I recently answered a number of questions for readers of the Freakanomics Blog in the New York Times.   They posted a shorter version of what I sent them, which was too long for their needs, but very generously gave me permission to post the longer version here.   This is the longer, un-edited version of the Q&A at the Freaknomics Blog.

1.  Using various statistics over a players lifetime, and comparing them to ‘league norms’ is it possible to determine which players may have used steroids?
 — Posted by RonF

Absolutely not, no.  The problem is that many different causes can have the same effects.   If a player used steroids this could cause his home run total to explode at an advanced age—but so could weight training, lasix surgery, better bats, playing in a different park, a great hitting coach or a good divorce.   It is almost always impossible to infer specific causes from general effects. 

2.  Can you tell us about a time when you thought numbers were misleading and why?
 — Posted by Jesse

I would say generally that baseball statistics are always trying to mislead you, and that it is a constant battle not to be misled by them.   If you want something specific. . .pitchers’ won-lost records.   And if you want a specific pitcher, Storm Davis, 1989.

4. Bill,I love your work and I am a longtime reader( I bought my first Abstract in 1984). I am also a Yankees fan and fear that your work with the Sox have tilted the RIVALARY in the Sawx favor. Could you please take Rob Neyer and go run the Royals?? and I read your piece on Young Talent and I think your work with the Sox may have skewed your view of the Yanks farm system. Please keep up the outstanding work and I hope Hank and Hal could entice you to leave the Sawx like Johnny Damon and come to work for the Evil Empire.
 — Posted by chris muscolino 

I appreciate the kind words.   Are you trying to get me killed, or just fired?

5. Why can’t the Chicago Cubs get into the World Series? Is it the small park? Low salaries? The curse of the billy goat? Does sabrmetrics provide any insights?
 — Posted by John S.

Talking about the origins of it. .. .the Cubs fell into a trench in history in the late 1930s, when almost all baseball teams built farm systems, but the Cubs for several years refused to do so.   This put them behind the curve, crippled them for the 1950s, and really the organization did not fully overcome that until about 1980. 

Since 1980 they have had several teams that COULD have wandered into a World Series, with better luck.   They haven’t had any one overpowering team, like the ’84 Tigers or the 1992 Blue Jays or the 1998 Yankees, that was SO good that it demanded a seat at the Last Banquet of Fall.   And, unless you have a team that good, you’re at the mercy of the fates.

7. Based on your statistical analysis, how do you feel about the Yankees’ young prospects, namely Chamberlain, Kennedy, and Hughes, making a huge (positive) difference for the Yankee pitching staff?
 — Posted by JS

The same as I feel about our young pitching prospects with the Red Sox, really. . .Buchholz and Lester and Masterson.   When you’re depending on young pitching, you’re vulnerable.  Some of these guys are going to be very good, but probably not all of them, and there are going to be bumps in the road that will rattle your teeth.

11. From a consumer of all things James for 26 years:

       1) What has been the most interesting thing you learned since you started working for the Red Sox? 
 
       2) What is the rate at which your suggestions are adopted (when I went to the Council of Economic Advisors I was told to be happy with Wade Boggs’ batting average)? 
 
       3) What accepted recommendation to the Red Sox are you proudest of?
 — Posted by Marc Robinaon

I can’t really answer any of your questions, but your e-mail is so nice that I thought I would include it here anyway.   But I will say this. . .Wade Boggs, hell; I’d be lucky to match Todd Hundley’s batting average.   But that’s not because the Red Sox don’t respect my input; the Red Sox treat me well.   It’s just the nature of a large organization that you can’t try all of the things that everybody wants to try.

12. Has sabermetrics pretty much squeezed the last drop of new insights out of traditional counting statistics? If so, what data ought to be collected to improve our understanding of the game? If not, where can the boundaries be pushed?
 — Posted by Jon Ericson

We haven’t figured out anything yet.   A hundred years from now, we won’t have begun to have the game figured out.

14. On average how many runs does Manny Ramirez’s defense cost the Red Sox? Is there some special adjustment that must be made to evaluate LF defensive stats in Fenway?
 — Posted by Anonie

Defensive stats for a left fielder in Fenway are misleading, yes. The small area always makes our left fielder’s range appear more limited than it is.   In this case, even more limited than it is.

16. Generally, who should have a larger role in evaluating college and minor league players: scouts or a stat guys?
 — Posted by E. Cabell 

95% scouts, 5% stats.   The thing is that, with the exception of a very few players like Ryan Braun, college players are so far away from the major leagues that even the best of them will have to improve tremendously in order to survive as major league players—thus, the knowledge of who will improve is vastly more important than the knowledge of who is good.  Stats can tell you who is good, but they’re almost 100% useless when it comes to who will improve.

In addition to that, college baseball IS substantially different from pro baseball, because of the non-wooden bats and because of the scheduling of games.   So. . .you have to pretty much let the scouts do that.

18. Are there any baseball rules either in the game itself or for the leagues that you think ought to be changed, removed or added to increase the entertainment value of the sport?
 — Posted by Jon Ericson

Many, actually.   My pet project is a rule to limit pitching changes in the late innings.  My rule, specifically would be this:

       1)  Each team is entitled to one unrestricted pitching change per game,

       2)  With the exception of that one unrestricted change, no pitcher may be removed from the game in mid-inning unless he has been charged with allowing a run in that inning.

With an exception for injuries, of course.  When you propose a rules change like that, people say “Oh, you’re changing the way the game has always been.”  That’s nonsense.  In 1970 major league teams used 1.75 relievers per game.  In 1990 they used 2.02 relievers per game, and in 2007 they used 2.97 per game—and the rate of increase in this area is still accelerating.   I’m not trying to CHANGE the game with this rule; I’m trying to STOP a change in the game that is running amock.   There are actually many rules changes like that that I would favor—rules designed to control changes in the game that are occurring, uncontrolled, at a breakneck pace.

19. Bill, My son is relaxing on the floor watching the Red Sox and even asked me to cover up the bottom of the TV screen so he cannot see the score- it’s 2:22 here and the game is over so he’s watching the delay, I suppose. Well, he asked me for a soda, hamburger, and lots of other goodies and, of course, he did not look at me when he asked me to “cater” to him nor did he thank me when I brought him a supply of chips and the ice cream he asked me to get especially for the game - enough to last for the entire game. Fortunately, I have a case of beer for the next week. Yes, I know, he should be out working, but he keeps telling me he will get a job with the Red Sox so I shouldn’t worry about his employment situation until the season is over. Am I being just a hyper-vigilant mother? Does he have a shot ever working for the Red Sox (he has a degree in engineering and swears it’s helping with the fantasy baseball thing)? Should I just give up the idea of ever having grandchildren because it seems that he’d rather watch baseball than spend time with a woman?
 — Posted by Lyn LeJeune 

Your son is hopeless, and your future daughter-in-law is a toothless hockey fan from Quebec with a ten-year old poster of Vladimir Malakhov on her wall and a tattoo of Brian Savage on the inside of her thigh.  

25. Is sabermetrics the freakonomic analysis of baseball?
 — Posted by JC

There are parallels.   What I do was heavily influenced by the University of Chicago economists of the 1960s.   I think freakonomics comes from the same tradition.

27. What’s your explanation for why occasionally teams will dramatically over-/under-perform their “predicted” (Pythagorean) record? Just luck? Something “intangible”? Perhaps more importantly, has your perspective on this changed since your transition from baseball outsider to insider?
 — Posted by David

It’s MOSTLY luck.  It’s not all luck.   Team’s over-achieve vs. Pythagorean expectation because of strong bullpens, and, to a small extent, because of the ability to manufacture a run.  The tendency to over-achieve does not ENTIRELY wash out from year to year, as it would if it were entirely luck.  But it’s mostly luck.

28. Are there certain trends over time in the game as a whole that would indicate some sort of logical “starting point” of the steroids era, e.g., batting average, OPS, HR’s, K’s (for pitchers), etc.? 
 
And with increased scrutiny coming upon the clubs and the players, have any of those statistical trends begun to flatten out or perhaps even reverse?
 — Posted by Joel H.

On the first issue, no; you can’t find the back border of steroid use in baseball.   NFL teams were heavily into steroid use by the mid-1960s.   It’s not reasonable to think that it didn’t hit baseball until 1993, and I think there are indications of steroid use in baseball by the early 1980s.   But there is no moment when it begins.

On the other issue, I was very skeptical how effective the efforts to get rid of the steroids would be—but there is absolutely no doubt now that we have made tremendous strides over the last two years.   Just look at the players.   They’ve gone back to being normal sized. 

29. Assuming a teams pitching staff remains the same size, what do you think about the possibility of eliminating the “starting” pitcher? what I am suggesting is that every 4 out of 5 days a pitcher would know that he throws innings 1&2 followed by another pitcher who throws innings 3&4 and so on. this would as well eliminate the concept of relief pitchers, except in the case of injury.
 — Posted by scott

It’s not an unworkable idea in isolation.   If anybody ever starts a major league baseball league in Norway, that’s got a good chance of catching on.   Over here, it’s battling a strong headwind of tradition.

30. Have you personally explored or contributed to any of the current statistical work being done for other sports (basketball mostly, football and soccer to some extent)? Do you think it is possible to quantify the close interaction between players that makes statistical analysis of these sports more difficult, or is it only baseball that provides the “perfect” setting of numerous isolated events?
 — Posted by abetterbomb

Other sports are capable of analysis.   Extraordinarily good work is being done in basketball.    Football, like baseball, is a “static” game. . .a game that moves from pause to pause, from stop to stop.   There is tremendous work being done in these sports, and much more will follow.
I personally have never discovered anything about any other sport that I did not later learn had already been discovered by 22 other people.   But that’s just me.

31. Fielding has long been the most difficult element of the game to quantify. What do you believe are the most reliable metrics to measure fielding ability and its effect on the outcome of a game? Are there any new up and coming measurements that particularly excite you? 
 
How high do you think Andruw Jones ranks among the all time great center fielders, looking only at defense?
 — Posted by abett

As to Andruw. . .I don’t honestly know, but he’s certainly somewhere in the top ten.   Mays, Flood, DiMaggio, Speaker, Garry Maddox. . .he’s up there with those guys.

For many years fielding WAS difficult to quantify.  In the last five years, several different fielding analysis systems have converged on a common point in a way that leaves us with a good deal of confidence in our defensive analysis.   John Dewan’s Fielding Bible is perhaps the easiest to understand of the sophisticated efforts to evalaute fielders.

32. Do you think quantitative analysis in individual sports (like boxing or tennis) will ever reach the level it has in baseball? It seems to me that there is as much baloney involved in coverage and discussions of those sports as there is in baseball, but fans are not as equipped to see through it. I ask because I’ve always thought your primary mission is exposing that kind of thing in baseball (you eat baloney for breakfast). That’s not to deny that quant guys can engage in bad analysis either…
 — Posted by Ted Hunter (Cane, NH)

Oh, we do horrible analysis sometimes.   There will never be a shortage of BS.   What we do, essentially, is to pick up things that people say and ask “Is that true?”   This can be done with regard to almost anything—any sport, including politics.   The people who analyze politics on television say absolutely ridiculous things with a frequency that would make the laziest baseball announcer  look like Socrates by comparison.

34. Can you tell us a time when you did an analysis and expected one thing, but the numbers told you something radically different?
 — Posted by MJ, Ohio

Well, it happens every day.   My “debunking” of the importance of stolen bases came from extended efforts to prove the importance of stolen bases, all of which failed.  I remember I used to think that players from California were over-scouted and over-drafted, because the amateurs out there play baseball year around and mature early.   It’s not true; the state fully justifies, and more than justifies, the draft picks invested out there.  

35. Which statistics do you think are the most reliable for a AA or AAA batter with regard to immediate effectiveness in the major leagues? Which are the most misleading?
 — Posted by Pat

The “reliability” of the stat in that context depends on the specificity of what it measures, if that makes any sense.   Strikeouts and walks have a fairly decent degree of projectability because they measure clear, small events.   Wins and losses for pitchers and OPS for hitters have almost no predictive reliability because they measure very general outcomes.   On a spectrum between those two. . .the closer something is to strikeouts and walks, the more reliable it will be as a projection tool.  The closer it is to end-point analysis like wins, losses, ERA, OPS and RBI, the less use it will have in projecting performance.

36. Bill, it seems like investing an additional $5 million or so in the draft each year is a wiser investment than spending it in the FA market most of the time. Why do so few GMs/teams do this?
 — Posted by Jason

Well, I remember once having this conversation with my father. 

"Dad, do you know what your problem is?”
“No, son, what is my problem?”
“You’re just too poor to get rich.”

Some baseball teams are just operating too close to the margin to have the freedom to make long term investments.   They are, in a sense, too poor to get rich.

37. You’re on the record as saying, in so many words, that Billy Beane received too much credit for having built the low budget/big win Oakland A’s teams of earlier part of the decade. In that time, is there a GM who has done a better job?
 — Posted by Tom S

I’ve never said that.   Where is that record?  

38. A player who is paid twice as much as another player rarely produces double the positive results. A $2 million a year player is more likely to produce, say, no more than 20% better than a $1 million a year player. At what dollar amount per year does a team receive maximum return for their investment?

A player who hits 45 home runs is likely to make much more than 3 times as much in salary as a guy who hits 15 home runs. With a limited amount of money to spend, does it make good economical sense (in terms of wins/losses) for teams to spend heavily on a limited number of players or to spread the money around?
 — Posted by Dave Benner 

Well, but of course you have to measure the marginal benefit, not the gross benefit.   You can pull an outfielder out of the minors who will hit .270 with 15 homers and bad defense and not too many walks, and you can pay him minimum salary.   What you’re paying the big bucks for doesn’t start until the player gets beyond that level.

41. I understand that baseball lends itself very well to statistical analysis. But why is there such a lack of objective statistical evaluation in other sports? I would think that NFL teams would be beating down statisticians doors to help take the guesswork out of sinking millions into draft players that go nowhere.
 — Posted by Robert Silge

There actually is a lot of sophisticated analysis of football, and has been for many years, but it has a different tradition than baseball analysis.   Football analysis grew within the organizations, out of the film study done by coaches.   Thus, the best analysis done in football has usually been proprietary to the teams, and outside the view of the public.

42. Most major professional sports have a history of experimenting with changes of rules and technology in an effort to find some type of optimum of both entertainment and competitive balance. I’d argue baseball has largely resisted this trend, certain historical influences (the dead ball, steroids, etc.) notwithstanding.
 —Posted by Joe M.

That’s exactly right.   Most successful sports tend to trim and snip their rules to keep the game interesting.   Baseball people like to think their game is perfect, so we drag our flaws forward from generation to generation. 

44. Do you think will we ever see another 300-innings-pitched season from a starter? How could they do it in the past, but not now? Given a Phil Hughes-type pitcher, what is the best regiment he could be given now that could prepare him for 300 IP in the future? Thank you!
 — Posted by Ryan

There is absolutely no way in hell you could train Phil Hughes to throw 300 innings in modern major league baseball.

“Ever” is a long time, but I don’t see it.  Many different changes in the game are working against that happening. . .for example, the length of the games, in minutes and hours, and the fact that there is more emphasis now on getting strikeouts. 

Unexpected changes occur because the system breaks down at some point.  But until it breaks, there are 30 different trends in motion which all have the effect of driving innings by top starting pitchers downward.    

49. Will we see a woman player in the majors in my lifetime? (I’m in my 30s. And when I say woman player I’m thinking regular contributor as opposed to a one-time gimmick.) Take a definitive stand here, yes or no!
 — Posted by John

Well, there is nothing happening now at lower levels that would tend to cause that as a higher-level outcome.  You will certainly see many women General Managers in baseball (and basketball) within a few decades, because there are large numbers of capable women filling lower-level baseball operations positions.   You will see women scouts and probably umpires. 

But colleges don’t have women’s baseball teams, and high schools don’t.   99% of girls who like to play baseball have been driven to other sports by age 12.  It’s hard to see how a woman winds up in the major leagues under those conditions. 

52. As a non-avid sports watcher, I always wonder where announcers come up with those crazy off the wall stats? Do you see every stat as a unique insight, or are some just completely meaningless?
 — Posted by Chris Wojtewicz

At least 90% of the stats given by announcers are of no use whatsoever.  

57. Do you feel, given the right personnel, that some teams should try a 4 man rotation. If not, why not? If so, which team do you think is best suited and why?
 — Posted by Aaron

I think it is plausible that that could happen and could succeed.  I would explain my feelings about it this way:  that between 1975 and 1990, two changes were made to reduce the workload of starting pitchers in an effort to reduce injuries.  First, we switched from a four-man to a five-man rotation.  Second, we imposed pitch-count limits on starting pitchers, starting at about 140 and then gradually reducing that to about 110.  

I think it is clear that at least ONE of those changes was unnecessary, and accomplished nothing.   It is possible that both of them were unnecessary and accomplished nothing, but the better evidence is on the side of the pitch limits.  I think it is possible, based on what I know, that the starting rotations could go back to four pitchers with no negative consequences.

63. How long do you suppose it will take before a major league organization really tries a novel approach to building its pitching staff, such as had been suggested by some to use Tim Wakefield and Clay Buchholz as a tandem in a single pitching slot. This would allow for limiting the innings of Buchholz along with getting him into a “rotation” and keeping Wakefield fresh(er) through the season.
 — Posted by Erik

It would seem to me that there are practical barriers to doing that.   If one pitcher gets knocked out in the second inning, do you use the other guy for 7 2/3?   What if he isn’t trained to do that?
How do you schedule the work of your relievers around that position?  Are you trying to give the bullpen a day off on the day those guys pitch, or are you still expecting to bring in a lefty to get out a lefty?  

I’m not saying that it is impossible to figure out the answers to those questions, but it just seems to me, intuitively, like an awkward concept.

64. Do you think that more teams should give knuckleballers a chance?
 — Posted by Aaron

Yes, and also peace.   And chocolate milk shakes at the game, instead of beer.  And elevated bullpens so the fans can see who is warming up, and six-foot-eleven-inch shortstops who can keep the ball from being hit over their head.   I’m in favor off-beat variations in general.

65. Is clutch hitting a repeatable/”retainable” skill?
 — Posted by Aaron

I don’t know.

69. Do defensive shifts work over hundreds of plate appearances?
 — Posted by Aaron

I’m skeptical.   As Craig Shipley said, “they put them fielders where they are for a reason.” 

71. Shouldn’t in-game strategic decisions be made by a computer? Or, more to the point, isn’t there ALWAYS a correct choice?
 — Posted by Aaron

It is totally impossible to isolate the correct strategic choice in almost all real-life situations, for the simple reasons that all real-life strategic situations involve dozens of variables, many of which have not been thoroughly tested by trial.   People who think that they know when a manager should bunt and when a manager should pitch out and when a manager should make a pitching change are amateurs.   People who have actually studied these issues know that the answer disappears in a cloud of untested variables.

75. I am one of those people who dont believe in clutch hitting. I believe in consistency, a good hitter is a good hitter. That being said, I get attacked when ever I made this claim (I most commonly had this argument/debate while I interned for the Brooklyn Cyclones). Can you please tell us your view on clutch hitting, and why you believe in that theory? Further, I believe that a particular hit can be clutch, but a hitter can’t be a clutch hitter. Do you agree or disagree?
 — Posted by Max F.

My view is that you could well be right, but that I just don’t know.   I think it is very unlikely that you know, either.  There is a general consensus in my field against clutch hitting, and at one time I was a part of that consensus.  I have since concluded that the conclusion that clutch hitting doesn’t exist was hastily reached, and has been reinforced by a generation of conventional wisdom.   I am trying to back away from that conventional wisdom, and look at the issue with fresh eyes.

76. I enjoyed your article in slate last week about judging when a basketball game is “over.” http://www.slate.com/id/2185975/ Surely, you must have a similar metric for baseball? My friends and I attend baseball games often, and our rule is this: when the lead is greater than the number of half-innings left, it’s “over” and there is no shame in leaving. I think this rule is less fail-safe than your basketball one, but at least it’s easy to remember and calculate. How do you decide when a lead in baseball is insurmountable?
 — Posted by bruce oberg

I do not have a similar trick for baseball games, no, but thanks for your kind words about the Slate article.  I remember one time, about 1982, the Kansas City Royals were getting pounded senseless in the early innings, but they scored two runs in the fourth inning.   Our announcer, Fred White, began a sentence “Well, if you want to dream a little bit, if we can just score two runs an inning. . ..well, no, wait a minute.   We’d have to have some threes and fours in there somewhere.”   When you get into that position, the game is pretty much over.

78. It seems like the save has become a joke of a statistic, being awarded in many games where there was no real “save” to be made. So many closers wind up with 30 or 35 saves that really don’t seem to be particularly solid players. Would you change the requirement for a save, and if so how?
 — Posted by Josh Dorman

I wouldn’t change the rule now, for this reason.   The way that the public interprets baseball statistics is by the standards; a .300 hitter is a good hitter, a 20-game winner is a great pitcher, 100 RBI is run producer, etc.   Those standards enable us to form mental images of the player’s contributions to the team, and I wouldn’t do anything that washes those standards away.

Going back 40 years, it would have been better if the rule had been written some other way.   On some teams now—Detroit in 2006, Cleveland last year—the “closer” is no longer the key relief pitcher; the closer is just they guy who picks up the cheap saves.   This COULD become increasingly common, so that the Save stat is devalued until no one pays any attention to it.   I’m not predicting that will happen, but it could happen.  And then it might be time to revise the rule.

An alternative way to have written the rule, for example, might have been this:  that a save will be rewarded if the total of the outs remaining in the first nine innings, plus the runners on base, minus the lead, was a total of two or more.   If you get one out with a one-run lead and no one on base, that’s not a save because it’s a total of zero (1 + 0 – 1).   If you get three outs with a three-run lead and no one on base, that’s a total of zero.   But. . ..it wasn’t done that way.
People complain about meaningless saves, but pitchers get meaningless wins every day.   Every day during the season, you can open the box scores and find some pitcher who was credited with “winning” a game for giving up five runs in six innings.   That’s just the nature of stats.   They are always trying to mislead us.

80. What new statistic are MLB clubs using now with regularity that they didn’t use 2 years ago? What will be your answer in two years?
 — Posted by Benjamin Bynum

The pitch by pitch data. . .the pitch fx and similar data from Baseball Info Solutions. .. gives us dramatically better detail about what pitches pitchers are throwing how often and how effectively.   It will take us twenty years to figure out what some of this stuff means, but it is clearly generating a lot of excitement.

81. I know that a large issue in baseball is determining the quality of defense, especially at the individual level (new data of ball-tracking is helping). Concerning basketball, do you have any insight in determining both the quality of team and individual defense?
 — Posted by Neema

The interesting question is why defense is so much more difficult to quantify than offense in all sports.   Perhaps defense by its nature involves more interaction between individuals than individual actions, and perhaps the way to get past that is to embrace the concept and measure combinations of players.

84.I’m a life long Cub fan. As a kid in the sixties, I really disliked Ron Santo because it seemed to me that when he was at bat in an important game situation, he struck out. When the game wasn’t on the line at all, that’s where he got his home runs (I was too stupid to appreciate his defensive prowess).
 
 Is there a stat that measures the clutch hitting of a player?

 Was my perception of Santo correct? Or did he actually hit well in the clutch?
 — Posted by Rich Beckman

At Bill James On Line (www.billjamesonline.com) we have a definition of a clutch at bat, based on a series of indicators. . .the score,the inning,  the number of men on base, the number of outs, the opponent (Cub game vs. Cardinals or whoever is in first is more clutch than Cub game against last-place team in another division), where you are in the pennant race, etc.   We try to add up all of those factors and identify the “most clutch” at bats. 

Since play by play data from Santo’s era is now available (due to the work of Retrosheet volunteers), we will soon be in position to give a meaningful and objective answer to your question. 

Until then, what I can tell you is that Santo hit .287 in his career with men on base, as opposed to .269 with the bases empty.   He homered as often with men on base as  with the bases empty.   He did tend to fade late in the season, perhaps because he was playing every day, or perhaps related to his diabetes.

85. In terms of contributions to team wins, who is the most underrated player in baseball today?
 — Posted by Cory

The hard part about “underrated” is knowing where players are rated.   In reality, every community in the baseball universe rates players differently... the scouts different from the managers, the TV guys differently from the writers, the fantasy players different from the “I like to see hustle” type fans.   It’s really impossible to say what “underrated” means. 

86. As an engineer, I can say your baseball books are the best engineering books I have ever read. One idea you printed a long time ago is for pitchers to pitch three innings per stint (or let us say 45 pitches), every fourth day. I can understand why the Mets will not try this with Johan Santana, who needs to pitch as many innings as possible, because he is better after six innings than others are after two innings. But, why should the Twins not try this in 2008, as they legitimately have 9 three inning pitchers, not including the highly paid closer? What are the risks and possible rewards to the team that tries this?
— Posted by David Rasmussen

Well, LaRussa and Dave Duncan actually DID try it one time, but they abandoned it due mostly to resistance from their pitchers.   I think you’d have to be prepared to deal with the egos and expectations of your pitchers, and honestly, it probably wouldn’t make sense for a team in competition which had good pitchers to work with.   It MIGHT make sense for a team that was feeling out what they had to work with in terms of pitching.   (I’m not taking credit for the idea, by the way.  I’m sure it probably was around before me.)

87. What statistical software do you use?
 — Posted by Zach

Just Excel.

88. Why are some quality pitchers “better” at winning than others? Examples: Juan Marichal won big with mediocre teams; Denny McLain not only won 31 but 24 in his short career; Steve Carlton won 27 for a bad Phillies team (and I know he had excellent run support). A counter-example, the great Bob Gibson - said without irony - never won more than 23 (& 22 when he had that 1.12 ERA) though he played for terrific teams. In other words, you’ve looked into clutch hitting so are there pitchers who are better at winning?
 — Posted by jonathan 

That’s not  true about Marichal, by the way. The only mediocre team Marichal ever pitched for was the Giants in ’72, and he went 6-16.   Otherwise the Giants were good every year that Marichal was there—better, on average, than the Cardinals with Gibson.   Gibson’s Cardinals had three great years, but Marichal’s Giants had far better offenses and won significantly more games over the years.

On the larger question, clutch pitching is easier to conceptualize than clutch hitting because the pitcher plans and executes a plan, whereas the hitter is reacting.   It’s much easier to imagine how a pitcher could “bear down when it counts” than it is to understand how a hitter can improve his read-and-react skills.   But the same controversy and the same lack of solid evidence exists.   There is, in truth, little evidence that any pitcher truly has an ability to “win” as distinguished from an ability to prevent runs.

91. I’ve played a fair amount of baseball in my day, but I’m more avid as a golfer. And I know that no matter how much I practice, there are some days when I have “it” and some when I don’t. Which is why I’m frustrated/confused when a manager replaces a pitcher who has been doing well in mid-inning just to get the “correct” right-hand/left-hand pitcher/batter match up. Are there any stats that prove right/left handedness of a pitcher-batter match up to be significant?
 — Posted by Electron

Over time, every hitter will hit better when he has the platoon advantage than when he does not.   There may be an exception, maybe two exceptions.  You see a lot of reverse splits or backwards splits in one-year data. . ..lefties hitting better against lefties, etc.   Over time, at least 99% of hitters are going to hit better when they have the edge, and certainly the difference is significant. 

92. On baseballprospectus.com a few months ago, one of the authors wrote a column explaining essentially that sabermetrics is dead. Or rather, it is so commonly used and known that there is little to no competitive advantage in employing advanced statistics. Therefore, in a sense, we’re back to where we were 50 years ago, where scouting and scouting alone makes the difference as teams wise up to the sabermetric revolution.

 While there are a few glaring examples of teams clearly not understanding basic sabermetrics (Juan Pierre, anyone?), this appears to be true. Oakland and Billy Beane’s competitive advantage appears to be virtually nil now. Is this the end of sabermetrics as competitive advantage?
 — Posted by gk

Well, there was a point in baseball history (ca. 1910) when only a few teams employed professional scouts, while others relied on networks of friends.   When all the teams employed scouts, did that eliminate the value of scouting?

There was a point in baseball (early 1930s) when some teams had farm systems and others did not.   Obviously that was a huge advantage to the teams that had farm systems.  But when all the teams had farm systems, did that eliminate the value of a farm system?

There was a point in baseball (ca. 1950) when some teams had pitching coaches and other teams did not.   When all the teams had pitching coaches, did that eliminate the value of a pitching coach?

If all you know about sabermetrics is what was known fifteen years ago, I would agree that you might be pretty near useless to a baseball team.   If you continue to learn about the game and continue to study it, knowledge will always have value. 

93. Would you consider a new baseball statistic MBM? How many instances have there been in Manny Ramirez’s career of ‘Manny being Manny.’? An offshoot of MBM could be an SEBM, "Someone Else Being Manny" would an SEBM be more or less likely than a triple play? then there’s MBLABP: "Manny Being Like A Baseball Player"
 — Posted by e. thomas fuller

SEBM (Someone Else Being Manny) is hundreds of times more common than a triple play.  I myself have pulled a Manny dozens of times. 

94. I know many sabermaticians look at strikeout and fly-ball ratio type numbers to analyze pitchers. Can you just review why these types of numbers are so important? I understand that you look at numbers that help reduce “external factors” in evaluating pitchers, but if a pitcher has a good ERA year in and year out without great peripherals do the peripherals become obsolete?
 — Posted by Adam F

The key word being “if”.  It’s like asking “if a cook can make a delicious desert out of old dirty socks, do chocolate and sugar become obsolete?”  Are there really pitchers who have good ERAs every year without good peripheral numbers?  Who would be some of those pitchers?
Assuming for the sake of argument that there might some such pitchers, the more usual case is that we are trying to project performance for relatively young and inexperienced pitchers with minor league ERAs all over the map.   From my standpoint, I can use all the help I can get. 

96. Billy Beane, GM for the Oakland A’s, has made sabermetric stats a major part of his “value” philosophy when building a baseball team. He’s frequently said that his method will build regular season winners but doesn’t seem to work in the playoffs. Do you think that this is simply a result of a small sample size or the wrong statistics being used, or is it something more fundamental about “unmeasurable” statistics like ability to perform under pressure and “heart?”
 — Posted by Molson

Oh, I thought people had stopped asking that.   Blast from the past there.

Look, there’s a lot of luck in winning in post-season.   You’re up against a really good team, by definition, and you’ve only got a few days to get it right.   It takes some luck.

Are there ALSO types of players and factors that are helpful in that situation?  Of course.
It’s like asking a physics professor whether there is a God.  Scientists don’t know anything more about whether is a God than morons do, because it’s not a scientific issue.  This isn’t something I can measure.   It’s a matter of faith.

97. First a BIG THANK YOU for all the Baseball Abstracts– many nights your writing kept me awake into the early morning hours– great stuff, and I still have the books.

Since you “broke the wand” which of your tools (favorite toy, pythagorean theorem, hall of fame projection, etc) have you tweaked and seen even better results than were published before?

Second, since you were 20 years ahead of the baseball establishment, shouldn’t you be on your way to running a top-performing hedge fund and passing up Bill Gates on the list of richest Americans? In short, what’s the arena you’ve been looking to tackle next?

 Thank you again for all the books. Looking forward to your answers here!
 — Posted by MGB

I wish I was at least half-smart about something except baseball.   Unfortunately when you get me away from the game, I’m pretty much a tool.   But I appreciate your kind words. 

98. It's a belief (i.e.- an exercise of faith) to say that the ability to perform well in a pressure situation exists. It's an even more faculty straining belief (i.e.- an egregious exercise of faith) to say that the ability to perform well in a pressure situation does not exist. This is not even controversial in some circles.

 I’m of course trying to say that there are obvious things that are easy to forget when evidence becomes so fetishized.
 — Posted by ak

OK.   Actually, I think that’s kind of what I was saying. 

99. Forgive me if I’m ignorant or unaware…Is there any legitimate statistical analysis regarding the pace that a given pitcher works at and how it may influence the outcomes of individual pitcher/batter match-ups or the pitchers success in the long run?
 — Posted by Tim

Ooh. .. haven’t studied that one in years.   I’m afraid that falls within our ocean of ignorance. 

100. It seems that in the field of sabermetrics, there is much more focus on their use in evaluating offensive than defensive production. Is the reason behind this the fact that the measurement of defensive valuation is less complete in your field? One example is the Seattle Mariners continued use of Raul Ibanez in left field. He is a defensive liability.
 — Posted by Ron Stevens

In the 1870s/1880s, when the scoring system for baseball games was developed, the statistics invented for batters were well designed and specific, and as such they naturally evolved toward better and better results.   The statistics invented for fielders were so awkward and sketchy that they weren’t really very useful, and therefore they never advanced.  The official fielding stats today are basically the same as they were in 1885.

Since the beginning of sabermetrics in the 1970s, vastly more EFFORT has been put into studying fielding than was ever put into studying hitting.   Until three or four years ago, not too much came out of that.

Three or four years ago, all of a sudden, a series of different sabermetric methods for evaluating fielders all began to converge on a common set of answers.   If it was a basketball game between hitting stats and fielding stats, fielding stats used to be behind like 61-13, and now they’re behind like 64-47.  It may be that not everybody has figured that out yet.   But it’s no longer true that our ability to evaluate hitters is dramatically better than our ability to evaluate fielders, at least at the major league level. 

101. Do you have a numeric value for a players situational value over his overall statistical value? For example it is the 9th inning of the 7th game in the world series and your SS fields like a drunken mongoloid over statistical value-said mongoloid draws one walk a week more than the guy who knows what his glove is for. Can you put a value on something like this?
 — Posted by chris c

You could, but nobody would pay attention.   “Global” stats, which measure EVERYTHING a player does along one scale, are popular but often not very useful.   Stats that measure specific skills and specific tendencies are plodding but useful.

103. In baseball, and maybe in life, real change and real innovation comes only as a result of crisis or flux driven by external pressures.

 But baseball is awash in money, both players and owners seem relatively happy, and fans and their governments are heavily invested in MLB as it currently exists through taxpayer funding of stadiums. Attendance is at or near historic highs.

 I believe you’ve said (and I’m paraphrasing) that a sport that never changes quickly becomes boring and irrelevant. Do you see opportunities for the game to grow and change in the near future given its current state?
 — Posted by Jon

It’s not true that real change occurs ONLY as a result of crisis or external pressure.  Change occurs for those reasons, and for others.  Innovation occurs in leisure at least as often as it does in panic.

Baseball changes enormously from decade to decade.  This has always been true.   There is something about the game that enables it to absorb changes and yet remain the same on some level. 

It SEEMS to me, intuitively, that the pace of change in the last ten-fifteen years is rather a rapid one, perhaps more rapid than is in our best interest.   So much is different now. . .the interleague play, the pitching strategies, the power in the game (home run power), the way that fans root (for players rather than for teams). . ..it’s just very different.   Change is good.  I hope we’re not changing so fast that we leave too many fans behind.

104. Having worked with the Red Sox you are likely to have the opportunity to see the intersection between sabermetrics and scouting as tools for analyzing players.

 Do you derive any enjoyment from attempting to engage in traditional scouting as a supplement to your statistical analysis?
 — Posted by Scott

Well, I try to learn what the scouts know as much as I am capable of doing.  I am not a scout, and it would not profit me to pretend to be one.   There are some things that the scouts see that I simply cannot learn to see, in all honesty.   The scouts talk about a batter’s path to the ball.. .does he move his hands straight to the ball, or does he take a long, loopy path?  I can’t see it.   I can see it on video, if I watch in slow motion, but I can’t see it live.   There are some things the scouts say that I have never quite learned to follow.   But I do enjoy trying, and I think I’ve picked up a few things.

105. Do you see your role as essentially analytic- i.e. bringing chaos out of order; or are baseball statistics meant to enrich the aesthetic experience- e.g. with all stats in tow, it heightens the tension of 2-strikes-bottom-of-the-ninth-7th-game where anything can happen?
 — Posted by frankenduf

I think that baseball stats interest  ME mostly because they create an orderly universe.   But I think that the general fascination with them by many fans is of the other kind. . .stats being used to paint pictures, in essence. 

106. Will the Indians ever win the world series?
 — Posted by Paul

Absolutely.  In my lifetime.  They will win because they are worthy of  victory.

107. What do you think of the recent spike in popularity of fantasy baseball? Do you feel it cheapens the game to be rooting for players individual accomplishments over the accomplishments of the team?
 — Posted by Mike C

Anybody who tries to tell others HOW they should enjoy baseball is a jackass.   I think it’s been great for baseball, honestly, to create this different kind of rooting experience.

108. Thank you for all your work. Sabermetrics has led me to enjoy the game even more. In the application of Sabermetrics to predicting individual player performance, are there methods to adjust for temporary factors (e.g. minor injuries) or player adjustments (e.g. development, changes in batting stance)?
— Posted by John

We try.   We are always struggling to distinguish between real changes in levels of ability, which carve a player’s career into parts, and random up and down movements in performance.  We’re probably wrong at least as often as we’re right.

109. I think it’s fair to say that sabermetrics have been accepted as a part of the game. However, the debate surrounding this year’s Hall of Fame voting, especially Jim Rice and Bert Blyleven’s candidacies, seemed to reveal that acceptance only goes so far. What’s your position on retroactively evaluating players using statistics that weren’t a part of the game during their playing days? Also what are the most revealing statistics for evaluating players across eras to better gauge comparisons between players who played at different times?
 — Posted by Phill

Wins and Losses are the sun around which baseball statistics rotate.   If a player did something that helped his team win he deserves credit for that, even if there was no stat to measure it when he played or no awareness of that statistic.  

112. I have been reading the Bill James Goldmine, and I keep finding myself going back to the same question. By your own admission, much of the data is raw, and you indicate no real sense of its application; yet you’ve published it. In the past your legions of readers have taken you’re published materials, and built off of it; expanding the application of the data and discovering new useful insights. With the publication of the Goldmine, were you hoping that the same thing would happen?
 — Posted by Mike H

I am certain that it will happen.   People take information and build knowledge.   When you give them new information they will create new knowledge, absolutely and without question.

113. How important are good-hitting pitchers to the success of an offense in the NL?
 — Posted by Randy

Exactly as important as good-fitting underwear on a long drive. 

114. Much has been made on major league teams, managers, and GMs that use (or vocally do not use) sabermetrics. What about players? Do players and agents tout their own non-traditional statistics in contract negotiations and arbitration hearings? Do they have to spin their own stats depending on whether the other party is receptive to this kind of measurement?
 — Posted by Donny

Statistical analysis was adopted in salary negotiations long before it was adopted by any other part of the game.

115. I was intrigued by your Slate article about when college basketball games are 100% won. The theorum worked for all of the games I watched this weekend. The numbers seem to be perfect once you get under a minute but a little high as you back it out further. Have you considered that perhaps you’ve set the standard too high? Or am I reading it wrong and looking for 100% instead of looking for when the number goes above 50% or 75%? Thanks for your response.
 — Posted by Michael Herman

Neither.   You’re supposed to be looking for 100%, but it’s not true that the standard is too high at two minutes or three minutes or eight minutes.   At fifteen minutes, for example, the standard is 30 points.   That’s about what it has to be, because teams DO come back from 25 down to win, but they don’t come back from 30 down.   (Kentucky did, but there were more than fifteen minutes left.) 

It may be true that in this NCAA tournament there haven’t been any games that tested the limits of the system with more than a minute left.   But over time, there will be.

116. Has looking at the numbers prevented you from actually just enjoying a summer day at the ballpark? Have we all forgotten the randomness of human ballplayers? By reducing players to just their numbers can we lose sight of the intangibles such as teamwork, friendships, and desire.
 — Posted by Neal

Does looking at pretty women prevent one from experiencing love?  Life is complicated.  Your efforts to compartmentalize it are lame and useless. 

118. I’ve heard it said that “there is no such thing as a pitching prospect,” mainly because of the unpredictable nature of injuries in young pitchers. Can statistical analysis be applied to prevent (or least minimize the chances of) injuries to these players?
 — Posted by Mitch Walk

We hope. 

119. Bill, how are you going to spend your time if/when you get tired of baseball analysis? Or asked another way…what’s the next challenge for you?
 — Posted by John

I’m pretty sure that if I was going to get tired of baseball it would have happened by now.   But I am writing a book about famous crimes, if that answers your other question.

120. Having been able to share your knowledge and opinion freely for so many years, how do you feel about restrictions that must now exist on what you say by working for the Sox? Do you feel part of the Red Sox family?
 — Posted by Cody

There are times when I wish I could speak a little more freely, but honestly, the same is true is for most everybody, isn’t it?   Peter Gammons says (I hope I’m not misquoting him)  that 80 or 90% of what he hears is off the record for one reason or another.   One must suppose that he wishes he could tell on us.  But working for the Red Sox is very rewarding, and I hope the tradeoff is worthwhile to my readers as well as to me.   It’s certainly worthwhile to me.

121. How often have you considered spending your efforts/intellect/problem solving ability on other fields besides baseball, like finance, public policy, etc? There’s probably more money, opportunity to improve society, etc in fields outside of baseball.
 — Posted by John

Well, I answered this before but to try again.. .I am, in all honestly, a lazy, undisciplined person who derives great energy from (my) obsession with baseball.   Outside of baseball, I would never have the energy or the focus to accomplish very much, I’m afraid.  My interest in baseball gets me out of bed in the morning.   Even in November.

122. Much gets made by television announcers about closers. What do Sabermetrics say about the difference in difficulty of pitching in the 9th inning with a small lead verses another inning? Is it actually more difficult?
 — Posted by Scott

Oh, you switched the question at the last moment. . ..the word “difficult” changes the meaning of the entire question.  That’s a cross-examiner’s trick.   Are you a lawyer?

124. As advanced statistical analysis becomes more of a norm, will a general consensus emerge on the correct value of a player or will teams have unique measures and calculations to find undervalued qualities (like OBP has been)? How will player scouting change to fit this progression?
 — Posted by Dean

There will always be people who are ahead of the curve and people who are behind the curve.   There will never be a shortage of stupidity.  There will always be an advantage to being on or near the leading edge of the research.

126. What do you feel is the biggest threat to the future of the popularity of baseball? And what do you see as the best opportunity for growth for the popularity of the game that MLB, the owners, etc are NOT taking advantage of/pursuing?
 — Posted by John

The biggest problem (or threat) that we face is the poor state of amateur baseball for very young kids.   Somehow, we’ve allowed highly competitive attitudes to seep down to six-year-olds and seven-year-olds, so that kids at very young ages are being taught to play the game “right” before they learn to love the game.   It makes baseball seem like school. . .I’ve got to do this right to please the coach.  We’re turning off millions of kids in a failing and misguided effort to accelerate the development of skills.   Somehow, we’ve got to flip that back the other way, so that kids can learn to love playing the game. 

128. I think that the selection process for Hall of Fame voters is flawed. (Specifically, established journalists at established/respected internet sites like ESPN.com are excluded since the Internet was not ‘mainstream’ when the selection process rules were established.) I think Internet journalists like Keith Law and Rob Neyer have been shafted. When will the selection process be updated…are we talking 1 year or 25 years down the road?
 — Posted by John

Oh, it’s terribly flawed.   It always has been.   There’s never been any real thought or any serious  planning behind the selection process. 

I’ve seen no real indication that they’re close to a correction, but. . .it’s kind of a politburo.   They could be closer than we know.

129. Which major sports league do you feel is doing the best job as a *business*? The NBA seems to be fading in relevance, the NFL seems to have the best product, and MLB seems to be too conservative and be missing out on growth opportunities. What say you?
 — Posted by John

We all have our strengths.   I would argue that NCAA basketball is in fact “major league” basketball, and that the NBA—meaning no disrespect to the NBA; I have good friends who work in the NBA—but the real energy and the real force in basketball is college basketball.   The college basketball fan base is much larger and much more devoted than the NBA fan base.   The product is better.  The marketing and administration of the NCAA teams is far more innovative and “alive” than is the NBA.   So. . .I might answer that the best “business” among the major league sports is NCAA basketball.  

133. What is the #1 mission of a baseball franchise? To win the World Series, to win as many games as possible, to win as many games as possible while keeping spending under a certain limit, to maximize profits, or to represent the community in a positive manner?
 — Posted by the Gooch

It’s the wrong question.   What is the #1 mission of a potato chip company:  to make better potato chips, or to make money? 

What the potato chip IS, at its core, is not defined by this.  

134.Can Win Shares accurately show postseason performance? If so, how could this be included when tallying a player’s career?
 — Posted by Craig

It could be and should be.   It was a mistake on my part to ignore post-season play when figuring Win Shares.  

135. How effective is playing a game of baseball at determining which is the better baseball team? How much more effective is a five-game series, a seven-game series, or a 162-game season?

In each case, how much do the decisions of a manager contribute towards a win? And how does the contribution of a manager (strategy) compare with the contributions of a general manager (assembling a roster with requisite talent) in terms of value towards winning?
 — Posted by the Gooch

I can’t answer the second series of questions, pitting managers against general managers, because we can’t afford to think in those terms.   Everybody’s role is important.

On the first set of questions, a useful rule of thumb is that the advantage doubles in a seven-game series.   In other words, if one team would win 51% of the GAMES between two opponents, then they would win 52% of the seven-game series.  If one team would win 55% of the games, then they would win 60% of the series. 

In major league baseball, given one game, the better team wins that game, I think, about 57% of the time.  If you have a 100-win team against a 90-win team, the better team will win 56% of the games.   If you have a 100-win team against an 80-win team, the better team will win 62% of the time.  If you have a 100-win team against a 70-win team, the better team will win 68% of the time.  If you have a 100-win team against a 60-win team, the better team will  win 73% of the time.

Given the relatively small differences between the best teams, in all honesty, 162 games is not nearly enough to RELIABLY establish which team is better.   I wouldn’t want to try to give you a percentage on that one, but. ..it ain’t huge.   

136. Based on your various methods of comparing players using Win Shares (Career, Career +Top 3, +Top 5, + Per 162, TLA), how is it that you rate Sandy Koufax so highly? I’m aware of his legendary reputation but his ranking seems to be heavily influenced by the subjective element as opposed to what the data actually shows. What am I missing? Thanks!
 — Posted by Craig

Well, his top three and top five seasons are tremendous.   Koufax had more impact on pennant races than any other pitcher of the 20th century.   Everything is subjective until you find a way to measure it objectively.

138. What’s the current status of publicly available, historical baseball statistics??? Is the data Bill James uses available only to those who subscribe to Elias? How much does that cost?

 Imagine how much more fun it would be to teach and learn relational calculus in high school (or old age) if you could use something like SQL to query the kind of data you have access to. The benefit of an open source database to MLB (and math departments everywhere) would far exceed whatever they’d be getting by keeping this information private.
 — Posted by Scott Fitchet

There is a group, Retrosheet (http://retrosheet.org) that has done phenomenal work in making play-by-play accounts of old baseball games available to the public.  Essentially, with a few minor exceptions, the play-by-play of any major league game of the last fifty years is available to anyone who wants to make the effort to figure out the system.   

143. What unanswered questions (either baseball-related or not) are you thinking about right now?
 — Posted by John

Why does American society always perceive itself as becoming constantly more and more dangerous—and thus devote ever more and more efforts to increasing security—even though almost all measurable dangers, including crime rates, have been falling throughout most of my lifetime?   And. .. is this a good thing?

144. If you don’t mind telling us, why are you moving back from Boston to Kansas?
 — Posted by John

Family.

145. OPS (on-base + slugging) has become a pretty mainstream statistic, but most sabermatricians/statisticians agree that the two metrics should not be treated equally. What do you feel is the more appropriate ratio?
 — Posted by Mike

I’d weight on base percentage about twice slugging. 

146. Throughout MLB history, careers have been altered (or ended) by factors ranging from the onset of war (Williams, DiMaggio, Musial, et al) to incidents leading to serious injury (Conigliaro, Chapman) to suspension (Joe Jackson).

Not including Negro League players, who were never allowed to play in the majors, and players whose demise was due to personal demons (Gooden, Strawberry), which player’s uninterrupted career stats do you believe would have been the most interesting / important / influential in the way that player is seen today?
 — Posted by Harmon

Not sure EXACTLY what you are asking.  But a brief list of players who could have had careers seven times better than they actually did with the right opportunity at the right time:  Bob Cerv, Hank Sauer, Don Mincher, Rico Carty, Cliff Johnson, Don Gullett, El Duque, Jose Rijo, Tom Henke, Kal Daniels and Matt Stairs.

149. Could you describe any metrics you use to evaluate a player’s contribution to “team chemistry”? I read a lot about players’ “locker room presence” and their affect on morale/motivation of the whole club, both as leaders and detractors. Have you been able to quantify this effect?

 Thanks so much Bill. Go Yankees!
 — Posted by Jeff G.

Well, we talk about it all the time.   But if we COULD measure it—which we can’t—I probably couldn’t share the measurements with you because of privacy concerns.  

150. Who is playing you in the movie version of “Moneyball” that’s in the works?
 — Posted by Brian G.

Meryl Streep.  She’s having a little trouble with the accent.

152. Do you play fantasy baseball?
 — Posted by Jason

Not at the moment.   I have, though.   I think the Commissioner’s office frowns on front office guys having fantasy teams.   It creates the appearance of a conflict of interest, and, even though it’s a trivial conflict, one still has to respect that somebody might get the wrong idea.

154. Has anyone ever attempted to correlate payroll and success over a 162 game season? Do you think we would see a correlation?
 — Posted by Christopher

Yes, of course.   There’s a strong correlation.

156. It seems pretty obvious that athletes are bigger, stronger and faster today than they were 50-75 years ago, yet baseball fans can still argue Babe Ruth vs. Barry Bonds or Cy Young vs. Roger Clemens. Is there a way to really compare baseball players from different eras? How were pitchers of the past able to pitch so many more innings and complete games than today’s pitchers? Is this an indication of how much better today’s hitters are?

It’s actually very easy to compare players across eras in baseball because there is a constant reference point:  Wins.   In every game there is one win and one loss—thus, if you can state accurately how many games Babe Ruth won for his team and how many games he was responsible for losing, you can compare him directly to Sammy Sosa or Roger Clemens or Miguel Tejada. 

There are many factors combining to drive complete games out.   Baseball is just a vastly different game now than it was in 1975.   I can’t really explain or summarize the differences in a format this brief, but several people have asked me that, so I’ll try to get the time to write a longer article about it, and post it in my online. 

158. Why do you think baseball statistics is a good way to spend your time on Earth? If its a good choice, why don’t more people do it?
 — Posted by Kyle Willkomm

I didn’t choose baseball; I’m afraid.   The game just grabbed ahold of me and it never let go.   I wish that I was a disciplined and motivated individual and could force myself to do things in the order of their greatest value, but. . ..I’m not.  

159. Does it typically make more sense for a team to draft the best available player they can, or to try and fill an organizational need?
 — Posted by Aaron

Well, it’s sort of like. . .Do you drive on the best road, or do you drive on the road that goes directly where you want to go?    You drive on the best road that goes somewhere near to where you want to go for as long as you can, and then in the last five rounds you do what you have to do. 

160. Big fan since I started playing fantasy baseball in the 80’s.

       1) Do you attend the actual games and if so, are you able to separate all the numbers from just enjoying the “scene” (the crowd, the noise, the moment).

       2) Did you play baseball as a kid and if so, were you into the numbers then as much as now? Or did your interest in the numbers come later?

      3) Who was your favorite athlete when you were growing up?
 — Posted by JP

1)  I attend many, many games.  I enjoy attending games, but I don’t cease to be who I am when I take my seat at the game.  I see the game based on what I know, as you do and as everyone else does.

2)  I did play baseball, but I wasn’t good.   And honestly. . .I’m NOT interested in the numbers.  Never was.   That’s your perception of what I do; it’s not mine.

3)  I was growing up for a long time.   Wilt Chamberlain.  Minnie Minoso.   Jim Kaat.  Gale Sayers. Len Dawson.   JoJo White. Norm Siebern.  Catfish Hunter.  

161. Bill, this is great you are answering questions. But where can we ask you questions during the season? Lots of things come up that I for one want to know once we see the players in action.
 — Posted by Michael Hoffman

I answer questions in the Bill James Online, in the “Hey, Bill” section. 

162. Why is there a great need or desire among many sports statisticians (Hollinger, yourself, etc.) to reduce players and happenings to singular numbers as opposed to evaluating their skills and performances in the various areas individually?
 — Posted by Brian

What on earth are you babbling about, man?

163. Should MLB subsidize the use of wood bats in college baseball?
 — Posted by DRH

I’ll vote for it.  I think the biggest problem is “where do you draw the line?”   There are 900-some college baseball teams, let’s say about 20,000 college baseball players.   How many bats per player are we going to subsidize?  Do we subsidize UC-Riverside and Egbert State the same?  Also, I’m not sure there are that many trees.

165. Lots of great questions regarding identifying trends in pythag vs actual variance (leverage index?), tandem starters, etc…Most current analysis is around how to build a team. Do you see how to manage a team to be the next aspect of the game that becomes infused with sabermetrics? There has always been the great debate about lineup construction and platoons aren’t a new concept, but what about game theory with pitch selection/recognition? Do you think this area will receive even more backlash from the “old school” baseball community? Even non-sabermetric guys like TLR and Yost are adopting the second leadoff hitter strategy, hitting their pitchers 8th.

Also, do you see a new wave of younger players understanding and utilizing sabermetrics, ala Brian Bannister?
 — Posted by Ryan

That’s great, the second part.  They will figure out things that I would never see because they understand the game in a way that I will never have the opportunity to.   On the first issue, I am skeptical about the value of sabermetrics in guiding strategy.   Sabermetrics looks for what is systematic and predictable.  The advantages in game strategy come from odd combinations of circumstances. . .a third baseman who can’t throw with a batter who can run, a fast man on first with a guy who can handle the bat, a 2-0 count with a wind blowing to left.   I’m not convinced that mathmatical analysis is the optimal way to find those combinations.

167. What would you do if you were named the commissioner of MLB? What would you do now if you were able to run the Hall of Fame?
 — Posted by John

On the first question, I’d shorten the schedule to get the season over with before it turns so bitterly cold in the North.   On the second. . .I’d thank the writers for their service, and concentrate on developing a system that has checks and balances. 

168. I remember hearing somewhere that there is evidence that the idea of “protection” in the batting order is not empirically supported (i.e. a hitter’s stats are largely independent of who hits after him). Am I just imagining hearing that (might not be the first time I heard voices)?
 — Posted by JB

That’s correct.  There is essentially no empirical support for the notion that one good hitter protects another one. 

169. Who are ten players in the Hall Of Fame that do not deserve to be there?
 — Posted by David Stokes

Fred Lindstrom, Jesse Haines, Tommy McCarthy, Lloyd Waner, George Kelly, Ross Youngs, Roger Bresnahan, Earle Combs, Jim Bottomley and Chick Hafey.