clutch hitting rating? - Page 4

Killebrew · 12-28-2001, 06:42 AM

BJ, I agree with you that the Elias Sports Bureau's definition of a "clutch at-bat" is not very useful, and that defining any at-bat as clutch for the purposes of studying whether "clutch hitting" exists is nonsensical and arbitrary

. I do believe some players have a better chance of success in important situations based on how they handle pressure. Same thing with some players having less chance of success. Neyer's explanation of how MLB players are automatons unaffected by pressure only convinces me he has never been successful at the plate (assuming he has played at a certain level).

It's actually a complicated issue, but it's not a major concern to me since I dislike the "clutch-hit" term and feel that some consistant clutch ability (or more often lack of ability) applies equally to pitchers and fielders. This is related to some issues I do care more about though like whether hitting streaks exist or are just the law of averages at work. Often similar quotes from Mathematician Grabiner & Bill James are used in those arguments so these issues are related, and they usually bring out the strong opinions we've seen in this thread. Since it can't be proven whether any form of clutch hitting exists or not I think it might be wise to agree to disagree. That or just agree the Elias Sports Bureau's "clutch at-bat" stat is pretty useless.

Note: I usually play fictional OOTP, if I was very into OOTP as a historical simulator I would probably toggle a clutch hitting switch to the off position.

sporr · 12-28-2001, 06:57 AM

How else to explain Ankiel's meltdown in the playoffs - it had to be the pressure. This is an extreme example, but lesser examples happen all of the time. And I agree with Killebrew that it affects hitters, pitchers, and fielders equally.

Big Johnston · 12-28-2001, 08:28 AM

Kill: No one - not even Bill james - has yet been able to identify any major league baseball player who can consistently hit significantly better in the clutch. Doesn't that tell you anything?

And, as someone essentially said before, if you think that a clutch hitting rating should be added because no one can conclusively prove that it doesn't exist in some insignifcant amount, then why don't we petition to have biorhythm, home/away, and day/night switches added? I can at least document one of those as having a real effect on a player's performance.

Sporr: Do you think that Ankiel's meltdown was due only to game pressure? Do you know anything at all about his family problems? People break down all the time in all walks of life for all sorts of reasons; this has nothing to do with clutch hitting and does not imply nor infer that clutch hitting exists.

Clutch hitting is a myth, guys.

sporr · 12-28-2001, 09:11 AM

[quote]Originally posted by Big Johnston:
Sporr: Do you think that Ankiel's meltdown was due only to game pressure? Do you know anything at all about his family problems? People break down all the time in all walks of life for all sorts of reasons; this has nothing to do with clutch hitting and does not imply nor infer that clutch hitting exists.
<hr></blockquote>

I'm well aware of his family problems, I just think it was the pressure of the playoffs that brought it all to a head.

[ December 28, 2001: Message edited by: sporr ]

Khaos · 12-28-2001, 10:13 AM

Big Johnston alone has offered enough to see clutch hitting is more myth than reality. Even if the theory of grace under pressure is true for some to do better and others to do worse, there is currently no way of measuring such a theory. If you can't measure it and give it a percentage, you can't assign it a rating.

hellfrozeover · 12-28-2001, 12:18 PM

Maybe one way to test it is to use it and simulate from 1900 to the present and to simulate from 1900 to the present without it and see which one is more accurate. That would be alot of work, but maybe it could throw some light on the matter. Just an idea.

Killebrew · 12-28-2001, 03:42 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Khaos:
Even if the theory of grace under pressure is true for some to do better and others to do worse, there is currently no way of measuring such a theory. If you can't measure it and give it a percentage, you can't assign it a rating.<hr></blockquote>

I agree with that, and it's the reason I would have more trouble using the feature in historical play. It would be easier to accept in fictional players though, same with loyalty and "play for winner" and the "leadership" ratings (if that was added to the game).

Big Johnston · 12-28-2001, 04:35 PM

"Even if the theory of grace under pressure is true for some to do better and others to do worse, there is currently no way of measuring such a theory. If you can't measure it and give it a percentage, you can't assign it a rating."

Exactly. Well said. Thank you.

TotalEnd98 · 12-30-2001, 03:18 PM

[quote]Originally posted by hellfrozeover:
Maybe one way to test it is to use it and simulate from 1900 to the present and to simulate from 1900 to the present without it and see which one is more accurate. That would be alot of work, but maybe it could throw some light on the matter. Just an idea.<hr></blockquote>

No good. The game itself has enough internal randomness to throw off the consistency. Two leagues simulated with absolutely no differences in procedure would have different results. Throw a difference in (like the clutch hitting switch) and it's impossible to tell where the game's effects end and the clutch's effects start, especially if the effects of the switch are going to be as negligible as claimed.

hellfrozeover · 12-30-2001, 09:35 PM

Oh well, just an idea trying to see if this really had a noticeable effect on the game.

Malleus Dei · 01-01-2002, 09:05 AM

Gee, I guess all those hours I spent teaching Big Johnston baseball weren't wasted after all.

Big Johnston · 01-02-2002, 04:54 PM

They weren't. Thanks, Dad.

Not just for teaching me the game, but for teaching me to love it, and why to love it, and why to take it seriously, and how to respect it.

Thanks for the many hours you spent pointing things out to me at games until I did understand why you kept repeating to me that baseball was like church, and that many attended but few understood.

Thanks for teaching me sabremetrics. And for introducing me to Bill James. And for all the money that you spent on tickets, too.

Raven · 01-06-2002, 03:45 PM

I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but I just read the articles Big Johnson posted links to. I'm not going to argue for or against clutch hitting because I don't have an opinion either way, but I did want to point something out.

Neyer's article stated....
"Elias also identified 10 hitters known for their clutch ability, and ran a chart listing their LIPS averages and their overall batting averages from 1975 through 1984. The list of players included Steve Garvey, Reggie Jackson, Thurman Munson, Tony Perez and Willie Stargell. The Elias analysis? "The astonishing truth: only one of the players above -- Eddie Murray (thank God!) -- has performed significantly better over the past ten years in Line-Inning Pressure Situations."
(Incidentally, Murray batted .323 in 597 LIPS at-bats, .298 in all other at-bats, and I suspect this is not a significant difference. In fact, after four more seasons that 25-point difference dropped to 16.)"

After reading this article, the thought immediately popped into my head "I bet you Neyer and Elias used Murray's total stats to get his .298 average and not his Total AB's and hits minus his LIPS AB's and hits . He is clearly referring to the players "perforing significantly better in LIPS", and does say "Murray batted .298 in ALL-OTHER AB's" and doe NOT say TOTAL AB's so those stats should be compared to his "non-LIPS" stats and not his "total" stats.

After reading this, I went to Baseball Almanac's site and looked up Murray's statistics from '77-'84 (Murray began playing in '77). These are his statistics...

4546 Total AB's, 1355 Total Hits, .298 average.

He also says Murray hit .323 in 597 LIPS AB's. Doing the simple math, you can find out Murray had 193 hits.

I then subtracted the LIPS stats from his totals.
4546-597= 3949 "non LIPS" AB's
1355-193= 1162 "non LIPS" Hits
this comes out to a .294 "non LIPS" average

Neyer also stated the difference in batting average was 25 points and it was actually 29 (which is closer to his proposed 35 point difference being "a significant enough difference").

If Neyer made this simple error in Murray's stats, then I am sure he probably made the same error for all of the other players. Therefore, I believe his data and results are skewed, and I also believe this makes his whole study invalid because EVERY players stats would be effected. I don't know whether this would be a positive or negative effect because I don't have their LIPS stats on hand to check them all.

Now, I am no mathematician, but I do know a little something about statistics. How can Neyer be considered an expert (by ESPN, and who knows who else) when he can make errors such as this? I also don't know how this could get overlooked by Elias, Bill James, Neyer, whomever Neyer was working for at the time, and all of the other Experts and Statisticians out there. Probably because the debate wasn't very important, but to me this means that their other studies could be flawed as well.

Any thoughts or comments?

[ January 06, 2002: Message edited by: Raven ]

Specs · 01-06-2002, 04:16 PM

Unfortunately I'm having trouble finding the splits, but Derek Lowe seems to perform much better when the pressure's on (80% svOpps) than when it isn't (10 relief losses).

hellfrozeover · 01-06-2002, 04:38 PM

Raven, you have a good point. I never thought about this but I'm glad you pointed it out. I'd be interested in seeing the corrected stats, I wonder if anybody else has done a study in it?

Jerry, it seems many closers have the problem where they don't have the same intensity when it's not a save situation compared to when it is. I could be wrong but if I am, I know that bj will jump at the opportunity to correct me.

Killebrew · 01-06-2002, 04:39 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Raven:
Any thoughts or comments?<hr></blockquote>

I don't think many consider Neyer an expert. He tends to look for a controversial angle, especially second guessing baseball GM's and managers, which makes for good copy. Sometimes I could swear he's just playing devils advocate to see what kind of reader responses he gets.

Scott Vibert · 01-06-2002, 04:50 PM

Raven,

You've stumbled upon the simple truth that statistics lie. How can numbers lie you ask? Well they can't really... but numbers can be bent and showed out of context until they say exactly what you want. (Just like baseball accountants who can take profitable franchise and have them losing tens of millions of dollars). In general anyone with an agenda can find some sort of stat to back up their point, if they look hard enough. Now I don't believe in a clutch performance (at least not in its being a significant and consistent factor in anything) but I could dig up plenty of stats that would support either side of the issue. People who support the rating would take the math you did and say see he did improve in LIPS situations... others would say the improvement was so small that its insignificant and this "clutch" performer, didn't perform significantly better in the clutch. At the same time you can take perfectly valid statistical sampling and come up with contradictory results such as Gore winning Florida, or Bush winning Florida.

You can bend stats carefully, this is one of those reasons when the headlines say things like 58% of cancer sufferers survive longer when they eat fried chicken (fake headline) you need to look deeper into the stats, as bad as it sounds but "impartial" scientists tend to do a lot of "tuning" with data, throwing out points that don't support the expected results, adjusting the sample size, changing the very definition of what a cancer sufferer is or what fried chicken is. Stupid things like that... that are done simply to make the statistics agree better with what the individual would like. (Besides often times the studies like that are sponsered by companies with something to gain from a certain result.)

Scott Vibert · 01-06-2002, 04:51 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Killebrew:


I don't think many consider Neyer an expert. He tends to look for a controversial angle, especially second guessing baseball GM's and managers, which makes for good copy. Sometimes I could swear he's just playing devils advocate to see what kind of reader responses he gets.<hr></blockquote>

Playing Devil's Advocate like that can be really fun though...

Killebrew · 01-06-2002, 04:56 PM

[quote]Originally posted by ScottVib:
Playing Devil's Advocate like that can be really fun though...

<hr></blockquote>

Hehe, yeah I agree & it's part of the reason I read his columns. That and his Royals fixation

.

Raven · 01-06-2002, 05:17 PM

Killebrew,
I guess I should correct myself here. Maybe Neyer isn't considered an expert, but I do believe that Bill James is considered one (by many, if not all). Since Neyer was a research assistant for James, and works for ESPN, I automatically assumed that he too was one. Probably poor deductional logic on my part.
We all know how biased/contoversial the media can be if they want to.

Scott,
I totally understand that statistics can say whatever you want them to say. That was day 1's lesson in Statistics 101, many years ago.

I just wanted to point out the flaws in Neyer's article; not because I disagreed with him, but simply because his math was wrong. (He did clearly say "In all other AB's")

12-28-2001, 06:42 AM	#61
Killebrew Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 3,326	BJ, I agree with you that the Elias Sports Bureau's definition of a "clutch at-bat" is not very useful, and that defining any at-bat as clutch for the purposes of studying whether "clutch hitting" exists is nonsensical and arbitrary . I do believe some players have a better chance of success in important situations based on how they handle pressure. Same thing with some players having less chance of success. Neyer's explanation of how MLB players are automatons unaffected by pressure only convinces me he has never been successful at the plate (assuming he has played at a certain level). It's actually a complicated issue, but it's not a major concern to me since I dislike the "clutch-hit" term and feel that some consistant clutch ability (or more often lack of ability) applies equally to pitchers and fielders. This is related to some issues I do care more about though like whether hitting streaks exist or are just the law of averages at work. Often similar quotes from Mathematician Grabiner & Bill James are used in those arguments so these issues are related, and they usually bring out the strong opinions we've seen in this thread. Since it can't be proven whether any form of clutch hitting exists or not I think it might be wise to agree to disagree. That or just agree the Elias Sports Bureau's "clutch at-bat" stat is pretty useless. Note: I usually play fictional OOTP, if I was very into OOTP as a historical simulator I would probably toggle a clutch hitting switch to the off position. __________________ FOBL Capital City Metropolitans CDL Minnesota Twins

12-28-2001, 09:11 AM	#64
sporr Global Moderator Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Muscatine, IA Posts: 8,277	[quote]Originally posted by Big Johnston: <strong>Sporr: Do you think that Ankiel's meltdown was due only to game pressure? Do you know anything at all about his family problems? People break down all the time in all walks of life for all sorts of reasons; this has nothing to do with clutch hitting and does not imply nor infer that clutch hitting exists. </strong><hr></blockquote> I'm well aware of his family problems, I just think it was the pressure of the playoffs that brought it all to a head. [ December 28, 2001: Message edited by: sporr ]</p>

12-28-2001, 10:13 AM	#65
Khaos Major Leagues Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Canfield, OH Posts: 473	Big Johnston alone has offered enough to see clutch hitting is more myth than reality. Even if the theory of grace under pressure is true for some to do better and others to do worse, there is currently no way of measuring such a theory. If you can't measure it and give it a percentage, you can't assign it a rating. __________________ squish

12-28-2001, 12:18 PM	#66
hellfrozeover All Star Starter Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,130	Maybe one way to test it is to use it and simulate from 1900 to the present and to simulate from 1900 to the present without it and see which one is more accurate. That would be alot of work, but maybe it could throw some light on the matter. Just an idea. __________________ FBA Chicago Syndicate Former Owner: WBL Minnesota Twins 2004 - 2007 AL Central Division Champs OOL Chicago Whales 2006, 2009 UL East Champs; 2006, 2009 United League Champs IBA Lehigh Valley Diamonds 2006 Governor's Cup Champions VSLB New York Yankees 2001, 2002 AL East Division Champs ILBL Commissioner/Chicago Cubs 2002 NL Central Division Champs; 2002 National League Champs ASBL New York Yankees 2006 AL East Division Champs

12-28-2001, 03:42 PM	#67
Killebrew Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 3,326	[quote]Originally posted by Khaos: <strong>Even if the theory of grace under pressure is true for some to do better and others to do worse, there is currently no way of measuring such a theory. If you can't measure it and give it a percentage, you can't assign it a rating.</strong><hr></blockquote> I agree with that, and it's the reason I would have more trouble using the feature in historical play. It would be easier to accept in fictional players though, same with loyalty and "play for winner" and the "leadership" ratings (if that was added to the game). __________________ FOBL Capital City Metropolitans CDL Minnesota Twins

12-28-2001, 06:57 AM	#62
sporr Global Moderator Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Muscatine, IA Posts: 8,277	How else to explain Ankiel's meltdown in the playoffs - it had to be the pressure. This is an extreme example, but lesser examples happen all of the time. And I agree with Killebrew that it affects hitters, pitchers, and fielders equally.

12-28-2001, 08:28 AM	#63
Big Johnston Minors (Single A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 50	Kill: No one - not even Bill james - has yet been able to identify any major league baseball player who can consistently hit significantly better in the clutch. Doesn't that tell you anything? And, as someone essentially said before, if you think that a clutch hitting rating should be added because no one can conclusively prove that it doesn't exist in some insignifcant amount, then why don't we petition to have biorhythm, home/away, and day/night switches added? I can at least document one of those as having a real effect on a player's performance. Sporr: Do you think that Ankiel's meltdown was due only to game pressure? Do you know anything at all about his family problems? People break down all the time in all walks of life for all sorts of reasons; this has nothing to do with clutch hitting and does not imply nor infer that clutch hitting exists. Clutch hitting is a myth, guys.

12-28-2001, 04:35 PM	#68
Big Johnston Minors (Single A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 50	"Even if the theory of grace under pressure is true for some to do better and others to do worse, there is currently no way of measuring such a theory. If you can't measure it and give it a percentage, you can't assign it a rating." Exactly. Well said. Thank you.

12-30-2001, 03:18 PM	#69
TotalEnd98 All Star Starter Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: New York Posts: 1,687	[quote]Originally posted by hellfrozeover: <strong>Maybe one way to test it is to use it and simulate from 1900 to the present and to simulate from 1900 to the present without it and see which one is more accurate. That would be alot of work, but maybe it could throw some light on the matter. Just an idea.</strong><hr></blockquote> No good. The game itself has enough internal randomness to throw off the consistency. Two leagues simulated with absolutely no differences in procedure would have different results. Throw a difference in (like the clutch hitting switch) and it's impossible to tell where the game's effects end and the clutch's effects start, especially if the effects of the switch are going to be as negligible as claimed. __________________ OTBL - Scandinavia Cartoon Heroes This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper.

12-30-2001, 09:35 PM	#70
hellfrozeover All Star Starter Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,130	Oh well, just an idea trying to see if this really had a noticeable effect on the game. __________________ FBA Chicago Syndicate Former Owner: WBL Minnesota Twins 2004 - 2007 AL Central Division Champs OOL Chicago Whales 2006, 2009 UL East Champs; 2006, 2009 United League Champs IBA Lehigh Valley Diamonds 2006 Governor's Cup Champions VSLB New York Yankees 2001, 2002 AL East Division Champs ILBL Commissioner/Chicago Cubs 2002 NL Central Division Champs; 2002 National League Champs ASBL New York Yankees 2006 AL East Division Champs

01-02-2002, 04:54 PM	#72
Big Johnston Minors (Single A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 50	They weren't. Thanks, Dad. Not just for teaching me the game, but for teaching me to love it, and why to love it, and why to take it seriously, and how to respect it. Thanks for the many hours you spent pointing things out to me at games until I did understand why you kept repeating to me that baseball was like church, and that many attended but few understood. Thanks for teaching me sabremetrics. And for introducing me to Bill James. And for all the money that you spent on tickets, too.

01-06-2002, 03:45 PM	#73
Raven Minors (Single A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 94	I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but I just read the articles Big Johnson posted links to. I'm not going to argue for or against clutch hitting because I don't have an opinion either way, but I did want to point something out. Neyer's article stated.... "Elias also identified 10 hitters known for their clutch ability, and ran a chart listing their LIPS averages and their overall batting averages from 1975 through 1984. The list of players included Steve Garvey, Reggie Jackson, Thurman Munson, Tony Perez and Willie Stargell. The Elias analysis? "The astonishing truth: only one of the players above -- Eddie Murray (thank God!) -- has performed significantly better over the past ten years in Line-Inning Pressure Situations." (Incidentally, Murray batted .323 in 597 LIPS at-bats, .298 in all other at-bats, and I suspect this is not a significant difference. In fact, after four more seasons that 25-point difference dropped to 16.)" After reading this article, the thought immediately popped into my head "I bet you Neyer and Elias used Murray's total stats to get his .298 average and not his Total AB's and hits minus his LIPS AB's and hits . He is clearly referring to the players "perforing significantly better in LIPS", and does say "Murray batted .298 in ALL-OTHER AB's" and doe NOT say TOTAL AB's so those stats should be compared to his "non-LIPS" stats and not his "total" stats. After reading this, I went to Baseball Almanac's site and looked up Murray's statistics from '77-'84 (Murray began playing in '77). These are his statistics... 4546 Total AB's, 1355 Total Hits, .298 average. He also says Murray hit .323 in 597 LIPS AB's. Doing the simple math, you can find out Murray had 193 hits. I then subtracted the LIPS stats from his totals. 4546-597= 3949 "non LIPS" AB's 1355-193= 1162 "non LIPS" Hits this comes out to a .294 "non LIPS" average Neyer also stated the difference in batting average was 25 points and it was actually 29 (which is closer to his proposed 35 point difference being "a significant enough difference"). If Neyer made this simple error in Murray's stats, then I am sure he probably made the same error for all of the other players. Therefore, I believe his data and results are skewed, and I also believe this makes his whole study invalid because EVERY players stats would be effected. I don't know whether this would be a positive or negative effect because I don't have their LIPS stats on hand to check them all. Now, I am no mathematician, but I do know a little something about statistics. How can Neyer be considered an expert (by ESPN, and who knows who else) when he can make errors such as this? I also don't know how this could get overlooked by Elias, Bill James, Neyer, whomever Neyer was working for at the time, and all of the other Experts and Statisticians out there. Probably because the debate wasn't very important, but to me this means that their other studies could be flawed as well. Any thoughts or comments? [ January 06, 2002: Message edited by: Raven ]</p>

01-06-2002, 04:38 PM	#75
hellfrozeover All Star Starter Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,130	Raven, you have a good point. I never thought about this but I'm glad you pointed it out. I'd be interested in seeing the corrected stats, I wonder if anybody else has done a study in it? Jerry, it seems many closers have the problem where they don't have the same intensity when it's not a save situation compared to when it is. I could be wrong but if I am, I know that bj will jump at the opportunity to correct me. __________________ FBA Chicago Syndicate Former Owner: WBL Minnesota Twins 2004 - 2007 AL Central Division Champs OOL Chicago Whales 2006, 2009 UL East Champs; 2006, 2009 United League Champs IBA Lehigh Valley Diamonds 2006 Governor's Cup Champions VSLB New York Yankees 2001, 2002 AL East Division Champs ILBL Commissioner/Chicago Cubs 2002 NL Central Division Champs; 2002 National League Champs ASBL New York Yankees 2006 AL East Division Champs

01-06-2002, 04:39 PM	#76
Killebrew Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 3,326	[quote]Originally posted by Raven: <strong>Any thoughts or comments?</strong><hr></blockquote> I don't think many consider Neyer an expert. He tends to look for a controversial angle, especially second guessing baseball GM's and managers, which makes for good copy. Sometimes I could swear he's just playing devils advocate to see what kind of reader responses he gets. __________________ FOBL Capital City Metropolitans CDL Minnesota Twins

01-06-2002, 04:50 PM	#77
Scott Vibert Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: My Computer Posts: 8,260	Raven, You've stumbled upon the simple truth that statistics lie. How can numbers lie you ask? Well they can't really... but numbers can be bent and showed out of context until they say exactly what you want. (Just like baseball accountants who can take profitable franchise and have them losing tens of millions of dollars). In general anyone with an agenda can find some sort of stat to back up their point, if they look hard enough. Now I don't believe in a clutch performance (at least not in its being a significant and consistent factor in anything) but I could dig up plenty of stats that would support either side of the issue. People who support the rating would take the math you did and say see he did improve in LIPS situations... others would say the improvement was so small that its insignificant and this "clutch" performer, didn't perform significantly better in the clutch. At the same time you can take perfectly valid statistical sampling and come up with contradictory results such as Gore winning Florida, or Bush winning Florida. You can bend stats carefully, this is one of those reasons when the headlines say things like 58% of cancer sufferers survive longer when they eat fried chicken (fake headline) you need to look deeper into the stats, as bad as it sounds but "impartial" scientists tend to do a lot of "tuning" with data, throwing out points that don't support the expected results, adjusting the sample size, changing the very definition of what a cancer sufferer is or what fried chicken is. Stupid things like that... that are done simply to make the statistics agree better with what the individual would like. (Besides often times the studies like that are sponsered by companies with something to gain from a certain result.)

01-06-2002, 04:51 PM	#78
Scott Vibert Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: My Computer Posts: 8,260	[quote]Originally posted by Killebrew: <strong> I don't think many consider Neyer an expert. He tends to look for a controversial angle, especially second guessing baseball GM's and managers, which makes for good copy. Sometimes I could swear he's just playing devils advocate to see what kind of reader responses he gets.</strong><hr></blockquote> Playing Devil's Advocate like that can be really fun though...

01-06-2002, 04:56 PM	#79
Killebrew Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 3,326	[quote]Originally posted by ScottVib: <strong>Playing Devil's Advocate like that can be really fun though... </strong><hr></blockquote> Hehe, yeah I agree & it's part of the reason I read his columns. That and his Royals fixation . __________________ FOBL Capital City Metropolitans CDL Minnesota Twins

01-06-2002, 05:17 PM	#80
Raven Minors (Single A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 94	Killebrew, I guess I should correct myself here. Maybe Neyer isn't considered an expert, but I do believe that Bill James is considered one (by many, if not all). Since Neyer was a research assistant for James, and works for ESPN, I automatically assumed that he too was one. Probably poor deductional logic on my part. We all know how biased/contoversial the media can be if they want to. Scott, I totally understand that statistics can say whatever you want them to say. That was day 1's lesson in Statistics 101, many years ago. I just wanted to point out the flaws in Neyer's article; not because I disagreed with him, but simply because his math was wrong. (He did clearly say "In all other AB's")