PDA

View Full Version : Bill James interview


Gumshoe
09-16-2003, 01:53 PM
To all of you who slob James knob ... here you go

http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/002772.php

check out the last Q and A, quite ironic

Gumshoe

ps - I really like James and Neyer, but you guys along with them, go overboard to often with the stat stuff.

holla back

JasonC23
09-16-2003, 03:20 PM
So because Bill James didn't forsee the Royals' excellent year (which, by the way, NO ONE DID), stats are meaningless?

:?: :?:

One of the most basic mistakes people make when looking at stats is to accept only those stats that support a predrawn conclusion and reject all those that don't.

For example...

Frank's batting average is down = Frank's declining

Frank's OPS, RC/27, etc, are up = you look at stats too much.

:cool:

Gumshoe
09-16-2003, 04:25 PM
Jason, the problem is when people look at stats too much and don't see the real picture. I agree with what you say. I also think that RC/27 is bullcrap, and OPS is valuable. But I watch Frank and there is no way he is going to GET BETTER. No way. There's only one way to go. Your predrawn conclusion is that OPS means future performance!

I like Bill James, I just thought this article was good and how going by his stats, there's no way he could have predicted this happening --- because there is more to the game than stats, even though I think stats are more important than people's perceptions. Listen, I'm not poo pooing stats, I'm just here to take those new age guys down from their pedestals. Like a friend told me, Neyer said Soriano and Garrett Anderson wouldn't be good because they don't walk enough. Boy was he wrong. He's right and wrong, just like all of us. It's baseball, and it does that to you


Gumshoe

JasonC23
09-17-2003, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by Gumshoe
I also think that RC/27 is bullcrap, and OPS is valuable. But I watch Frank and there is no way he is going to GET BETTER. No way. There's only one way to go. Your predrawn conclusion is that OPS means future performance!

Why is RC/27 bullcrap? And no one is saying Frank's OPS improving means he will improve in the future! You're saying, "Look at Frank, he's declining" (and by declining, you mean not worth $8 million). We're saying, "Look at Frank's stats (OPS included), he's NOT declining yet" (and by not declining, we mean, of COURSE he's worth $8 million). Not declining is not the same thing as improving, Gumshoe, and no one is arguing that it is.

I like Bill James, I just thought this article was good and how going by his stats, there's no way he could have predicted this happening --- because there is more to the game than stats, even though I think stats are more important than people's perceptions. Listen, I'm not poo pooing stats, I'm just here to take those new age guys down from their pedestals. Like a friend told me, Neyer said Soriano and Garrett Anderson wouldn't be good because they don't walk enough. Boy was he wrong. He's right and wrong, just like all of us. It's baseball, and it does that to you

No one who looks at stats, no one who completely ignores stats, and no one who considers both stats and "intangibles" predicted the Royals would do so well this year. I don't understand what you're trying to prove by saying Bill James, Stat Guy, didn't predict it, because NO ONE did.

Neyer, James, et al are sometimes right and sometimes wrong. But at least they use something tangible--stats--when making calls, and don't just rely on their eyes or guts. Again, I think you're falling into the trap of applauding stats that back up your perceptions, and talking down stats that don't.

(Also, while both Soriano and Garrett Anderson have been underrated by statheads in the past, they are overrated by everyone else. Soriano is behind Boone, Giles, Loretta, and Vidro in EQA--good, but not otherwordly. Anderson is behind Bonds, Pujols, Ramirez, Giles, Jones, Berkman, Mora, Gonzalez, Jenkins, and Floyd in EQA. Again, good but not unbelieveable or MVP-worthy.)

I hope I don't come across as just wanting to pick a fight. I just get a little annoyed when people say, "See, a stat guy said something that turned out to be incorrect, so stats aren't everything." Stats may not be EVERYTHING, but they are a lot more reliable and accurate than personal observations and biases.

Gumshoe
09-17-2003, 10:20 AM
I hope I don't come across as just wanting to pick a fight. I just get a little annoyed when people say, "See, a stat guy said something that turned out to be incorrect, so stats aren't everything." Stats may not be EVERYTHING, but they are a lot more reliable and accurate than personal observations and biases.

I agree. In general, they are MORE reliable, I don't know about a LOT more reliable. My observations can tell that certain stats being more important than others will contribute to his lack of success in the future. He's just not the same hitter, at ALL! We who have watched Frank should know this, forgetting the stats, even though they are close to his past.

I'm done.

Gumshoe