's attention. that doesn't mean they believe their shit to be true.

I'm a proud owner of The Baseball Books '91, '92, '93. In one of those three books there is a huge article on Dick Allen where Bill James (and a co-author) profess their love for him. Not sure what you're saying...

I never saw the guy play, but his numbers were terrific. must have had a ton of "nagging injuries" or hangovers or something.

Bill James is just like JORR. they say all kinds of crazy shit just to get people's attention. that doesn't mean they believe their shit to be true.

Author:	IMU [ Tue Nov 03, 2015 2:31 pm ]
Post subject:	Bill James
http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2015/11/ ... rojections James has written before that pitcher projections are likely to be much less accurate than hitter projections. He writes in this year's book: Quote: My intuition was to try to project end results based on previous years' end results; in other words, if a pitcher won 14 games last year, I would try to project that he would win 14 again next year, just as you might do with home runs. But that doesn't work, because wins and losses are large-scale results, and consequently are subject to many different influences. A pitcher might go 19-8, not because he has pitched well but because his team has scored six runs a game for him. Also, pitchers get hurt a lot, and pitchers' careers take unexpected turns. Jake Arrieta in 2012 was 3-9 with a 6.20 ERA. Now, if he is not Cy Young, he is at least Walter Johnson. It took us longer to learn to project pitchers, because we had to back away from the end products, and project the pitcher forward based on the elements of his performance, rather than the summary of his performance.

Author:	Regular Reader [ Tue Nov 03, 2015 3:17 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bill James
He really didn't need much more than to compare the 1990 seasons of Bob Welch (Cy Young winner) and Dave Stewart (who was the unquestioned ace of that A's staff). Smoke took on the Ace of the other team, had generally better numbers and was far, far more the feared pitcher. IIRC, Welch had the far better W/L record, but he often got his shit knocked all around (or out in Oakland ) the park. But now 25 years & many more examples/stats had to show him the error of his long held ways? It's further confirmation that in part he won't allow himself to trust his own (or seasoned scouts') eyes. No thanks.

Author:	good dolphin [ Tue Nov 03, 2015 4:00 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bill James
IMU wrote: http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2015/11/3/9663222/2016-bill-james-handbook-cubs-projections James has written before that pitcher projections are likely to be much less accurate than hitter projections. He writes in this year's book: Quote: My intuition was to try to project end results based on previous years' end results; in other words, if a pitcher won 14 games last year, I would try to project that he would win 14 again next year, just as you might do with home runs. But that doesn't work, because wins and losses are large-scale results, and consequently are subject to many different influences. A pitcher might go 19-8, not because he has pitched well but because his team has scored six runs a game for him. Also, pitchers get hurt a lot, and pitchers' careers take unexpected turns. Jake Arrieta in 2012 was 3-9 with a 6.20 ERA. Now, if he is not Cy Young, he is at least Walter Johnson. It took us longer to learn to project pitchers, because we had to back away from the end products, and project the pitcher forward based on the elements of his performance, rather than the summary of his performance. I'm sorry I sucked at pitcher projections over the past 2-3 decades. This year I promise to be better. Buy my book!

Author:	Brick [ Tue Nov 03, 2015 4:01 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bill James

Author:	FavreFan [ Tue Nov 03, 2015 4:01 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bill James
good dolphin wrote: IMU wrote: http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2015/11/3/9663222/2016-bill-james-handbook-cubs-projections James has written before that pitcher projections are likely to be much less accurate than hitter projections. He writes in this year's book: Quote: My intuition was to try to project end results based on previous years' end results; in other words, if a pitcher won 14 games last year, I would try to project that he would win 14 again next year, just as you might do with home runs. But that doesn't work, because wins and losses are large-scale results, and consequently are subject to many different influences. A pitcher might go 19-8, not because he has pitched well but because his team has scored six runs a game for him. Also, pitchers get hurt a lot, and pitchers' careers take unexpected turns. Jake Arrieta in 2012 was 3-9 with a 6.20 ERA. Now, if he is not Cy Young, he is at least Walter Johnson. It took us longer to learn to project pitchers, because we had to back away from the end products, and project the pitcher forward based on the elements of his performance, rather than the summary of his performance. I'm sorry I sucked at pitcher projections over the past 2-3 decades. This year I promise to be better. Buy my book!

Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/

Bill James https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=100&t=97065	Page 1 of 2

Author:	Hatchetman [ Tue Nov 03, 2015 4:03 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bill James
dude came up with Win Shares like 15 years ago which was similar in concept to WAR. he probably knew this concept in the 1970s.

Author:	IMU [ Tue Nov 03, 2015 4:05 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bill James
The sign of a truly learned man is the ability to remain open to new information and not be afraid to back off of a previous hypothesis.

Author:	Brick [ Tue Nov 03, 2015 4:06 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bill James
IMU wrote: The sign of a truly learned man is the ability to remain open to new information and not be afraid to back off of a previous hypothesis. Is he going to validate this hypothesis?

Author:	FavreFan [ Tue Nov 03, 2015 4:07 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bill James
IMU wrote: The sign of a truly learned man is the ability to remain open to new information and not be afraid to back off of a previous hypothesis. I think a truly learned man doesn't hold onto a false hypothesis for three decades.

Author:	good dolphin [ Tue Nov 03, 2015 4:15 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bill James
IMU wrote: The sign of a truly learned man is the ability to remain open to new information and not be afraid to back off of a previous hypothesis. The sign of a truly learned man is to get people to pay for information that is completely inapplicable to any productive pursuit in their lives.

Author:	Keyser Soze [ Tue Nov 03, 2015 5:03 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bill James
Regular Reader wrote: He really didn't need much more than to compare the 1990 seasons of Bob Welch (Cy Young winner) and Dave Stewart (who was the unquestioned ace of that A's staff). Smoke took on the Ace of the other team, had generally better numbers and was far, far more the feared pitcher. IIRC, Welch had the far better W/L record, but he often got his shit knocked all around (or out in Oakland ) the park. But now 25 years & many more examples/stats had to show him the error of his long held ways? It's further confirmation that in part he won't allow himself to trust his own (or seasoned scouts') eyes. No thanks. That's why you're my guy.

Author:	Frank Coztansa [ Tue Nov 03, 2015 8:30 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bill James
The Gamescore of this shout out is about a 4.

Author:	Scooter [ Tue Nov 03, 2015 8:50 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bill James
Welch was drunk so that counts for something.

Author:	SomeGuy [ Tue Nov 03, 2015 9:08 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bill James
FavreFan wrote: IMU wrote: The sign of a truly learned man is the ability to remain open to new information and not be afraid to back off of a previous hypothesis. I think a truly learned man doesn't hold onto a false hypothesis for three decades. A scared and fraudulent man does. What a piece of shit.

Author:	JORR [ Wed Nov 04, 2015 12:20 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bill James
sinicalypse wrote: you know, when i got into baseball i chose vladimir guerrer and the montreal expos. i made the right choice even tho 1) my team got taken away after 3-4 years and 2) everyone loves to give me shit like HEYYYYYY EXPOS! Hatchetman wrote: rusty staub would get a $200M contract today. I became a Sox fan in 1969. In '71 they were fucking dreadful. But not as bad as the Seantors. I remember thinking that the White Sox were pretty awful, so just how bad must the Senators be? They were managed by Ted Williams. My dad said that like it was some big deal. It didn’t mean anything to me. He was just some old guy on a baseball card I didn’t particularly want. He was on the Senators and he looked like he hadn’t taken a dump for at least a few weeks. I had no clue he was the best hitter in the history of the game. The only card I considered less valuable was the one with Del Unser on it. Although I probably only had two or three of them, looking back it seems as if every time I opened a pack of cards it had a Del Unser in it. Those were the cards my sister eventually ended up with. In the late 60s/early 70s, my father brought home a package of Topps baseball cards for me several times each week. But soon enough my sister, who is about two years younger than I am, was looking for him to bring her some too. My mom told him he better give her some cards. So my dad, figuring a three year old wouldn’t know the difference, started giving her all the really horrible cards. Hello, Del Unser! That worked for a while until she caught on. Probably due to me running my big mouth and rubbing her face in her Tom Dukes and Tim Cullen cards. She must have cried to my mom who, noting the unfairness of it all, ordered the old man to straighten it out. My father simply couldn’t fathom that a four or five year old girl would be seriously interested in baseball. And I certainly didn’t want to share the cards after two seasons of having them all to myself. So my dad cooked up a plan. The Montreal Expos would be my sister's team and she would get all the Expos cards. When I objected, like the greedy bastard I was, he told me not to worry, the Expos were terrible, there's nobody on the team whose card you want. Actually, they were slightly better than the Senators. But they played in the National League and the old man had his loyalties. And so my sister fell in love with Rusty Staub. He genuinely was a damn good player and I jealously lusted after his card which I was now barred from having. That is, until he got traded to the Mets the next season.

Author:	Gloopan Kuratz [ Wed Nov 04, 2015 12:25 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bill James
Don't be blaspheming Le Grande Orange...

Author:	JORR [ Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:52 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bill James
City of Fools wrote: I'm a proud owner of The Baseball Books '91, '92, '93. In one of those three books there is a huge article on Dick Allen where Bill James (and a co-author) profess their love for him. Not sure what you're saying... It's pretty widely known that James vehemently dislikes Allen, Jim Rice and Rogers Hornsby. Here's James from The Politics of Glory: "It has become fashionable to say that Dick Allen was a victim of the racism of his time, and for this reason it is politically incorrect for me even to mention any of this old business. Bob Carroll, in making Dick Allen’s Hall of Fame case, wrote that “Rugged individualism is more admired at a distance than up close and personal.” Rugged individualism? How about alcoholism, irresponsibility, and vindictiveness? How about paranoia and pettiness? They’re all easier to admire from a distance . . . Dick Allen was a victim of the racism of his time; that part is absolutely true. The Phillies were callous to send him to Little Rock in 1963 with no support network, and the press often treated Allen differently than they would have treated a white player who did the same things. That’s all true. It doesn’t have anything to do with the issue. Willie Mays was a victim of the same racism. Jackie Robinson was. Roy Campanella was, Curt Flood was, Bob Gibson was, Hank Aaron was, Ernie Banks was, Monte Irvin was, Lou Brock was, Minnie Minoso was, and Roberto Clemente was. Those are all very different personalities, and they all dealt with racism in different ways. The best of them used the racism of the outside world to bond the team together, us against them, those bad guys out there. Allen directed his anger at the targets nearest him, and by doing so used racism as an explosive to blow his own teams apart. Dick Allen was at war with the world. It is painful to be at war with the world, and I feel for him. It is not his fault, entirely, that he was at war with the world. But that’s not the issue. Allen was a jerk; that’s not the issue, either. There are lots of jerks in the Hall of Fame, white and black. There are irresponsible people in the Hall of fame, and there are alcoholics in the Hall of Fame. That’s not the issue. When the White Sox were trying to trade Dick Allen in 1974, somebody asked Joe Burke of the Royals whether he was interested. “I wouldn’t pay the waiver price for him,” Burke replied. “I wouldn’t pay a dollar for him. I wouldn’t take him if you paid me $10,000.” That’s the issue. Did he have value? Did he help his teams win? He did more to keep his teams from winning than anybody else who ever played major league baseball. And if that’s a Hall of Famer, I’m a lug nut."

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	JORR [ Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:08 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Bill James
Bill James is an intelligent guy, a talented writer, a tireless researcher, but he isn't a scientist. And he isn't really objective. In fact, if you're familiar with his work, he doesn't even pretend to be. Just look at his crusade against Dick Allen. According to all of the statistics and metrics developed by James himself, Allen shines as bright as almost anyone. But Bill James just doesn't like him. So he's come up with this idea that "Dick Allen did more to keep his teams from winning than anyone else who ever played major league baseball.” That isn't science. It's vendetta. Here's the type of "scientific method" Bill James often uses. He'll develop some aggregating statistic to establish a player value. He'll run the numbers of various players through his formula. He's very happy for awhile. But then he'll find out that the formula tells us that Rusty Staub was as good or nearly as good as Joe DiMaggio. Now, Bill knows that Rusty Staub wasn't as good as Joe DiMaggio. Just as anyone who ever paid more than the slightest bit of attention to baseball knows it. So instead of accepting what the formula is telling him, he changes the formula. His defenders would say he's improving the formula. But the improvements are arbitrary. He doesn't change the formula when it tells him Darrell Porter was a better player than Tony Perez. Darrell Porter was one of his beloved Kansas City Royals, by the way. To me, saying Porter was better than Perez is crazier than saying Staub was as good as DiMaggio. Regardless, it isn't science.

Author:	Hatchetman [ Wed Nov 04, 2015 9:07 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Bill James
rusty staub would get a $200M contract today.

Author:	JORR [ Wed Nov 04, 2015 9:08 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Bill James
Hatchetman wrote: rusty staub would get a $200M contract today. And there isn't enough money to pay DiMaggio.

Author:	Hatchetman [ Wed Nov 04, 2015 9:12 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Bill James
why'd he have to turn out to be such an asshole? why is that always the case? can anyone truly great at anything ever not be an asshole?

Author:	Hatchetman [ Wed Nov 04, 2015 12:46 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bill James
nobody looked better in stirrups.

Author:	Chus [ Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:59 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bill James
FavreFan wrote: IMU wrote: The sign of a truly learned man is the ability to remain open to new information and not be afraid to back off of a previous hypothesis. I think a truly learned man doesn't hold onto a false hypothesis for three decades. No truer example than the idea of trickle down economics.

Author:	City of Fools [ Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:18 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bill James
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: Bill James is an intelligent guy, a talented writer, a tireless researcher, but he isn't a scientist. And he isn't really objective. In fact, if you're familiar with his work, he doesn't even pretend to be. Just look at his crusade against Dick Allen. According to all of the statistics and metrics developed by James himself, Allen shines as bright as almost anyone. But Bill James just doesn't like him. So he's come up with this idea that "Dick Allen did more to keep his teams from winning than anyone else who ever played major league baseball.” That isn't science. It's vendetta. Here's the type of "scientific method" Bill James often uses. He'll develop some aggregating statistic to establish a player value. He'll run the numbers of various players through his formula. He's very happy for awhile. But then he'll find out that the formula tells us that Rusty Staub was as good or nearly as good as Joe DiMaggio. Now, Bill knows that Rusty Staub wasn't as good as Joe DiMaggio. Just as anyone who ever paid more than the slightest bit of attention to baseball knows it. So instead of accepting what the formula is telling him, he changes the formula. His defenders would say he's improving the formula. But the improvements are arbitrary. He doesn't change the formula when it tells him Darrell Porter was a better player than Tony Perez. Darrell Porter was one of his beloved Kansas City Royals, by the way. To me, saying Porter was better than Perez is crazier than saying Staub was as good as DiMaggio. Regardless, it isn't science. I'm a proud owner of The Baseball Books '91, '92, '93. In one of those three books there is a huge article on Dick Allen where Bill James (and a co-author) profess their love for him. Not sure what you're saying...

Author:	Hatchetman [ Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:23 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bill James
Bill James is just like JORR. they say all kinds of crazy shit just to get people's attention. that doesn't mean they believe their shit to be true.

Author:	Seacrest [ Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:41 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bill James
Hatchetman wrote: Bill James is just like JORR. they say all kinds of crazy shit just to get people's attention. that doesn't mean they believe their shit to be true. SHOTS FIRED

Author:	Seacrest [ Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:56 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bill James
Dick Allen is the reason I once smoked Marlboros.

Author:	Hatchetman [ Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:58 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bill James
I never saw the guy play, but his numbers were terrific. must have had a ton of "nagging injuries" or hangovers or something.

Author:	Seacrest [ Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:59 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bill James
Hatchetman wrote: I never saw the guy play, but his numbers were terrific. must have had a ton of "nagging injuries" or hangovers or something. He swung a bat that resembled a telephone pole.

Author:	JORR [ Thu Nov 05, 2015 3:01 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bill James
Hatchetman wrote: Bill James is just like JORR. they say all kinds of crazy shit just to get people's attention. that doesn't mean they believe their shit to be true. I'm not always right, but I'm rarely wrong.