"The Book"
UsualNoise
fascinating stuff. Highly recommended. For example, statistically the
pitcher should bat 8th in a lineup for maximum run production. (?!) I
won't ruin any more surprises, but my favorite finding so far is the
suggestion regarding how to maximize run production when the pitcher has to
hit.
--
UsualNoise
Kenny1111
I have it but haven't been able to start it yet. I'm almost done with
something else I'm reading now, so I should get to it soon. I'm really
looking forward to it, as well as BP's "Baseball by the Numbers," which
is next in line for me. Glad you are enjoying it!
Thermos
You guys with yer fancy booklurnin.
--
_________________________________________
This message is not intended to annoy, but may anyway.
Kenny1111
> Kenny1111 wrote:
>> UsualNoise wrote:
>>
>>> Anyone else reading this yet? I'm up to chapter 6 so far, and it's
>>> some fascinating stuff. Highly recommended. For example,
>>> statistically the pitcher should bat 8th in a lineup for maximum run
>>> production. (?!) I won't ruin any more surprises, but my favorite
>>> finding so far is the suggestion regarding how to maximize run
>>> production when the pitcher has to hit.
>>
>>
>> I have it but haven't been able to start it yet. I'm almost done with
>> something else I'm reading now, so I should get to it soon. I'm really
>> looking forward to it, as well as BP's "Baseball by the Numbers," which
>> is next in line for me. Glad you are enjoying it!
>
> You guys with yer fancy booklurnin.
>
I'm surprised that you didn't buy a copy, stathead :-)
Max Collodi
But I thought according to the Gospel of Vinnie the weakest hitter in a
lineup must ALWAYS hit ninth, and that anyone who suggests otherwise is
a raving lunatic who doesn't know the first thing about baseball. I'm
sure even now Vinnie is gathering up his crayons to write a letter to
the author informing him that he and the legions who "respect" him in
this newsgroup will be organizing a boycott of this heretical tome.
Thermos
Haven't had much time for reading lately, and what I have has been
dominated by poker books. When I finish the current one, I need some
good fiction or something historical before my brain turns to mush.
Nick D.
"UsualNoise" <usual...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns977D7B026D5DFus...@130.133.1.4...
> Anyone else reading this yet?
Reading what? I Googled "the book" and got 324 MILLION possibilities.
Could you be a little more specific?
Kenny1111
It's a baseball book called "The Book" by Tom Tango, Mitchel Lichtman,
and Andy Dolphin. It was just released by TMA Press.
Kenny1111
I figure once I get through "The Book" and "Baseball By the Numbers"
I'll have to pick up something fiction again.
Vinnie S.
Asswipe. Do me a favor. Of the tens of thousands of games played in baseball
history, see how many of them in which the pitcher actually batted 8th. I would
guess it would be less than .1%.
Vinnie S.
UsualNoise
news:9oom029b6rp21i9oj...@4ax.com:
> Asswipe. Do me a favor. Of the tens of thousands of games played in
> baseball history, see how many of them in which the pitcher actually
> batted 8th. I would guess it would be less than .1%.
FYI, the difference between a pitcher batting 8th and 9th was calculated to
be roughly 2 runs per year. Not really a big deal in the grand scheme of
things, but it is slightly better.
--
UsualNoise
Thermos
Actually, I forgot that "Teachers Have it Easy" was next on my list.
Then some fiction.
Vinnie S.
That is negligible, so why does he even write about it?
Anyway, Max is a compulsive liar. This issue wasn't so much the pitcher batting
8th. The "issue" we argued about, was whether the Yankees should bat Cano or
Damon 9th, because it would give you the "double leadoff" in the AL, something I
wholeheartedly disagree with. In the AL with the DH, you bat your worst hitter
9th, because you want the fewest ABs out of him the whole year. If you bat a
good hitter 9th, you might cost him one AB per game, and that adds up over the
cost of the year.
So Max's contention, was that Larussa batted the a pitcher 8th for a few games,
and he also found it in a online Little League manual. So he was using a rarely
used NL strategy, so prove his AL belief as to why the Yankees should do it. He
failed to mention that when Torre did it with Lofton, Lofton was furious. Torre
also batted Soriano 9th during the rookie season, but that was more to loyalty
to "his" players, because the following season, he did not bat Soriano ninth.
I could give 2 shits what Larussa or any NL manager does, since I don't follow
the NL, and there is a DH in the AL. It's simple in the AL, bat your worst
offensive player 9th, to give him the fewest ABs throughout the season. If Torre
wants to bat a good player 9th and take away one AB per game from him, he's a
damn fool.
Vinnie S.
Nick D.
"Thermos" <cfb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:57udnWK6jaE...@rcn.net...
Nick D.
"Kenny1111" <kcya...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:471342F...@individual.net...
Thanks, I'll see if I can find it.
UsualNoise
> I could give 2 shits what Larussa or any NL manager does, since I
> don't follow the NL, and there is a DH in the AL. It's simple in the
> AL, bat your worst offensive player 9th, to give him the fewest ABs
> throughout the season. If Torre wants to bat a good player 9th and
> take away one AB per game from him, he's a damn fool.
Well, the writers of "The Book" agree here. In the AL the best 5 hitters
should occupy the top 5 slots (although it's suprising where the best 2
hitters should be!) and the bottom 4 should be in ... the bottom 4 slots.
Nothing too revolutionary there.
--
UsualNoise
Vinnie S.
>Vinnie S. <no...@coldmail.com> wrote in
>news:p3sm0258ff3uoevko...@4ax.com:
>
>> I could give 2 shits what Larussa or any NL manager does, since I
>> don't follow the NL, and there is a DH in the AL. It's simple in the
>> AL, bat your worst offensive player 9th, to give him the fewest ABs
>> throughout the season. If Torre wants to bat a good player 9th and
>> take away one AB per game from him, he's a damn fool.
>
>Well, the writers of "The Book" agree here.
Max won't read this part. If he does, he'll deny he did.
>In the AL the best 5 hitters
>should occupy the top 5 slots (although it's suprising where the best 2
>hitters should be!) and the bottom 4 should be in ... the bottom 4 slots.
>Nothing too revolutionary there.
One other thing. The "double leadoff" doesn't usually happen until the 3rd
inning. And if the first 9 go out in order, it doesn't happen til later.
Vinnie S.
ccsuwxman
You can order it online at www.insidethebook.com. The cost is $18.95.
Joe F.
UsualNoise
@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> The pitcher batting 8th is not a suprise... we've known that for years.
Really? Well, I didn't. And I don't think anyone provided statistical
evidence for doing so before.
--
UsualNoise
Thermos
I just picked it up. Damn you.
Joe F.
do it once in a while. In discussions with my fellow baseball fans
about this topic, granted nobody I knew could provide any "evidence"
that this is a good tactic, however everyone seemed to agree that 1. a
"leadoff" hitter is only a leadoff hitter in the first inning,
afterwhich the "leadoff" hitter becomes the first guy up every inning
and 2. if you could have a #9 hitter who gets on base more than the
average pitcher, you should do so because your best four hitters come
up after him, so why put a designated "out" in that spot.
I haven't read "The Book" but I am guessing the logic is somewhere
along those lines. If not, my friends and I were just lucky with out
assumption (i.e., "pulled a Homer" for you Simpsons fans).
Kenny1111
Thermos
I read the profile on the website and it hooked me. I loved "The Hidden
Game" and this seems to be written from a similar premise.
Kenny1111
> Kenny1111 wrote:
>> Thermos wrote:
>>
>>> Kenny1111 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nick D. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "UsualNoise" <usual...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Xns977D7B026D5DFus...@130.133.1.4...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone else reading this yet?
>>>>>
>>>>> Reading what? I Googled "the book" and got 324 MILLION possibilities.
>>>>> Could you be a little more specific?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's a baseball book called "The Book" by Tom Tango, Mitchel Lichtman,
>>>> and Andy Dolphin. It was just released by TMA Press.
>>>
>>> I just picked it up. Damn you.
>>>
>>
>> lol. stathead!
>
> I read the profile on the website and it hooked me. I loved "The Hidden
> Game" and this seems to be written from a similar premise.
>
I've started it now. Read the first four chapters or so. Like it a lot
so far. It is very statistical at the same time as not bogging down the
reader with the in depth math (not that I'd have a problem if it did :-) ).
Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
Sounds like all fiction...
tango...@gmail.com
jes....@hexduxhmp.org wrote:
> UsualNoise <usual...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Anyone else reading this yet? I'm up to chapter 6 so far, and it's some
>
> amazon or something). Oddl yenough, "The Book" doesn't turn out to
> be all that useful in search engines (unless I want the bible)
I appreciate all the great comments that have been posted here (and
elsewhere). If you guys have any questions, post it here, and I'll
drop by again tomorrow night. Or you can email me at tangotiger -- at
-- yahoo -- dot -- com
Thanks, Tom
Kenny1111
Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for stopping by. I've really enjoyed the book so far. I
have one general question that might be answered later in the book or in
the more statistically-oriented appendix (which I will definitely get
to), but is there any value in doing hypothesis testing (computing
t-statistics and p-values) to evaluate whether observations for
individuals in the clutch, against players of a certain handedness,
etc., are significantly different from their baseline performance? It
seems from what I've read (through part of chapter 6), that the studies
described are only in the aggregate, looking at expected and observed
means for the group as a whole and comparing. Is it possible to
formulate some sort of individual variance based on the aggregate
studies, and use that individual variance to make a statistical
inference about an individual?
More specifically, if you have been following some of the other threads
in this group (the Memo to the College of Arrogance thread in
particular) (though I can't imagine that you've had the time to read all
baseball newsgroups), I'm sure you've seen that I've been in some
arguments over the statistical significance of Gordon's post-season
statistics. I was wondering whether there is something like a t-test
that be used to show whether we can reject a null hypothesis that Gordon
is not a choker.
Or would you say that using regression toward the mean is the best way?
If so, how much would you regress in the case of relief pitcher
clutchness? I can't remember you giving a number for that in "The
Book," at least from what I've read so far.
Thanks so much for your help. "The Book" is great so far. I've always
enjoyed reading your posts at Baseball Primer/Baseball Think Factory and
other sites (and rarely gathered up enough confidence or motivation to
post, especially considering how much of my life I spend in this group
:-) ).
-Kenny
tango...@gmail.com
I usually deal with groups of players, therefore I'm very partial to
doing a regression toward the mean. I don't see any reason why you
couldn't run a test on a specific player.
As for regressing a relief pitcher, you'r eright, we didn't put it in.
I don't know why. However, given that there is less evidence than for
hitters, you need to add in more than the 7600 that you do for hitters.
If you use 10,000, and realize that Mariano has faced, what, 3000 or
4000 batters, then you'll be regressing a ton.
Kenny/UsualNoise: I extracted a couple of your comments, and quoted you
here:
http://www.insidethebook.com/reviews.shtml
I just used your intials. If you would rather I remove it, I'll take
care of that. Or if you want to use a fuller name, you can email that
to me as well. Nonetheless, I appreciate the support.
Thanks, Tom
Kenny1111
> Kenny,
>
> I usually deal with groups of players, therefore I'm very partial to
> doing a regression toward the mean. I don't see any reason why you
> couldn't run a test on a specific player.
>
Thanks. Do you know what variance/standard error you would use for a
relief pitcher's ERA? Would this be something that varies
pitcher-to-pitcher, or do you think that using a single value for all
relief pitchers, say, would be acceptable?
> As for regressing a relief pitcher, you'r eright, we didn't put it in.
> I don't know why. However, given that there is less evidence than for
> hitters, you need to add in more than the 7600 that you do for hitters.
> If you use 10,000, and realize that Mariano has faced, what, 3000 or
> 4000 batters, then you'll be regressing a ton.
Thanks for the info. Seems then that Gordon's 19 post-season innings
are too few to draw any sort of conclusion despite his post-season ERA
being so drastically higher.
>
> Kenny/UsualNoise: I extracted a couple of your comments, and quoted you
> here:
> http://www.insidethebook.com/reviews.shtml
>
> I just used your intials. If you would rather I remove it, I'll take
> care of that. Or if you want to use a fuller name, you can email that
> to me as well. Nonetheless, I appreciate the support.
Feel free to use my full initials (KSC) or my name (Kenny Canfield) if
you'd like. Though that does sound like a very poorly articulated
endorsement. I probably could've done better if I knew I'd be quoted in
support of the book :-) And as many here in a.s.b.nyy would guess, I'd
actually like to be bogged down with mathematical details (and I figure
the appendix will do that), but I know others won't so it was a way to
let them know they'd be happy too. In any case, great job with the
book, and thanks for the answers here.
tango...@gmail.com
posed. If you are trying to isolate the karma portion (random
statistical variation), it would have to be based on the # of PA. If
you haven't seen it, I suggest going to my site, and downloading the
Solving DIPS PDF file. You are going to particularly like it, and it
may answer your question here.
I actually prefer an "on the spot" review, rather than a rehearsed one.
People can see through the scripted stuff, since most people are not
good actors.
Tom
Kenny1111
> For the variance question, I'm not sure I can answer the question as
> posed. If you are trying to isolate the karma portion (random
> statistical variation), it would have to be based on the # of PA. If
Yes, of course. It should be something like (sigma^2)/(sample size). I
guess I'm interested in that numerator. Perhaps I'm oversimplifying
things though.
> you haven't seen it, I suggest going to my site, and downloading the
> Solving DIPS PDF file. You are going to particularly like it, and it
> may answer your question here.
I did read it a while back and enjoyed it. I should take another look
and see if it helps out here.
>
> I actually prefer an "on the spot" review, rather than a rehearsed one.
> People can see through the scripted stuff, since most people are not
> good actors.
Could you explain? I think I'm missing your point. Thanks.
> http://www.tangotiger.net
>
> Tom
>
tango...@gmail.com
very poorly articulated endorsement. I probably could've done better
prefer that people *not* know that I'd quote them. Otherwise, your
endorsement would have sounded polished and insincere. Like A-Rod,
basically.
UsualNoise
news:1142310643.6...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
> Otherwise, your endorsement would have sounded polished and insincere.
> Like A-Rod, basically.
Zing!!
--
UsualNoise
Kenny1111
Yeah, I figured so. Even though I know the whole world can read my
newsgroup posts, I tend to be much less careful about my word choice
when posting on the newsgroup than I would in even slightly more formal
writing. I figure I do enough writing where I have to pay attention to
all my words, that I can get away with just making my point and moving on.