"The Book"

--
UsualNoise

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.

--
_________________________________________
This message is not intended to annoy, but may anyway.

I'm surprised that you didn't buy a copy, stathead :-)

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.

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 figure once I get through "The Book" and "Baseball By the Numbers"
I'll have to pick up something fiction again.

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.

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

Actually, I forgot that "Teachers Have it Easy" was next on my list.
Then some fiction.

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.

Thanks, I'll see if I can find it.

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

Max won't read this part. If he does, he'll deny he did.

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.

You can order it online at www.insidethebook.com. The cost is 18ドル.95.

Really? Well, I didn't. And I don't think anyone provided statistical
evidence for doing so before.

--
UsualNoise

I just picked it up. Damn you.

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).

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 :-) ).

http://www.InsideTheBook.com

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

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

http://www.tangotiger.net

Tom

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.

I did read it a while back and enjoyed it. I should take another look
and see if it helps out here.

Could you explain? I think I'm missing your point. Thanks.

> http://www.tangotiger.net
>
> Tom
>

Zing!!

--
UsualNoise

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.