Bill James Bio?

Interesting James response to Tom Tango today:

"There are critical problems with WAR that you have never acknowledged and the public is completely unaware of, but this is probably not the optimum place to try to discuss them. I'd like, if we can find the time, for the two of us to have an extended discussion of the issues, perhaps to be published as a short book."

"...and the public is completely unaware of" made me laugh--it's like the Kennedy assassination, the truth is being held back--but I would read that book.

"No, I definitely do not think that Trout takes too many walks. Mickey Mantle walked a lot more than Trout does, and as I recall the Yankees did win a championship or two despite this handicap"--that's how you handle an awkward question. (I'm going to refrain from calling it a dumb question, because the guy very carefully explained what he meant.)

"Asking MLB and the players to sit down together and work out a solution to baseball's problems is kind of like asking John Dillinger and Machine Gun Kelly to sit down face to face and work out a solution to the bank robbery problem."

Try again Bill

I thought that was a pretty good analogy.

James took one of my "Hey Bills" and turned it into a piece he posted today (mentioning me by name). That's it; life can't show me anything more.

https://www.billjamesonline.com/vagabonds_and_homebodies/

whoa!

following on clemenza/bill james' "one team" hall of fame methodology, there was a fun post on a cardinals blog applying the same thing to cardinals players to see how much they were associated with the Cardinals vs other teams:

https://www.vivaelbirdos.com/2022/1/21/22883532/how-much-of-a-cardinal-were-the-best-cardinals

Bill James recently took a look at the importance of being associated with one team for Hall of Fame candidates. The idea is that players who accrue most of their value for one team, or mostly for one team, have an easier time making the Hall of Fame than players who accrue their value for multiple teams. If you’d like an imperfect example, Gary Sheffield had 62.1 career fWAR, but he had 12 or more for three different teams, and 6 or more for five different teams. By contrast, Willie Stargell had 62.9 fWAR, all with the Pittsburgh Pirates. James’ research compared those two types of players and all others in the gray area. James found that players with mutliple team associations had a much harder time getting into the Hall of Fame. That’s fascinating... and it’s also not what I want to talk about today. In his process, he developed a fun little tool to determine what percentage a player was associated with a specific team. I thought it would be fun to apply that process to various St. Louis Cardinals and determine how “Cardinal-y” they were.

First, here is James’ methodology:

Suppose that a player has 10 Win Shares (or 10 WAR, or 10 games played, or 10 RBI, or 10 homers; it doesn’t much matter.) Suppose he has 10, and all 10 are with one team. Then his “one team percentage” is 100%.

(10 ^ 2) / (10 ^ 2) = 100 / 100 = 1.000

Suppose that he plays for two teams and has five Win Shares for each team; then his “one team percentage” is 50%:

[(5 ^ 2) + (5 ^ 2)] / (10 ^ 2) = (25 + 25) / 100 = 50/100 = .500

Suppose that he plays for three teams, and has four Win Shares for each team; then is “one team percentage” is 33.33%:

[(4 ^ 2) + (4 ^ 2) + (4 ^ 2)] / (12 ^ 2) = (16 + 16 + 16) / 144 = 48/144 = .33333333

then they apply this to various cardinal players. some interesting ones:

Albert Pujols, 99.57% (almost completely associated with the cardinals despite a decade with the angels)
Ozzie Smith, 98.17%
Willie McGee, 92.53%
Jim Edmonds, 82.12%
Matt Holliday, 63.10%
Keith Hernandez, 62.59%
Terry Pendleton, 54.37%
J.D. Drew, 51.99%
Scott Rolen, 43.40%
Joe Torre, 34.55%
Curt Simmons, 26.23%
Mark McGwire, 19.71%
Steve Carlton, 7.26%
Johnny Mize, 65.79%

etc. fun exercise, and it would be fun to see for other players and teams, too

uh, also the author of the post and various commenters are not sure if they used the formula right. lol. sorry. it's a vox run blog, they get paid like $2/article and online mattress promo codes, the standards are low

"Yeah, I borked it. Full disclosure."

welp. if a mod wants to remove the last 3 posts (including this one) that's fine with me.

First thing I noticed was McGwire at 20%; at the very least 50/50 with Oakland, but I suspect he's much more identified with the Cardinals at this point.

bash bros 4ever

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FL6Z7x1WUAIisif.jpg

welp

Obviously Bill "learned" a few things working in management with Boston for 10-plus years.

Answering a "Hey Bill" about Dale Murphy:

"But the problem is that they are very weak MVP seasons. It was just a league in which no one had a season which meets the normal standard of an MVP season. Somebody had to win it, and they picked Murphy, which is fine, but if Mickey Mantle had ever had a season like that, the Yankees would have panicked, or the same with Steve Trout."

Not sure if that's a joke or an old-guy mistake.

Maybe he meant Mike Carp.

In case you were wondering.

I don't know if I have written this, but I categorize Hall of Fame candidates in one of 5 groups.

Group 1 is the inner-circle, automatic-unless-there's-a-scandal Hall of Famer--Willie Mays, Mike Schmidt, Roger Clemens or Mike Trout.

Group 2 is a player who is above the normal standard of a Hall of Fame player--Al Kaline, Roberto Clemente, Harry Heilmann, Charlie Gehringer, Johnny Bench.

Group 3 is a this-type-of-guy-is-normally elected to the Hall of Fame--Duke Snider, Early Wynn, Willie McCovey, Billy Williams, Ferguson Jenkins.

Group 4 is the players-of-this-caliber are not usually Hall of Famers, but sometimes they get lucky group...Catfish Hunter, Luis Tiant, Gil Hodges, Tony Perez, Orlando Cepeda, Jack Clark, Willie Randolph, Harold Baines.

Group 5 is players who clearly should NOT be in the Hall of Fame, even though some have been selected...Travis Jackson, Chick Hafey, Rick Ferrell, Addie Joss, Lee Smith, Matt Kemp, Ernie Lombardi, Vic Wertz, Bill Mazeroski, Doc Cramer, Mark Buehrle, etc.

"The Searchers is not one of the 25 best John Wayne movies, probably not one of the 50 best."

I really wish he'd add an "If you ask me" or an "I know I'm alone on this" to that, something to make it sound less like an assertion of fact. Just not his nature.

lol

you should absolutely demand that he list the first 25 tho

He's also oblivious to the film's history. "It's an almost unwatchable movie much admired by pretentious twits who base their opinions on what the critics tell them." The Searchers would have been totally ignored by whatever pretentious twits walked the earth in 1956--that's not the path it took to its present-day stature.

Not behind the paywall, I don't think.

https://www.billjamesonline.com/the_great_player_of_year_x/

How to save yourself the cost of hiring someone to poll your demographics:

The first player you clearly remember seeing (live or on TV) was a contemporary of:

(If you're too young to remember any, please choose 4th group. Thank you.)

— Bill James Online (@billjamesonline) January 17, 2023

No votes for Old Hoss Radbourn.

Twitter poll I find funny:

Who do you want to bring back to television?

— Bill James Online (@billjamesonline) April 25, 2023

Tweet the other day: "If the Yankee fans somehow get Munson into the Hall of Fame, then we DEFINITELY should get Varitek in." (Followed later by "I'm signing off Twitter for the day. Those of you who wish to contribute to the barrage of personal insults following the Thurman Munson jokes will have to wait until tomorrow until I can block you.")

He has this weird hate-on for Munson. I looked at the two of them, Munson and Varitek--if he wasn't joking, and I'm pretty sure he wasn't, I don't see the comparison. They had almost the same number of career PA, and it's hard to find anywhere where Munson wasn't clearly superior, even with the shortened career. Admittedly, he was starting to decline the year of the plane crash, so his career rate stats almost certainly would have been less impressive had he played to 39 like Varitek, but what happened happened.

Wonder how he feels about Posey

I know he was running a Twitter poll the other day on Posey vs. Mauer, and he made some comment about them both being great players. There was a lot of commentary about the numerous Posey/Munson similarities when Posey retired, so, to my mind, there's some inconsistency there (i.e., of course agree with him about Posey, but don't see why he doesn't grant the same to Munson).

Thought this bump was going to be about this.

The only thing I will concede about Thurman Munson is that he was probably a better baseball player than he was a pilot.

Note that I said "probably".

— Bill James Online (@billjamesonline) May 23, 2023

Terrible, I agree. I defend him about lots, and he'll always be one of the key influences on me, but that's indefensible--I think he was really taken to task for it, and, as per his follow-up, got really defensive and snippy--and his inability to see how good a player Munson was is perplexing.

Damn:

https://www.billjamesonline.com/a_sunset_over_the_hill/

I complain lots about the way he conducts himself with readers--he recently shot down a Manoah-related question I sent in (not too pointedly, actually)--but knowing I could send in a question any time and count on most of them being answered, that was great. And I liked his right-hand guy, Dave Fleming, a lot.

If a couple of good books come out of this, that'll at least be something.

I found gyac's home/road thing with the Rays really interesting, so--possibly the last time I'll ever do this--I sent in a "Hey Bill."

Bill -- I will miss this...Someone on a message board today noticed the Rays' extreme home/road split, wondering if that was unusual. So I looked into it: it would seem so for teams this good. All post-war teams that have won 108 games or more, with their home/road winning percentages:

(same data as above)

I guess the question is, is this just a meaningless blip, or does it suggest some flukiness to the Rays that will catch up to them?
Asked by: Phil Dellio

Answered: 6/15/2023
There is not space left in the season that you would PREDICT it would catch up with them. Odds are it will flatten out a little bit.

Not 100% sure, but I take his answer to mean that he also thinks their home/road record will converge a bit as the season goes on.

Posnanski wrote about James pulling the plug the other day--paywall, so I put it on a Google Doc if you're interested.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GrfQNWNZm8OiGb3-iu-lwBL-0N7slYCSuTJyasxTsiM/edit?usp=sharing

You may argue for Lou Whitaker for the Hall of Fame, but you have to admit that Robinson Cano...
Asked by: JackKeefe

Answered: 6/30/2023
I think we're done here.

(... = I'm cutting the rest of what you say)

Will miss "Hey Bill" a lot. I won't miss that.

If Justin Verlander wins 300 games, how long will it be before someone says that no one else will ever do it?

— Bill James Online (@billjamesonline) July 3, 2023

Based on past history, that's funny. But 1) I'd give Verlander about a 1% chance of winning 300, and 2) they'd probably be right this time anyway (barring drastic and unforeseen changes in the game, which, in fairness, is implicit in James's tweet--he's always writing that it's a mistake to assume that what's true now will continue to be true down the road).

Quite likely my last "Hey Bill" (site shuts down next month):

Bill - Thanks for answering my many questions over the years (117 by my count--I went through and saved them). One more before you go.

What I am I missing with Rougned Odor--meaning, how does he keep a job? His batting averages the last five seasons (working backwards) have been .203, .207, .202, .167, .205. In fairness, the first of those seasons he hit 30 HR, and he was in double figures the next three seasons (but probably not this year). He doesn't appear to be an outstanding fielder, he strikes out a lot and doesn't walk much, and he doesn't steal bases anymore. Does he have a reputation as the greatest clubhouse guy in the world?

I may be a little biased here as a Jays fan who remembers his dust-up with Bautista.
Asked by: Phil Dellio

Answered: 8/21/2023
Juan Samuel syndrome. Juan Samuel was kind of a sensation when he first came up, very young, a second baseman, extremely fast. He was perceived as a potential superstar in the building.

He struck out a lot, couldn't actually play second base (or any other position) very well, and he didn't get better. His weaknesses kind of swallowed him up, but it took a long time for the league to come to grips with what had happened to him. He was still a "great athlete," still had star potential. It took a long time for EVERYBODY to accept that this is just what he is. No matter where you put him, there is some reason that it doesn't work.

Assume that was supposed to be "budding," not "building." Anyway, signing off on the Juan Samuel Rule. (Weirdly, I think James once wrote about Juan Samuel in one of the Abstracts in terms of what he called the Walter Matthau Rule--as in, "For everything he brings to a team, what exactly do you do with him?" That was early in Samuel's career, when he was still piling up some impressive bulk numbers.

Juan Samuel was definitely an exciting player, and it's hard to dismiss a young guy who puts up 30+ doubles, mid to high teens in terms of triples, and the same for HRs. Not to mention 40-70 SBs. His rookie year was truly eye-popping, even w/the lack of walks. It was good enough that he actually landed a single first place ROY vote in a year when the runaway winner with all the other top votes was Dwight Gooden. I also recall some favorable comps to NL MVP Ryne Sandberg; i think that mostly boiled down to the impressive fact they tied for the league lead with 19 triples.

After his 1987 season, it looked like he was going to break through into superstar level, but he never improved and only had a couple more full-time seasons. from '84-'87 i would say he was definitely valuable at the plate, but he was vv memorable as a disappointment thereafter.

Great answer from Bill. Jay Bruce also comes to mind. He was good for many years (but not the superstar that everyone thought he would be) but still got chances from several teams even though he declined rapidly in his 30's.

Early Juan Samuel: a potential superstar in the building
After six or seven seasons: Juan Samuel has left the building

I'd like to nominate Angel Hernandez to be the next Speaker of the House. Just anything to get him off the baseball field. . . .

— Bill James Online (@billjamesonline) October 4, 2023

Bill James, despite his faults, does pop out some all time tweets

Now that his site's closing down, I'll probably have to do something I've never done before, follow somebody on Twitter.

Noooo, it's a trap!

I was thinking that Angel Hernandez must be the most unifying force in baseball.

There’s several Jomboy videos about him, there’s one with Kyle Schwarber absolutely losing it at him and getting (deservedly) tossed, and then the Phillies manager is out there trying to put a diplomatic face on it. Incredible guy.

lol I'd take Ángel Hernández over Jim Jordan or Steve Scalise as Speaker any day

Win-win, as the saying goes.

The site is lingering longer than it was supposed to, but nothing new has been posted for a while. The starting pitcher rankings seem to have been updated, though, right through to the end of the World Series going by Merrill Kelly's placement. Last one ever, then:

http://www.billjamesonline.com/polls_ratings/starting_pitcher_rankings/

1. Gerrit Cole
2. Zack Wheeler
3. Blake Snell
4. Corbin Burnes
5. Merrill Kelly
6. Zac Gallen
7. Spencer Strider
8. Shohei Ohtani
9. Justin Verlander
10. Logan Webb

First I've heard about this:

About a week ago I suffered a stroke. I am more or less OK. I am not in ANY pain. I can walk normally and take care of myself, but my right hand is messed up and interferes with my ability to do things like tweet. Thank you all for your support.

— Bill James Online (@billjamesonline) January 26, 2024