James's current stature

[nyy26wc]

As many of you already know, Bill James included an endorsement of the sabermetric baseball encyclopedia in an ESPN.com chat yesterday.

While I'm not a fan of James's current work, for everything he's done in the past, I still have a very high opinion of his overall writing career. So, I was flattered to see that endorsement.

Meanwhile, my pile of encyclopedia CDs just about ran out, so I burned some new CDs late last night, in anticipation of a potential flood of new orders. Past history told me I would need them.

To put the following numbers into context, version 2.0 has averaged just under 12 sales a week.

Peter Gammons and Jason Stark both included good writeups of the encyclopedia in ESPN.com articles in January. Sales were overwhelming and immediate. When Gammons's ran, there were 15 sales that day and 37 within the next week. Those 37 sales in a week came after a 5 week slump in which total sales didn't even reach 37. When Stark's article ran, there were 26 sales that day and 70 within the next week.

I don't want to draw any conclusions between those 2 writers. Stark's included the URL, Gammons's didn't. Stark included many examples of charts that could generated, Gammons included it on a list of 3 items that were good post-Christmas presents. Also, having Stark's come 8 days after Gammons probably meant there was some kind of coattail effect.

We're now more than 24 hours since James's chat. During that time, I've received the whopping total of 1 order, with that order including a message saying the person was a long time reader of the ATM reports and he's not sure what took him so long to order.

I definitely am not turning my back on James's endorsement and when I come up with the page of endorsements (which I'll make a this week project), his will be prominently featured.

But, I have to wonder whether this means James's reputation has fallen so far that an endorsement coming at the same exact site as the others doesn't carry anywhere near the same weight? I don't know. But, can we just summarily dismiss this data?

[SmedIndy]

Lee -

I had trouble accessing the chat today on ESPN.com from work. I always read chats after the fact. perhaps the link was bad for a while?

[Slippery Pedro]

I have to somewhat echo Smed.

ESPN.com's MLB coverage is one of the few sites (outside of NetShrine.com ;) ) that I visit daily.

I just about always read Neyer.
Sometimes I read Gammons.
Occasionally, I read Stark.
I never read the chat highlights.

I think it's more a matter of where it was said, than who (James) said it in this case.

Had BJ plugged it in the WS book, or the NHBA, I think the orders would have been flooding.

[SmedIndy]

I finally read the James chat highlights.

Some of the questions remind me of the questions "The Comic Book Guy" would ask the Itchy and Scratchy voices.

And I'm sure they are expressing their contempt of James on the internet this very second.

The damn thing was so long, too. You can lose track of who said what.

[pjl7]

I agree that it is probably more about the venue than the person. Its also likely that the other two are more widely read by people who aren't either already owners of the product or something similar since James likely only attracts the hard core Sabrmetricians of the world.

I recently bought Win Shares and am reading it. Although I generally agree that the 1980s James books were more entertaining to me at the time, I am probably in the miniority in that I am not sold that he's fallen as far as some others think. The new HBA isn't the first but honestly I'd have been blown away if he could top or match the first.

I also think that the Win Shares book and method has more potential than some others do. Obviously, the only thing that is "really new" is his take on fielding which I find pretty persuasive...although maybe not as significant as previous methods of James and others on offense and pitching. The biggest flaw I see, in the context of what has been said here, is that James assumes a fairly high level of knowledge on the part of the reader and in doing so he leaves some of the philosophical questions unanswered.

In some ways it seems that he feels he's on to something and decided to do the book now rather than 5-8 years from now when the system is more mature.

[cubfan33]

I was actually sitting in on the chat but never ask questions. Bill James is one of those guys like Washington or Jefferson - he pioneered a field, but if you dig really hard, you find out that all the stuff your history teacher said probably wasn't true and there's some bad things in there too. His Bagwell pass really screwed things for me on the New Abstract. BUT, like Lee said, having Bill James mention your name and product is damn cool. That Lee has a product that no one else has says a LOT. I think the problem is that James didn't give the URL. I googled "Lee Sinins" and the SBE doesn't come up until about 7 and even then is kind of opaque. "Sabermetric encyclopedia" is dead on, but I have a tendency to spell "saber ..." or "sabre..." alternately, so maybe that throws people. I'm dead on surprised that STATS, Elias, or even SABR hasn't snapped up Lee's work for a nice fee. My Total Baseball is collecting dust and my SBE is almost always on.

[pjl7]

It may have been mentioned elsewhere, but James also mentions Lee's encyclopedia in a piece that is up on Diamond Mind's web site now. He notes that he used it for digging up teams for a study and follows with a statement about how much easier his research is now than when he started.

[poorme]

If someone had'nt given me the link, I would have never found it. I had been to espn.com/mlb several times and never saw it. In my opinion James hasn't fallen a bit. Why are people saying this - due to his limited publication schedule over the past few years?

[gyb13]

Originally posted by poorme
If someone had'nt given me the link, I would have never found it. I had been to espn.com/mlb several times and never saw it.
the chats usually aren't well advertised on espn.com
the link will be on the main MLB page for maybe 24 hrs, then they get banished to the very bottom of the page (which i rarely look at) and to the 'chat' subsection, which i never go to.
Lee, I think that might be part of the reason why SBE hasn't been selling as much post-james chat.
Also, many of those (statheads) who frequented the BJ chat may have already seen it previously plugged in Gammons/Stark.

[KCBOOMER]

Bill James is the gold standard. All others are measured against him. Seems kind of trendy now to take shots him when we disagree with his work but no one is remotely close to him when it comes to popularizing the study of baseball.

As a combination of historian/statistician/writer he is without equal. To charge that he isn't what he once was because his current work isn't as good as his best is presumptious.

[moose]

Originally posted by KCBOOMER
As a combination of historian/statistician/writer he is without equal. To charge that he isn't what he once was because his current work isn't as good as his best is presumptious.
KC, what the heck can you mean?! By the way, is it just me, or does Barry Bonds totally stink now?


[:D - Agreed on all counts]

[sweaver]

Yeah, Bonds hasn't hit a homer for hours.

I have pondered the parallels between James' career and Albert Einstein's, and for that matter a lot of other researchers. Most scientists who record famous breakthroughs do the work for which they are forever remembered in their 20s, at the time of their masters/doctoral work. This is after they have studied and learned the basics, but before they have acquired all the prejudices of older men and become set in their ways. Einstein's incredible work that opened the field of "modern physics" was almost all published in 1905-06, when he was working in that Swiss patent office.

James is the foremost baseball researcher ever. Even the publication of the first MacMillan encyclopedia, an incredible feat before the personal computer, does not equal James' output, although it set the stage for sabermetrics.

Now, the Win Shares work strikes me as similar to Einstein's life-long search for a "Unified Field Theory" that would unite the four force equations into one, which the great Dr. E spent the last 40 years of his life working on. Einstein never made such a breakthrough. It strikes me that this is what James is attempting to do, to summarize all of a player's contributions into one number, a "unified theory" of baseball, a task he has been attempting since the "Approximate Value" of the old Abstracts. We will spend the next few years debating his success or failure.

Love him or hate him, it's dangerous to ignore him.

[SmedIndy]

I do wonder, though, and this is coming from a stat guy, is whether some of these guys are over-analyzing, and trying to break down the game too much. Voros' work, for one.

The fielding part of win shares, while it's a great concept, and it may work, is what lost me, because it takes way too many machinations to get to the result, as accurate as it may be.

Maybe it's just me, but some of the newer statistical analysis leaves me real cold, mainly because it's not fun to read. It's like reading my Real Number Analysis text book.

[sweaver]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
I do wonder, though, and this is coming from a stat guy, is whether some of these guys are over-analyzing, and trying to break down the game too much. Voros' work, for one.
Maybe it's just me, but some of the newer statistical analysis leaves me real cold, mainly because it's not fun to read. It's like reading my Real Number Analysis text book.
Agreed. Numbers for the sake of numbers, and with no context, are meaningless. McCracken's work, however, is meaningful and important.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'm still a Bill James fan.

Bill James impresses me, more than most sabermatricians, as a guy who is connected to what goes on in the stadium as well as in the stats. He has been able to statistically confirm for me things I always suspected, but were always contradicted by announcers and sportswriters.

Bill James confirmed, in my mind, the importance of walks and OBP, while showing how "speed" is overrated as a leadoff hitter's quality. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s I'd hear the Tommyrot about how Aparicio was a "great leadoff hitter" because he stole bases. (Looie always seemed to make an out when I watched him on TV.) I would see manager after manager lead off guys who couldn't hit, like Rodney Scott, Tony Scott, Lee Mazzilli, etc., but had "speed", and could "steal bases" (except first :D ).

Just last night I saw Rickey Henderson singlehandedly generate a run by getting on base, stealing, and getting around to score, that won the game for the Bosox. Rickey has gotten more unwarranted criticism than any other HOFer I know, but he won the game. Why? He got on base, and got around the bases, with minimal help from others.

Bill James understood that basic truth of baseball, and his analyses are based on that; that baseball is a game of getting around the bases to score, and of not making outs (which reduce your present opportunities to score). He challenged the shibbleoths that I always knew in my gut were garbage (e.g. "making productive outs wins games", "let's lead him off and take advantage of his speed") while injecting new concepts for fans to think about (e.g.: A walk is something the batter does, not something the pitcher does.)

Bill James is no longer alone in his field, and there are others to critique and tinker, and that's OK. Me, I still look for his work first. He challenged garbled baseball thinking in ways we take for granted now.

[pwdennis]

I don't know about you, but to me knocking Bill James seems somewhat akin to knocking Duke Ellington, Elvis, The Beatles, Hank Williams or Lefty Frizzell. They were such trailblazers that the warts pale compare to their best work, and are thereby rendered insignificant. I don't have the earliest Baseball Abstracts, but everything I do have has been entertaining and (in varying degrees) enlightening. All have been at least good, and most far better than that.

Really - what more could one ask ?

[Rinkster]

What I find most interesting about all of the discussions surrounding Bill James' Win Shares is that few, if any, posters point out that James himself admits that Win Shares is nothing more than "the next step" in the discussion of how to rate ballplayers.

For over a decade I have been pissed off countless times by those who viewed Linear Weights as the end-all in terms of establishing a "value" or "rating" for a player when there were so many problems with the system.

Bill James has written a truly remarkable book, a landmark book. No longer will I have to defend myself from those who are devotees of Total Baseball when I argue that Frank White was a better player than Buddy Biancalana. No longer will I have to persuade my son that Dale Murphy, not Glenn Hubbard, was the star player for the Braves in the 1980s. Or that Hubbard's career value was better than Pete Rose.

Total Baseball/Linear Weights was always flawed, but it was, when it came out, the "next big thing."

About that same time, James was exiting the stage of sabermetrics, at least in terms of coming up with complex mathematical systems of analysis. Indeed, he wrote more essay style baseball books, such as Politics of Glory.

Does James' system have flaws? Perhaps, but yet he admits as such. In fact, James HOPES that Win Shares is not the end-all. It says so in black and white in the book.

Indeed, James hopes that Win Shares will rekindle the kind of rapid advancement of discovery seen in baseball analysis in the 1970s and early 1980s.

To those who dismiss this book because they didn't enjoy it as much as earlier books, well, what in the hell are you doing? Judge the book by this method.

Does Win Shares more accurately "rank" players than Linear Weights? Of course it does. It's not even close. I mean, Steve Sax's career was of greater value than that of, say, his brother Dave, wasn't it? Not according to Linear Weights. I mean, if you were a GM, would you rather have Bob Boone or Choo Choo Coleman as your catcher? If you go by Linear Weights, you'd pick ol' Choo Choo.

Also keep in mind that James includes in his "ranking" of ballplayers(in his historical abstract) subjective, non-statistical information. Not many others do that. They only plug in numbers and then say "there is where the fellas rank, folks."

So...let's look upon Win Shares just as its author, Bill James, does. No, it's not the last step, it is the next step, it is where we are at now in the discussion.

It's an awesome book if you look at it from that perspective.

[Max Power]

quick sidebar - Rinkster, welcome to the forum! Awesome first post!

[hmrsf]

Rinkster, welcome.

You should get a commision. I will now buy the book.:D

[SmedIndy]

Rinkster -

My big problem with Win Shares is in the writing. I buy baseball books to be informed and entertained at the same time. The writing in Win Shares was more of my old higher mathematics text books.

I do still read some scholarly tomes at times, but not when I'm wanting to read about the game.

[Craig S.]

James' stature has grown even greater for me over this holiday weekend. I've had to spend the time at my in-laws', and reading James has been my only respite from 4 days of insanity.

[poorme]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
Rinkster -

My big problem with Win Shares is in the writing. I buy baseball books to be informed and entertained at the same time. The writing in Win Shares was more of my old higher mathematics text books.

I do still read some scholarly tomes at times, but not when I'm wanting to read about the game.

The big Historical Almanac thing that he published last fall, has lots of entertaining stuff. I would say about half of it was published at some time before. So if you have all his old stuff, you might be a little hesitant to drop $40 on it.

[Skip]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
Rinkster -

My big problem with Win Shares is in the writing. I buy baseball books to be informed and entertained at the same time. The writing in Win Shares was more of my old higher mathematics text books.

I do still read some scholarly tomes at times, but not when I'm wanting to read about the game. Although I am still reading the book, I really appreciate the level of mathematical detail about WS methodology. My dislike is with the lack of any justification in some spots, and the "because I say so"/"because it works" justification in other spots. I may soften up some once I am all the way through, but think it is unlikely. WS may be perfect for all I know, but he doesnt do much to show it so, and seems at times to almost revel in that fact.

[bkoron]

I suspect that Jayson Stark and Peter Gammons are seen and heard by more people each night than the total number of people who have ever read anything by Bill James, even though Bill's been writing for 25 years. Nothing surprising in what happened here.

[hmrsf]

bkoron-

Welcome!

[Rinkster]

While it is could be true that more people read or watch Gammons and Stark in a single day than have read James over his career, it should also be pointed out that Gammons and Stark, combined, have made little contributions to the discussions James has put forth.

Why? Because they are both traditional reports/journalists. Their jobs are to "report" on the game, or to offer their "opinions" based, usually, on either their gut feelings or what they hear from others in the game(regarding possible trades, for example).

When they do use stats, they use stats that other people, such as Bill James, created.

I don't judge things based on popularity--or availibility. I mean, for years the most popular show in the world was Baywatch. Baywatch! Why? Two reasons...besides the breas, uh, babes, of course.

The first reason was Baywatch offered mindless fluff easily understood by the most generic minds of the world, just like the fluff often sputterd by both Gammons and Stark in their newspaper columns, webistes, and appearances on ESPN shows. The other reason is because Baywatch was shown in just about every possible market, just as one can easily find Gammons and Stark because, once again, their national newspaper columns, webistes, and appearances on ESPN shows.

Gammons and Stark, because of the market they are in, have to create work that is easily absorbed by casual fans. James, as he has stated in his old Baseball Abstracts, has never creeated or marketed his work in that direction. In fact, he has often written that he views his readers are hardcore baseball fans that closely study the game.

Comparing a "traditional" sports journalist like a Gammons or Stark to a baseball researcher/statistical scientist like Bill James, based on amount of work sold or availibility, is ridiculous. How ridiculous? Well, it's like, in blues music, comparing a "POPular" group such as Blues Travelers to the great Delta bluesman from long ago, Son House.

In both comparisions, the former(Gammons, Stark, Blues Traveler) is what "casual fans" of both genres, from teenagers to soccer moms, have easy and constant access to, while the latter(James and House) are the real deals.

History will show that Gammons, Stark, and Blues Travelers had little real impact in their arenas, while James will be seen as, like Son House in blues, a key, historic figure at the beginning of a movement.

[bkoron]

Rinkster

I wasn't comparing Bill James to Gammons, Stark, or the rest of the tie-wearers shouting players' last names in lieu of original thought on BASEBALL TONIGHT. I was commenting on the first post in the thread, about the orders received after James's chat on ESPN vs. the orders received after Gammons and Stark made mention.

[moose]

Welcome Bkoron and Rinkster - good discussion!

[SmedIndy]

Anyone who can weave Bill James and Son House into the same post gets a tip of the ol' cap from me! ;)

[VNV Nation]

but BT (that's blue traveler, not the Euro synth dude BT) got a bunch of rich white kids in Princeton to listen to the harp

[VNV Nation]

i would say more but Rinkster said it all earlier