I’ve written about my friend Bill James on numerous occasions, but I think this is my favorite one — built this one around the premiere of the movie “Moneyball” in 2011.
finding the 83 abstract during my first year of law school was mind bending and life changing. he changed the institution of baseball. too bad he turned into a kook who knows more about everything than anyone. crime? yes! politics? yes. foreign affairs? yes! everything else? yes! what a burden that must be. sad that he turned from someone working for players into a management stooge. more money in that, i guess. every player could disappear and it wouldn't matter, etc. i used to wonder why he used to keep living in a place like kansas. was apparent eventually.
Bill James totally belongs in the baseball Hall of Fame.
I think his real genius is ignoring bullshit. I think we all have varying levels of the extent to which our thoughts are shaped by other peoples thoughts and conventional wisdom. For Bill James this number is 0%. My favorite Bill James quote is (I am going from memory so I might not have it exact) “people who criticize anyone who dares to question conventional wisdom are in my opinion gutless conspirators in the mediocrity of the universe.” Kind of sums up the guys mindset don’t you think?
I’m surprised nobody has mentioned any of his other books. He wrote one book on popular crime, and another called the man from the train. The man from the train basically analyzes and maybe solves a bunch of murders by a serial murderer that happened around 1900. The book on popular crime just really tracks the history of popular crime and it’s reporting in America, with lots of Bill James’s musings on the criminal justice system mixed in. I found both of these fascinating. And the book on popular crime, in my opinion, describes (with attribution) the best explanation for the Kennedy assassination that I have heard or read. Both are well worth the time!
My own favorite Bill James quote, from a preview of the 1979 baseball season in Esquire:
"With Madlock at second, the Giants turned 118 double plays. Had it not been for the Houston Astros, this would have been the worst figure in baseball. The Astros second baseman -- using the term loosely -- is Art Howe. Last year Howe hit almost as well as Madlock and pivoted on the double play almost as well as Bobby Doerr. Doerr was one of the greatest pivot men ever, but he is now 61 years old; he gave up the game some years ago, when he began to pivot like Art Howe."
I got my first Baseball Abstract in 1981, the year before they were published as books, and it was a revelation to me. I had been putting forth the opinion that teams bunted too much, that the success rate of steals in the league (about 65%) actually cost runs instead of gaining them, and that fans an teams focused on batting average too much, and not giving some with lower averages credit for their walks and extra base hits and had mostly been scoffed at. Here was someone else questioning some of the same things I was, and other things as well. Without the internet and stuff, it was pretty easy then to feel as if you were the only person who thought a certain way.
Without people like James and Pete Palmer, there probably would never have been people like Tom Tango and Nate Silver and whoever else you can think of that changed the way we analyze the game. I am pretty damned sure that all of those people were inspired in part by one of those two men's curiosity. Teams might still be bunting all of the time or just going by batting average to decide how a player's value.
The thing I enjoy about James is that he has never lost that curiosity. He still questions things. It seems like some places now (Fangraphs for one) seem to be more interested in trying to say their views are the correct ones and that metrics they invented are better because they invented them, rather than still being curious.
I do think James should be in the Hall of Fame. He changed an entire generation and is the Godfather of every sabermetrician (a term I believe James invented) since. He also left one little baseball junkie feeling a little less weird and realize he was not the only person who thought that way.
Excellent piece! I loved Bill James. Definitely HOF. And yes, I could see ballplayers in my mind with certain statistics (.296, 13 triples) that fans today cannot see. Every player now has the same statistics: 20 HR, 62 RBI, .234 AVG. My only gripe is that I got on the subway and paid money every time Nolan Ryan came to town. Yes, he didn't seem to bring the crowds, but he brought the people willing to pay to watch the pitiful Angels. He and Koufax were the only pitchers I ever saw who could amaze me pitch by pitch. Their stuff just looked different from other pitchers'. Again, all pitchers now look the same. Pretty much the same abbreviated delivery, same bendy, twisty stuff around the edges, same stats. I wonder what he'd make of the game today. What I would give for a 2023 Baseball Abstract!
Grew up in NW Missouri in the 1980s. Because the Royals were only 16 (like me) in 1985, there were still a lot of people who were Cardinals fans in that part of the state, especially older people, many of whom seemed to teach in my hometown. Therefore, there was a lot of partisan interest in the 1985 WS at my HS and while we Royals fans got to gloat about winning, the usual response was "Don Denkinger". I felt strongly enough about the topic that the next fall my Senior English thesis was entitled "Why the Royals Deserved to Win the 1985 World Series". I can tell you I used Mr. James' 1986 Baseball Abstract as a significant Source in making my arguments. I got an A too (although I am pretty sure my English teacher was a Royals fan so that helped)
I have always felt strongly that the Royals would have one without that call. The only out of the inning was on the runner that was called safe on that play, when he failed to break from second on a bunt attempt and was thrown out at third. The Cards only scored one run (the one they were trying to make hold up) the last 26 innings of the series, and the Royals, even with that out, tie the game at the very least, with chances to win it. (Also winning if it went to extras, as the Cards never scored again)
The Cards blew the series because the last 26 innings of the series they hit .146/.189/.146 those last 26 innings and had 3 of those very few runners erased on the basepaths. That is less than the OPS of NL pitchers that year. The Royals score 3 in the 2nd inning of game 5, and then the Cards were shut down (or just quit?) the rest of the way. From that moment on, the Royals pitchers had an ERA of 0.35 and a WHIP of 0.69. I don't think there has been an ending to a Series with the team up like they were that is such an example of pitching dominance (or perhaps a hitter chokefest?) in MLB history.
So yeah, they deserved to win. Cardinal fans like to print the legend and ignore the facts. If I had $20 for every Cards fan that insisted there were 2 outs (instead of zero) when the play happened or that somehow Orta scored the tying or winning runs, I would be retired right now.
Also, of course, it was only the 2nd worst call of the game. The first one, earlier in the game, cost the Royals a run.
I always argued that Charlie got squeezed by the ump in the 9th inning of game 2 as well, although why Howser didn't have Quiz in the game at that point is beyond me.
There's so many things I could point to that I've learned from Bill James, but one that always sticks with me is when he invented a new ranking system (not sure what it was, maybe win shares, it doesn't matter) he said you can tell its a good list if about 80-90% is what you'd expect. If it's 50% a surprise it's no good, and if there's no surprise it's pointless. I use this as a guide in my job now when I have to rank projects and it's always done well for me.
My mom, who came from the UK in her 20s having never seen a baseball, was encouraged to get into the sport by my dad, who wanted their kids to grow up fans. The thing that made it click for her was Bill James's book. I still remember as a kid finding the idea of coming to love the sport through a massive tome, maybe the biggest book I'd seen to that point, utterly ridiculous. But it worked, and she became a lifelong baseball fan, still following years later, long after the kids left home and my parents divorced. So certainly always glad for some extra Bill James love.
By Bill James's book I assume you mean the Historical Baseball Abstract? That is indeed a great one, but he's written a few others, including a 2nd version of the HBA that was largely new material.
Bill revolutionized the game. He belongs in the HOF. I have virtually everyone of his Baseball Abstracts outside of the mimeographed ones! There may have been better analysts to come along from what he created, but no one asked better questions, forcing us to look at the game differently.
As a Yankee fan and a baseball fan it was a sad day when the Red Sox hired him. Not because he helped the Red Sox, but because much of his work became proprietary and went behind the Red Sox “firewall,” and baseball fans no longer had access to his unique views, his research, and the resulting questions he would make us ask.
Hw changes the way all of us think and the way front offices operate. Give him his own wing.
Reading this (again) and half way through I picked up my old copy of "This Time Let's Not Eat the Bones" (again) and here I go, diving into some great old writing!
Thanks for re-posting. Reminds me of the early BASIC programming days; numeric logic could be applied to EVERYTHING. So we thought. Hadn’t recalled James’ comments about TV screen size. Have long felt similar, though in my mind, the jumbotrons. Without them? People watch what’s happening in the field. With them? Every player flashed is described as an HP12 outcome. By time viewers roll through the numbers & eyes return to the field, a different batter is up, and process starts over again*. One of the great parts about scoring games; one’s eyes stay on the field.
And I am reminded of my idol and a hero of Joe's, who I used to refer to on Facebook as The Vin, because, well, he's that eminent and always will be. He said that too many people use statistics the way a drunk uses a lamppost: for support rather than illumination. And while I think some have taken the analytics too far (Hell-oooo, Andrew Friedman, please let Dave Roberts keep in a pitcher to face the order for the third time--sometimes it works), they have improved the game in a lot of ways.
And I am reminded of an old friend of then-Young Scully, a statistician Branch Rickey hired; Allan Roth. Bill James didn't do quite what he did, but he's worth remembering.
The extent of James's innovation is astonishing. Most younger fans, at least those whose reading and sabermetric interest is not of the most extreme degree, really have no idea. I don't understand "detractors" looking at the sum of it. He is my hero, and I totally understand disillusionment as you grow older with your heroes. It's easy to forget everyone is a man. But James developed the whole taxonomy for study of the sport. Where do think the maximum three throws to first comes from, for instance? His contributions are mind-boggling.
Thanks for sharing these stories from your vault, Joe. I feel the same sort of nostalgic joy reading you as I do reading Bill Bryson, with the main difference being that he swears like a sailor and you don't curse at all (Maybe only if you stub your toe?). Bill James was a welcome addition to my beloved Red Sox, and very deserving of those WS rings.
I am also a Bill Bryson fan. A Walk in the Woods is a classic. He has also written one book about the human body and another about the house, kind of the history of each, and both were very interesting
finding the 83 abstract during my first year of law school was mind bending and life changing. he changed the institution of baseball. too bad he turned into a kook who knows more about everything than anyone. crime? yes! politics? yes. foreign affairs? yes! everything else? yes! what a burden that must be. sad that he turned from someone working for players into a management stooge. more money in that, i guess. every player could disappear and it wouldn't matter, etc. i used to wonder why he used to keep living in a place like kansas. was apparent eventually.
Bill James totally belongs in the baseball Hall of Fame.
I think his real genius is ignoring bullshit. I think we all have varying levels of the extent to which our thoughts are shaped by other peoples thoughts and conventional wisdom. For Bill James this number is 0%. My favorite Bill James quote is (I am going from memory so I might not have it exact) “people who criticize anyone who dares to question conventional wisdom are in my opinion gutless conspirators in the mediocrity of the universe.” Kind of sums up the guys mindset don’t you think?
I’m surprised nobody has mentioned any of his other books. He wrote one book on popular crime, and another called the man from the train. The man from the train basically analyzes and maybe solves a bunch of murders by a serial murderer that happened around 1900. The book on popular crime just really tracks the history of popular crime and it’s reporting in America, with lots of Bill James’s musings on the criminal justice system mixed in. I found both of these fascinating. And the book on popular crime, in my opinion, describes (with attribution) the best explanation for the Kennedy assassination that I have heard or read. Both are well worth the time!
My own favorite Bill James quote, from a preview of the 1979 baseball season in Esquire:
"With Madlock at second, the Giants turned 118 double plays. Had it not been for the Houston Astros, this would have been the worst figure in baseball. The Astros second baseman -- using the term loosely -- is Art Howe. Last year Howe hit almost as well as Madlock and pivoted on the double play almost as well as Bobby Doerr. Doerr was one of the greatest pivot men ever, but he is now 61 years old; he gave up the game some years ago, when he began to pivot like Art Howe."
I got my first Baseball Abstract in 1981, the year before they were published as books, and it was a revelation to me. I had been putting forth the opinion that teams bunted too much, that the success rate of steals in the league (about 65%) actually cost runs instead of gaining them, and that fans an teams focused on batting average too much, and not giving some with lower averages credit for their walks and extra base hits and had mostly been scoffed at. Here was someone else questioning some of the same things I was, and other things as well. Without the internet and stuff, it was pretty easy then to feel as if you were the only person who thought a certain way.
Without people like James and Pete Palmer, there probably would never have been people like Tom Tango and Nate Silver and whoever else you can think of that changed the way we analyze the game. I am pretty damned sure that all of those people were inspired in part by one of those two men's curiosity. Teams might still be bunting all of the time or just going by batting average to decide how a player's value.
The thing I enjoy about James is that he has never lost that curiosity. He still questions things. It seems like some places now (Fangraphs for one) seem to be more interested in trying to say their views are the correct ones and that metrics they invented are better because they invented them, rather than still being curious.
I do think James should be in the Hall of Fame. He changed an entire generation and is the Godfather of every sabermetrician (a term I believe James invented) since. He also left one little baseball junkie feeling a little less weird and realize he was not the only person who thought that way.
Excellent piece! I loved Bill James. Definitely HOF. And yes, I could see ballplayers in my mind with certain statistics (.296, 13 triples) that fans today cannot see. Every player now has the same statistics: 20 HR, 62 RBI, .234 AVG. My only gripe is that I got on the subway and paid money every time Nolan Ryan came to town. Yes, he didn't seem to bring the crowds, but he brought the people willing to pay to watch the pitiful Angels. He and Koufax were the only pitchers I ever saw who could amaze me pitch by pitch. Their stuff just looked different from other pitchers'. Again, all pitchers now look the same. Pretty much the same abbreviated delivery, same bendy, twisty stuff around the edges, same stats. I wonder what he'd make of the game today. What I would give for a 2023 Baseball Abstract!
Grew up in NW Missouri in the 1980s. Because the Royals were only 16 (like me) in 1985, there were still a lot of people who were Cardinals fans in that part of the state, especially older people, many of whom seemed to teach in my hometown. Therefore, there was a lot of partisan interest in the 1985 WS at my HS and while we Royals fans got to gloat about winning, the usual response was "Don Denkinger". I felt strongly enough about the topic that the next fall my Senior English thesis was entitled "Why the Royals Deserved to Win the 1985 World Series". I can tell you I used Mr. James' 1986 Baseball Abstract as a significant Source in making my arguments. I got an A too (although I am pretty sure my English teacher was a Royals fan so that helped)
I have always felt strongly that the Royals would have one without that call. The only out of the inning was on the runner that was called safe on that play, when he failed to break from second on a bunt attempt and was thrown out at third. The Cards only scored one run (the one they were trying to make hold up) the last 26 innings of the series, and the Royals, even with that out, tie the game at the very least, with chances to win it. (Also winning if it went to extras, as the Cards never scored again)
The Cards blew the series because the last 26 innings of the series they hit .146/.189/.146 those last 26 innings and had 3 of those very few runners erased on the basepaths. That is less than the OPS of NL pitchers that year. The Royals score 3 in the 2nd inning of game 5, and then the Cards were shut down (or just quit?) the rest of the way. From that moment on, the Royals pitchers had an ERA of 0.35 and a WHIP of 0.69. I don't think there has been an ending to a Series with the team up like they were that is such an example of pitching dominance (or perhaps a hitter chokefest?) in MLB history.
So yeah, they deserved to win. Cardinal fans like to print the legend and ignore the facts. If I had $20 for every Cards fan that insisted there were 2 outs (instead of zero) when the play happened or that somehow Orta scored the tying or winning runs, I would be retired right now.
Also, of course, it was only the 2nd worst call of the game. The first one, earlier in the game, cost the Royals a run.
I always argued that Charlie got squeezed by the ump in the 9th inning of game 2 as well, although why Howser didn't have Quiz in the game at that point is beyond me.
1955 Cadaco All-Star Baseball Game was the year of the game I had. Not exactly sabremetrics, but introduced me to lots of classic names in baseball.
There's so many things I could point to that I've learned from Bill James, but one that always sticks with me is when he invented a new ranking system (not sure what it was, maybe win shares, it doesn't matter) he said you can tell its a good list if about 80-90% is what you'd expect. If it's 50% a surprise it's no good, and if there's no surprise it's pointless. I use this as a guide in my job now when I have to rank projects and it's always done well for me.
I am going to incorporate this into my life
My mom, who came from the UK in her 20s having never seen a baseball, was encouraged to get into the sport by my dad, who wanted their kids to grow up fans. The thing that made it click for her was Bill James's book. I still remember as a kid finding the idea of coming to love the sport through a massive tome, maybe the biggest book I'd seen to that point, utterly ridiculous. But it worked, and she became a lifelong baseball fan, still following years later, long after the kids left home and my parents divorced. So certainly always glad for some extra Bill James love.
By Bill James's book I assume you mean the Historical Baseball Abstract? That is indeed a great one, but he's written a few others, including a 2nd version of the HBA that was largely new material.
Bill revolutionized the game. He belongs in the HOF. I have virtually everyone of his Baseball Abstracts outside of the mimeographed ones! There may have been better analysts to come along from what he created, but no one asked better questions, forcing us to look at the game differently.
As a Yankee fan and a baseball fan it was a sad day when the Red Sox hired him. Not because he helped the Red Sox, but because much of his work became proprietary and went behind the Red Sox “firewall,” and baseball fans no longer had access to his unique views, his research, and the resulting questions he would make us ask.
Hw changes the way all of us think and the way front offices operate. Give him his own wing.
A superb article by my favourite writer about my favourite writer.
Reading this (again) and half way through I picked up my old copy of "This Time Let's Not Eat the Bones" (again) and here I go, diving into some great old writing!
Thanks for re-posting. Reminds me of the early BASIC programming days; numeric logic could be applied to EVERYTHING. So we thought. Hadn’t recalled James’ comments about TV screen size. Have long felt similar, though in my mind, the jumbotrons. Without them? People watch what’s happening in the field. With them? Every player flashed is described as an HP12 outcome. By time viewers roll through the numbers & eyes return to the field, a different batter is up, and process starts over again*. One of the great parts about scoring games; one’s eyes stay on the field.
What a wonderful evocation of Bill James.
And I am reminded of my idol and a hero of Joe's, who I used to refer to on Facebook as The Vin, because, well, he's that eminent and always will be. He said that too many people use statistics the way a drunk uses a lamppost: for support rather than illumination. And while I think some have taken the analytics too far (Hell-oooo, Andrew Friedman, please let Dave Roberts keep in a pitcher to face the order for the third time--sometimes it works), they have improved the game in a lot of ways.
And I am reminded of an old friend of then-Young Scully, a statistician Branch Rickey hired; Allan Roth. Bill James didn't do quite what he did, but he's worth remembering.
The extent of James's innovation is astonishing. Most younger fans, at least those whose reading and sabermetric interest is not of the most extreme degree, really have no idea. I don't understand "detractors" looking at the sum of it. He is my hero, and I totally understand disillusionment as you grow older with your heroes. It's easy to forget everyone is a man. But James developed the whole taxonomy for study of the sport. Where do think the maximum three throws to first comes from, for instance? His contributions are mind-boggling.
Thanks for sharing these stories from your vault, Joe. I feel the same sort of nostalgic joy reading you as I do reading Bill Bryson, with the main difference being that he swears like a sailor and you don't curse at all (Maybe only if you stub your toe?). Bill James was a welcome addition to my beloved Red Sox, and very deserving of those WS rings.
I am also a Bill Bryson fan. A Walk in the Woods is a classic. He has also written one book about the human body and another about the house, kind of the history of each, and both were very interesting