BJOL articles, part 2

These are articles published on BJOL between 2012 and 2015, best read from the bottom up.

The Contacct Theory and the Power Theory

By Bill James

January 21, 2016

 The Contact Theory and the Power Theory

           Let me point out to you something quite remarkable about the 2015 Baseball Season.  In 2015 there were five major league players who hit 40 or more homers, but drove in less than 100 runs: 

           In all of baseball history up through 2014 there are only 16 such seasons, now 21, and in no other season before 2015 are there more than two such players.   Two of the 2015 players (Trout and Pujols) were teammates.  This is only the second time in history that teammates have done this, and one of those (Trout) tied the major league record for fewest runs driven in by a player hitting 40 or more homers.  

           Players began hitting 40 home runs in a season in 1920, and thirteen players had done so by the end of the 1920s.  It was actually six different players; Babe Ruth by the end of the 1920s had done it eight times, and five other players had each done it once.   Anyway, all 13 of those players who hit 40 homers had also driven in 100 runs.  Eighteen more players hit 40 home runs in the 1930s; all of those drove in 100 runs.  Nine more players hit 40 homers in the 1940s, and all of those drove in 100 runs.  Twenty-three players hit 40 homers from 1950 through 1956, and all of those drove in 100 runs.  

           The first player to hit 40 homers and NOT drive in 100 runs was Duke Snider in 1957.  Snider, who had driven in 125+ runs in 1953, 1954 and 1955, dropped below a hundred in 1957 because (a) he missed some playing time with a bad back, (b) he hit just .236 with runners in scoring position, and (c) the other team walked him a great many times when there were runners in scoring position.  The Dodger offense had a poor season.  Campanella, Pee Wee Reese and Carl Furillo, all of whom were old—all of them were at least five years older than Snider—had poor seasons, and Dodger leadoff man Jr. Gilliam, who had hit .300 with a .399 on base percentage the previous season, slipped to .250 and .323.  That made it easy to pitch around Snider, and everybody did.  

           Long before Snider, however, 40-homer men were losing RBI.  Forty-homer men in the 1920s averaged 146 RBI.   In the 1930s they averaged 163 RBI; eighteen players in the group, Hack Wilson drove in 191, Gehrig 184, 174 and 165, Greenberg 183, Foxx 175, 169 and 163, Chuck Klein 170, and DiMaggio 167  

           In the 1940s forty-homer men averaged 135 RBI.  In the early 1950s (1950-1956) they averaged 119 RBI.   In the 1930s 40-homer men averaged 163 RBI; from 1940 to 1956 not one 40-homer man drove in 163 runs, although that might be obvious, because from 1940 to 1998 no PLAYER drive in 163 runs.  The only player to drive in that many runs since 1938 is Manny Ramirez in 1999.  

           Anyway, the RBI totals of 40-homer men were dropping by 1950, and several players before Snider had come close to hitting 40 homers with fewer than 100 RBI.  It was inevitably going to happen, and after Snider it became something that would happen every few years.  Mickey Mantle hit 40 homers without driving in 100 runs in 1958 and again in 1960.  Killebrew did it in 1963, and then Henry Aaron and Rico Petrocelli both did it in 1969.  In 1973 Henry Aaron and Davey Johnson did it as teammates, the only teammates to do so before Trout and Pujols last year.  

           One might suppose that a player who hits 40 home runs but fails to drive in 100 runs would be a low-average slugger, and this is not absolutely false but it is not a reliable general truth, either.  Of the 21 players who have hit 40 homers but failed to drive in 100 runs, seven hit .300 or better, and two more hit .299 and .297.   Bryce Harper is on the list; he hit .330 last year.  

           The players hitting 40 homers and failing to drive in 100 runs have more to do with the disappearance of table-setters than with low batting averages.   

           This has to do with the disappearance and re-appearance of Triple Crown candidates, and that has to do with the dis-integration of unified batting skills, and their re-integration at the opposite end of the scale.    This is a complicated story, but stay with me; you can do it.  

           Before Babe Ruth, hitting long fly balls was considered to be a sucker’s game, because the balls would hang in the air and someone would run under them and catch them.  Ruth demonstrated that that was not an absolute truth.  If you hit the ball far enough, nobody would be able to get to it 40 or 50 times a year, and that made the gamble of hitting long fly balls worthwhile.

           Baseball before Babe Ruth had been a game of speed, quickness and agility.   After Babe Ruth it became a game of power, speed, quickness and agility.  I am speaking in absolute terms about things that are not absolutes, of course, and one of the things I am leaving out is that there had been an earlier era, the Cap Anson era, in which baseball had put a premium on strength.  But Babe Ruth at 6-foot-2 and Ty Cobb at 6-foot-1 or 6-2 had been considered physical marvels, in that they were big men who had the quickness and agility of smaller men.  

           Once Ruth established so clearly that power had value in the game, baseball began looking for other big, strong men.   But if you go back to the 1920s and 1930s, you will find that very often the best hitters are also the best power hitters. The reason this is true is that the theory of hitting the ball hard in the air hadn’t yet swept the game.

           Yes, men are bigger now than they use to be, but that’s not ALL of that story.  Two things have happened there, I think: 1) Men have gotten bigger, and 2) Baseball players have gotten bigger relative to the rest of the population.  I should check that out and I will, but that’s another story; as of now, that’s what I think. 

           If you look back to the 1930s, there were only one or two power hitters per team—at most.  Most good hitters concentrated on putting the ball in play—the Contact theory.  In the 1920s there were 91 players with 400 or more plate appearances who hit .300 or better but with isolated power less than .100.  In the 1930s this number dropped to 69; in the 1940s it dropped to 40.  In the 1950s it dropped to 33; in the 1960s, to 18.  

           The Dee Gordon/Jose Iglesias type of player.  The player who hits for a good average but without power.  In the 1970s these players re-entered baseball, the number shooting back up from 18 to 54.  This was primarily because of artificial turf.  Artificial turf was believed to put a premium on speed, and this brought back into the game a flood of players of the Curt Flood type.      But since the 1970s, these numbers have declined again.  In this decade—and we are 60% of the way through this decade--there have been only 12 such players.  We may have fewer in this decade that in any other decade in history.

           The thing is, now everybody is trying to hit the ball hard, and almost everybody is trying to hit it in the air.  I would put it this way: That there are two theories of hitting, the "contact" theory and the "bat speed" theory.  In 1915 100% of baseball players believed in the "contact" theory.  In 1925 90% of baseball players believed in the "contact" theory, 10% in the "power" theory.  By 1935 it was 80-20, by 1945 70-30, by 1955 60-40, by 1965 50-50, etc.  We have now reached the point at which 100% of the baseball playing population believes in the bat speed theory, rather than the contact theory.

           Of course that is an oversimplification, and of course it is not 100% true, but it is generally true.  But what you notice is that there is a separation of the players, and then there is a re-unification on the other end of the scale.  In 1915 the players were 100% unified, and now they are again, but whereas in 1915 they were all contact hitters, now they are all hitting for power.  Or trying to.

Bat Speed and Bat Quickness

           This is a continuation of the same concept; I’m just going in a little different direction. In my old gray head there are two distinct concepts, which are bat speed and bat quickness.  Bat speed means "how fast is the bat going when it makes contact with the ball?"  Quickness means "how long does it take the hitter to get the bat where it needs to be?"

           These two are not only not the same thing; they actually work at cross-purposes for most players.  If you are going for bat speed, you tend to use a longer stroke.  Momentum gathers as the swing progresses.   If you are trying to bring the bat into the contact zone as quickly as possible, you may get there without a lot of momentum. 

           But while I make this distinction in my own mind, most people do not. I hear the term "bat speed" many, many times in discussing young players. Between you and me, I don’t believe at all in Bat Speed.   I believe in Bat Quickness. To me, if a player has a lot of bat speed, that’s a negative.  That means he is going to strike out.  Unless he is going to hit 30 homers a year, I don’t want him.  

           There are a few players, like Gary Sheffield and John Kruk, who have both quick bats and bat speed.  Andrew McCutchen is the best example of that right now; he generates a tremendous amount of bat speed in a millisecond.  Brett was like that, and Kyle Schwarber looks like he generates a great amount of bat speed with a very late reaction to the pitch.  Jim Thome did.  Kevin Millar did. But guys like Derek Jeter, Ichiro Suzuki, Rod Carew, Tony Gwynn . .they don’t have fast bats.  They have slow, slow, slow bats.  Ichiro, although occasionally he will turn on a pitch, has the slowest bat of any player since Juan Pierre.  Quick, but slow.  The problem is that "slow" is the opposite of both quick and fast, and quick and fast don’t mean the same thing at all when it comes to swinging a bat. 

           The thing is, there is a minimal advantage to hitting the ball hard—unless you’re going to hit it up against the fence or over it.  Of course a hard-hit ball is better than a weakly hit ball—a little better—but centering the bat on the ball 55% of the time is a whole lot better than hitting the ball hard 40% of the time. 

           From 1900 to 1909, hitters with 400 or more plate appearances in the season averaged 1.31 bases per hit.  In the 1920s this was up to 1.42; in the 1940s, it was up to 1.45.  By the 1960s it was up to 1.54; by the 1990s, 1.58.  In the last decade it was up to 1.62.  It’s down a little in this decade because of the banning of steroids, but not really down; in historic terms it is still going up:

           In this decade the bases per hit of regular players are down from 1.62 to 1.59—2%--but the batting average is down from .278 to .268, which is more like 4%.  

The Iterative Effect

           I made this point 40 years ago; if I had copies of my old books I would look up the exact quote.  Suppose that you have a lineup in which every player hits .270 with 10 homers and creates 70 runs.   Suppose that you can substitute for one of those players with a player who hits .270 but with 35 home runs.  That might add to the team 30, 35 runs.   

           Go back to the lineup with nine guys who hit .270 with 10 homers.  Suppose that instead of adding power, you add a .300 hitter, a guy who hits .300 but with 10 homers.  That’s not going to add as many runs to your lineup as adding the power hitter.  It will probably improve you by 20, 25 runs, whereas the power hitter would probably add 30, 35. 

           However, the second time you make the substitution for a power hitter, the second one adds fewer runs than the first one did.  The third power hitter that you add to the lineup adds fewer runs than the second, and the fourth adds fewer than the third.

           With a high average hitter, though, the opposite applies.  Adding a second .300 hitter adds more runs than adding the first one; adding a third .300 hitter adds more runs than the second one.  

           The reason this is true is that the power hitter is maximizing your ability to capitalize on opportunities, but is diminishing the number of opportunities that remain.  Because there are fewer opportunities left, fewer men left on base to drive in, each additional power hitter has fewer opportunities to work with.  But the .300 hitter is increasing both the number of opportunities, and the rate at which the team will capitalize on its opportunities.   The more of those guys you add, the better. 

           I made this point 40 years ago, but in a very different context.  Forty years ago I was talking about Greg Luzinski against Rod Carew, Dave Parker against Pete Rose, Jim Rice against Lou Brock.  The thing is, there aren’t any Rod Carews anymore; everybody now wants to be Jim Rice or Dave Parker.  

           So the question is, have we gone too far? Have we moved to the Land of Diminishing Returns?

           Well, I certainly believe that we have. When you start stacking up 40-homer men who drive in less than 100 runs each, you’ve gone too far.  

           When the defense start shifting against you and you can’t defeat it with the bunt or by just making late contact to roll the ball the other way, you’ve gone too far.  

           We have gone too far.

           I am asked sometimes, "What is the undervalued skill in baseball today? What is the thing that teams don’t value properly, in 2016 major league baseball?"  It’s this.  It’s contact hitting.  That’s what I believe.  

​

Bottom of Form

The Three Man Starting Rotation

By Bill James

November 20, 2015

 The Three-Man Starting Rotation

           It is entirely possible and entirely practical, in modern baseball, for a team to use a three-man starting rotation.  I realize that this is probably not going to happen, but. . this is how it could work, and this is why it would work.

           Suppose that a team used a three-man starting rotation, but limited each pitcher to 80 pitches a start or five innings.  (This actually would work with 90 pitches a start, but 80 is more conservative, so I’m going to use 80 as a working premise.) Anyway, a starting pitcher always and absolutely comes out of the game as soon as

           1) He has pitched five innings, or

           2) He has thrown 80 pitches.

           No exceptions.  Eighty pitches, it’s the fifth inning, you’re ahead 9-0 and you have two outs and two strikes on the hitter. ..tough luck, Sally, you should have thrown more strikes earlier in the game.   

           OK, let’s assume that.  The pitcher pitches no more than 5 innings in any start, and throws no more than 80 pitches. How much could such a pitcher pitch, in a season?

           In theory, such a pitcher could make as many as 54 starts in a season and pitch as many as 270 innings, but in practice this would never happen.   In order to reach 54 starts the pitcher would have to stay on the three-game schedule all year, and it’s difficult to imagine that happening.   The schedule would have to run perfectly, no rainouts and double headers, no disruptions from days off and the All Star break.  The pitcher would have to be 100% healthy all year, no stitch in the side, no flu or food poisoning, no blisters.  It is hard to imagine all of that happening.

           Since the pitcher will never pitch more than five innings in a start, in order to average 5 innings a start, he has to pitch five innings in every start.  Realistically, that is never going to happen. Most pitchers are going to have a good many starts or many starts in which they fail to get through five innings in 80 pitchers, and every pitcher is going to have at least some starts like that.  Most pitchers are going to give up 7 runs in the first three innings and get knocked out of the game once or twice a year, certainly given 50-some starts.  Realistically, a pitcher working in a three-man rotation would have an upper boundary of about 52 starts, 245 innings in a season.  

           That’s not a fantastic number, is it, 245 innings?   116 pitchers pitched 245 or more innings in a season in the 1950s, 189 in the 1960s, and 275 in the 1970s.   This went down to 134 (pitchers pitching 245 innings) in the 1980s, 46 in the 1990s, and 14 in the first decade of this century.  

           The thing is, though, that this decrease in pitchers pitching 245 or more innings has not been accompanied by any obvious decrease in starting pitcher injuries.  

           Study here. . .this is a new study; I have done ones like it before.  Not only has this decrease in innings pitched by starting pitchers not led to an obvious improvement in pitchers’ health, but the number of pitchers who are able to stay in rotation from season to season has actually decreased measurably.  

           If you look at the 100 pitchers pitching the most innings in the years 1970 to 1975, those 100 pitchers pitched an average of 297 innings each—what seems to us now like a fantastic workload.  Yet, despite pitching 297 innings each, 96 of those 100 pitchers were still in the starting rotation (pitching 150 or more innings) in the following season, 87 in the second following season, and 76 in the third following season.  68 of the 100 were still in the starting rotation four years later, 61 were still in rotation five years later, 45 were still in rotation six years later, and 37 were still in rotation seven years later.  (The six and seven-year figures are slightly depressed by the 1981 strike, and should be slightly higher, but never mind.)

           If you look at the 100 pitchers pitching the most innings in the years 2000 to 2005, those pitchers pitched an average of only 231 innings—yet the numbers of those pitchers staying in rotation one year later, two years later, three years later, etc. are actually much lower than in the parallel study for 1970-1975:

           I understand, of course, that many things have changed in this time period, other than just the workloads of the starting pitchers, but there is no question that there is an increase in mid-career injuries to good starting pitchers in this time period (Dontrelle Willis, Brandon Webb, Mark Mulder, Johan Santana, Carl Pavano) rather than a decrease.   

           The decrease in starting pitcher workloads has occurred in three stages.   First, in the years 1974 to 1985, teams changed from four-man to five-man starting rotations.  (The Cardinals were using a five-man starting rotation in the late 1960s, but this did not start the trend. The trend started in the mid-1970s). 

           Second, pitch limits were put into place in the mid- and late 1980s, when STATS began counting the number of pitches in every game and putting this in their box scores.  There was a period about 1990 when virtually every box score published in any newspaper came directly or indirectly from STATS (perhaps literally every box score.  We were not aware of any exception.   Some newspapers were purchasing their box scores from other sources, but those sources were getting their information from STATS. Certainly all of the wire services were getting their data from us.  Some local newspaper may have persisted in creating their own box scores.) STATS made pitch counts available as a part of their package, and many newspapers published them.  

           Managers would be criticized whenever pitchers had very high pitch counts, and this led to the adoption of pitch limits by starting pitchers.   Craig Wright’s research on pitcher injuries was critical to this process.

           Third, from 1990 to approximately 2008, perhaps continuing to the present day, pitch limits were walked backward to lower and lower numbers.   I don’t have the book in front of me, but my memory is that Craig’s 1987 book, The Diamond Appraised, argued that pitchers younger than 25 years of age should never throw more than 130 pitches in a game.  Other researchers in that era, picking up on Craig’s work, started figuring "pitcher abuse points" for longer starts, and this, along with expanding bullpens, caused the pitch limits to shrink from 130 to essentially 100 pitches.  The outrage of fans after Grady Little allowed an obviously tired Pedro Martinez to blow a lead in the 2003 ALCS also contributed to that process.  

           So three stages:

           1) Switch from the four-man to five-man rotation (1974 to 1985),

           2) Imposition of starting pitcher limits (1986 to 1991),

           3) Pitch limits walked backward (1990 to 2008). 

           All of this was done in an effort to reduce injuries to starting pitchers, and not for any other reason.   Some people will argue NOW that this may not have reduced injuries, but it may have made starting pitchers more effective, but that’s an after-the-fact argument.   Doing these things has not, in fact, reduced starting pitcher injuries—and there is no actual evidence that a pitcher could not pitch 280, 300 innings in modern baseball without any increased risk of injuries.  

           There is evidence, and there is what we choose to believe based on the evidence.  This is what I believe.  I believe that the first stage of this process, the switch from four-man to five-man starting rotations, did nothing at all to reduce injuries, and that there was no reason at all to make that switch. Managers were reacting to a fear of injuring their pitchers by overworking them, but the first step they took to protect their pitchers had no protective value.  I believe that the second change (putting in place pitch limits) was absolutely necessary and appropriate, and I believe that the third change (reducing the pitch limits) may have been helpful in some cases.   

           And. . .what about the improvements in sports medicine and training that we hear so much about?  If sports medicine and training have improved so much, and pitchers are being handled so much more carefully than they were back in the bad old days of Tom Seaver and Nolan Ryan, why then have starting pitcher injuries not decreased? Doesn’t it seem obvious that they should have?

           Pitcher injuries have not decreased because we’re pursuing a chimera, a shibboleth, a mirage.   The way we use starting pitchers now is NOT, in fact, an effective way to keep them healthy and in rotation.   That is what I believe.

           But I am not arguing here for a return to pitchers pitching 300 innings in a season.  I’m arguing for a change in pattern that would put the top limit at about 245 innings in a season—actually not that far from where it is now.   

           But here’s the thing: starting pitchers would be pitching a few more innings, but in a pattern that reduces the stress load associated with those pitches.  

           It is universally accepted, I believe, that pitches thrown when a pitcher is tired are more likely to contribute to injury than pitches thrown when a pitcher is less tired.    Which exposes a pitcher to more injury risk: throwing 600 pitches in four starts (150, 150, 150, 150) or throwing 600 pitches in six starts (100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100).  Of course we believe that throwing 150 pitches in a start is more than proportionally stressful than throwing 100 pitches in a start, given that the number of pitches is equal.  That assumption is the foundation of the current structure, in which pitchers are taken out of the game at about the 100-pitch limit.

           Does it not follow, then, that a pitcher can pitch more innings in a season if the number of "fatigue pitches" is reduced?   Do you not believe that a pitcher has more fatigue in his arm at 100 pitches (heading into his last ten) than he would at 70 (heading into his last ten)?  If you do not believe that, why would you not believe that?  

           And if you believe that a pitcher has more fatigue at 100 pitches than he does at 70, then does it not follow that a pitcher can pitch more innings in a season if he never throws more than 70-80 pitches in a game, than if he throws 100 to 110 pitches in a game?  

           A pitcher working in a three-man starting rotation can pitch (a few) more innings in a season than pitchers now pitch, with no increase (and probably a decrease) in the risk of injury. I know that I’m out on an island here all by myself, but this is what I believe. 

           And, I will argue, there are other benefits that would flow to anyone who was bold enough to actually do this, other reasons why it is practical to do this.  First point:  the starting pitchers would come to love it. 

           It has been talked about forever, why not do away with starting pitchers, and just use each pitcher three innings at a time; it has been talked about forever, and actually tried a couple of times.  But one reason it does not work is that starting pitchers feel dispossessed.  The rules require you to pitch five innings to be credited with a win, but you can get a loss facing one batter.  Who wants that burden every time you go to the mound?  You make 70 starts of two innings each, you can finish the season 0-27 with a 2.50 ERA.   

           But in this system, a starting pitcher would have a relatively open pathway to twenty wins—and an outside possibility of winning thirty.  In 1974, when starting pitchers pitched more innings per game, starting pitchers accounted for 75% of pitcher wins; now, it is 70%.  With this structure we have to assume that that number would drop back a little bit further, but starting pitchers would still get the win in about 67% of games.   An average team wins 81 games, so that’s 54 wins for the starting pitchers on an average team.  There are three of them, so that’s 18 wins apiece—on an average team.

           Maybe not quite, but in this system there would be a great many pitchers who would go 16-17, 17-19, and 18-17.  The good pitchers are going to go 20-13, 21-11 and 22-14—records like Warren Spahn had every year.  And a good pitcher on a great team. . .well, the sky’s the limit.  

           Another advantage to this method would be that it structures the bullpen in such a way that one or two spots could be reclaimed for the bench.  In all of baseball history up to 1990 there were only 11 pitchers who pitched 50 or more games and averaged less than one inning per game. Now there are about 100 such pitchers per season, or three per team.

           This is not ENTIRELY necessary; a few of those pitchers could carry some actual innings.  With a three-man starting rotation, you could structure the staff this way:

           Starting Pitchers (3)

           Closer (1)

           8th Inning guy (1)

           6th-7th nning pitchers (3)

           Left-handers (2)

           That’s an 11-man staff, and I think that’s enough.   If the starting pitchers pitch a little less than five innings per start that be 760 innings per season, which leaves about 700 for the bullpen. With eight relievers that’s 88 innings per reliever.  That doesn’t strike me as an extraordinary number. 

           One other advantage that I see to this method is that a starting pitcher taking the mound knowing that he has only 80 pitches to work with and that he has to get through five innings is well positioned to understand the importance of attacking the hitter.  You can’t really afford to waste pitches—and I think that having a deeper understanding of that principle would work to the benefit of the game and of many of the individual pitchers. 

           Well. . .this is just my idea.  History is like a river; it chooses a course, and it digs into that pathway until it is so deeply entrenched that it seems impossible to move it.  I’m not expecting to move the river here; I am merely arguing that it could equally well have taken a different path.  

COMMENTS (34 Comments, most recent shown first)

llozada
1-) I don't see a big difference between the 1970-1975 group and the 2000-2005 group. It is obvious that the 2000-2005 are pitching fewer innings, but they seem to stay on the rotation at the same rate as the 1970-75 pitchers.

2-) What would extra-inning games do to this dynamic? It seems to me that you are using most your pitchers on every game; wouldn't going deep into extra-innings throw a huge wrench into it?
11:58 AM Dec 3rd

shinsplint
OldBackstop, I think the effect of expansion and DH would be somewhat offsetting influences. Expansion would supposedly make it easier for pitchers, as there would be more easy outs, and thus fewer pitches. And the DH would make it harder, of course. On balance, I would say the DH influence would be larger, and I believe a majority of the pitchers in Bill's study group would be in the A.L. as more pitchers in the A.L. had high innings totals. So I think an average inning would have more pitches thrown starting in 1973 (half Bill's study group), although that's just my speculation. And since the innings pitched in the 1970-1975 list averaged 297 (vs. 231 in 2000-2005), the only way I can see that your theory is valid is if pitching more innings a season INCREASES a pitcher's ability to pitch for a longer time. If so, then the DH and expansion lengthened careers (although any effect of expansion in the "still in rotation" years must be lesser as they are getting further from 1969.) Anyway, I don't buy it, and Bill isn't saying that either. It looks like he's saying that those increased innings didn't really hurt the pitchers, not that it necessarily helped them.

8:23 AM Nov 24th

OldBackstop
Why am I being ignored??? Hey! Hey !!!

The first period encompassing expansion and the DH...do you all see how they could lead to longer outings and careers....all injury discussions aside, as I don't see injuries separated out from innings.
2:50 AM Nov 24th

evanecurb
For those of you who have read my blathering on about Gaylord Perry's durability and are tired of it, please feel free to ignore this post.
When I was looking at Perry's stats during his peak period from 1967-1975, in which he averaged 315 innings per season and pitched at least 290 innings each year, I noticed something: he pitched very well in the late innings. And this was not an anomaly, because he averaged about 8 innings per start and completed about half of his starts. He also pitched very well in August and September - if memory serves, those were his best months. Was he an anomaly?

Perhaps, as Marisfan says, this is not relevant to today's game. But I have noticed that a few of the workhorse starters of the seventies had some critical elements in common:
(1) they didn't have high innings totals when they were young (under 25) (2) they had a a "solid foundation" (read - strong legs and a big butt). Seaver, Ryan, Carlton, and Lolich all seem to fit this pattern, as does Spahn. Blyleven does not, and he was extremely durable. I'm rambling. Good pitchers can throw more innings without losing effectiveness, but they shouldn't do it when they're young. Maybe.
5:43 PM Nov 23rd

Guy123
Tango: Fair point. Starters would reduce their pitches thrown by about 21%. However, they would presumably need the same number of pitches warming up pre-game, so total reduction in wear on the pitcher's arm is probably a bit south of 20%. In any case, it's very hard to imagine this would allow pitchers to reduce their rest period by 50% and increase starts by 67%.

Basically, Bill is proposing to increase a starting pitcher's workload by 33% (from 185 to 245 IP), and hoping this would have little or no impact on performance. In judging the plausibility of that scenario, we should consider how well today's starters perform vs. those before the series of usage changes Bill describes. In 1974, starters had a 13.0 K% and 8.4% BB%, for a 4.6 K-BB%. Today they post 19.5%/7.1% for a 12.3% K-BB% -- almost 3x the 1974 rate. Obviously, many things have changed in the game since 1974, but it's very hard to imagine that starters' reduced workload was not a large factor here. In this context, there is little reason to think you could jack up starting pitchers' workload by one-third and not pay a substantial price in reduced performance. So even if Bill is 100% right in speculating that his change wouldn't increase injuries, there is still no chance this change will -- or should -- happen.
3:40 PM Nov 23rd

MarisFan61
Regarding how such a thing might ever be instituted:

I would think that if anything, it would be in stages, with the initial steps not much resembling what is described here -- and initially perhaps sort of by accident or out of necessity . I think the kinds of concerns being raised here are likely to be held within organized baseball to an extent that no organization would ever just go full force immediately with such a whole thing.

Perhaps some initial partial version might be done due to injuries or woeful ineffectiveness among some of a team's starters and a paucity of available replacements. Perhaps some mild version might be done according to tendencies being shown during a season by some of a team's pitchers, regarding being very effective for just a certain number of innings and then falling off a cliff, plus their seemingly being able to pitch at certain frequencies. Or some such.

I'd suspect that such a step would probably initially be viewed as a temporary emergency measure rather than a step toward something more, but if it was working extraordinarily well, it might be maintained. Then, after a time, as with most successful new approaches it might be tried by other teams -- I'm still talking about a partial thing, not such a formal whole system. And then maybe some team would take it further toward something like what Bill is describing. And of course at any point along the way, it's possible that problems might be seen, perhaps unanticipatable ones, which could cause backtracking, tweaking, or abandonment of the course.
10:58 AM Nov 23rd

greggborgeson
Fascinating discussion. We don't really know what is the optimal number of pitches/days rest for most pitchers. But if one ignores the noise of who gets credit for the win, there are a host of possibilities. For example, if 70 pitches per appearance turns out to be optimal, a team could have six 70-pitch pitchers, three pairs that rotate. The average game requires 145 pitches, the team could employ two mop-up relievers, and two closer-types to finish things off or cover extra innings when needed. Ten pitchers total.
9:49 AM Nov 23rd

78sman
Bill,
This is a creative idea that is worth considering. I think that teams would need to try it out to see if it would work. I also think that it might work with some pitchers and not with others. I would think that each pitcher is different; a rotation method that would work with one group of pitchers would not necessarily work with others.
9:30 AM Nov 23rd

tangotiger
Guy:

The point you make is a fair one. However, I'll just update your numbers slightly. Yes, 93 pitches per start was the average in 2015, but it was 95.6 in 2014, as high as 97.0 in 2010. In 2002-2015, the average was 95.0, so let's use that figure as the base.

And Bill noted that it would be a maximum of 80 pitches or 5 innings, whichever came first. Since you could reach 5 innings on say 65 or 70 pitches, the average pitches per start would likely be closer to 75, maybe a bit lower.

So, that would mean dropping pitches per start from 95 down to 75, a drop of 21%.

Your main point however still stands.


8:25 AM Nov 23rd

MarisFan61
.....which I think brings us back to the point about whether long-ago seasonal numbers of innings pitched are relevant to today. It seems (right?) that Bill is using the fact of old-time pitchers having frequently done 250-300 innings a year as a basic support for the notion that this would work. It does support it and perhaps trump all or most else if those long-ago totals and long-ago days are relevant to today. I noted why they might not be and why I pretty much figure they aren't.

I think that's a major crux on this.
8:28 PM Nov 22nd

Guy123
The evidence we have strongly suggests that today's starters are less effective with three days rest than four. And I think we can all agree that most starters would see a catastrophic loss of effectiveness if asked to pitch regularly on two days rest. So the question Bill raises here is, would reducing starters' average pitch count by 13 pitches radically change that equation (last year starting pitchers averaged 93 pitches per start)?

Stated another way, the notion here is that if you reduce starters' pitch count by 14%, you can increase their frequency of starts by about 65% -- with no loss of effectiveness. I'm sorry, but that just seems wildly improbable. Could starters go on three days rest if subject to Bill's inning/pitch limit? That seems at least within the realm of possibility.

Then there's the notion that you could ask the bullpen to throw an additional 200 innings, while adding zero or one extra reliever -- presumably with no decline in performance. Again, this just seems like magical thinking. But perhaps I'm missing something.....

5:24 PM Nov 22nd

evanecurb
I think the biggest questions in this scheme are:

1. How many days between starts does a starting pitcher need if he's throwing 80 pitches or 5 innings? Are two off days (sometimes 3) enough?
2. If the bullpen is pitching 4 or more innings every single game, how many relievers do you need? It seems like it would be 2 times the number of innings covered by the bullpen per game if they need an average of 1 day off, fewer if they need fewer days off. Let's assume that the bullpen covers five innings per game, on average. That means you need ten relief pitchers, I think.
3. One observation: this system could be tinkered with; you could bring back the idea of the swing man - starts once a week, available for long relief between starts, so that you have a 3 1/2 man rotation.
4. It's worth trying. Especially for teams that have a good bullpen and three (or less) good starting pitchers, such as the Orioles.
4:19 PM Nov 22nd

jemanji
I'll bet the Rybka chess program could win 100 games in a Strat-O league by using those kind of RP/SP permutations... :- )


10:49 PM Nov 21st

tangotiger
cderosa: Kershaw is as likely to be preceded by a 2-inning reliever who gives up 3 runs as to be followed by a 2-inning reliever who gives up 3 runs.

If anything, given that you know you won't (can't) use Kershaw for more than 5 innings, then you might even want to start with 2 relievers each going 2 innings each. Then when it's time to bring in Kershaw, if it's already lopsided, you can save him for the next day. (But you can't continually push him off.)

Basically, if you start the game with Kershaw, you are starting the game with a Leverage Index of 0.9. But, if you hold him to enter the third inning, he can come in with an LI of 0.7 or 0.9 or 1.4. Could be anything.

And if you have the choice to enter him today, or be forced to bring in him tomorrow, then he can enter the game in, overall, a higher leverage situation.

(At a cost of upsetting the structure a little.)
4:52 PM Nov 21st

MarisFan61
True, "no hitters" and "perfect games" would not only be obsolete, I think they'd soon be thought of as quaint, and would require 'quotes' around them because hardly anyone would remember those phrases.

But on the other hand, there could be a resurrection of 30-win seasons, maybe 40-win, and people might shake their heads in pity over the generations that hardly had them any more.
12:44 PM Nov 21st

sprox
an exception for no-hitters and perfect games?

I'd hate to see that come to an end
9:31 AM Nov 21st

cderosa
I love three-man rotation schemes and I've really glad Bill revisited and fleshed out the idea here.

I don't think it would work to use a short man first, and then the five-inning man second. The guy you want to throw five innings is one of your three best pitchers, but those three guys are not likely to be equally good pitchers. If you let a 2-inning man start the game, and he gives up a few runs, and it is Clayton Kershaw's turn to the be the five-inning guy, you've either got to blow the Claw on a game in in which you are already in the hole, or mess up your rotation.

I think there is good reason for the guys from whom you think you can get the most quality in bulk to start the games.

Chris
7:13 AM Nov 21st

guidedogjapan
In Japan's pro leagues in the 1960s and 1970s, when strikeouts were fairly rare (and box scores reported pitch counts), (I recall) 70 percent of complete games required less than 90 pitches.

Since the 1990s, 70 percent of complete games are 130+ pitches.
3:51 AM Nov 21st

jemanji
Tom - great idea, and it goes back to the "Ted Power" idea of crossing up the opponent when they don't know who's going to be pitching the first inning. And/or flipping the platoon advantage on them after they set their lineup. You stack the lineup with righties against David Price, boom, the first six batters go down relatively easily to the surprise sidearm RH slider guy.

20-30 years ago Bill pointed this out in some Abstract ("Is this legit, to flip the platoon on lineups, or is it kind of chickenfeathers?" and IIRC he couldn't come up with a reason not to do it other than "it would even out and it would increase the workload for everybody." IIRC.

If it were politically feasible I'd use James'/your idea in a heartbeat.
1:53 AM Nov 21st

Bucky
3+1+1+3+2...isn't that a 10-man staff instead of an 11?
12:14 AM Nov 21st

MarisFan61
.....including (especially for A.L. pitchers) because of the DH.

I think three of us have expressed this same thing, from different directions: Perhaps your average inning is more strenuous now than it was in the days when 250-300 inning seasons were common. We can't assume that when comparing stuff across history, an inning is an inning is an inning.
10:30 PM Nov 20th

flyingfish
Very interesting as always from Bill. I'm wondering where average velocity fits in here. More pitchers are throwing harder than ever before, and it seems to me--but I'm less confident about this part--that there are fewer easy outs in teams' lineups than ever before. Not many defensive wizards who can't hit much. So even if starting pitchers are throwing fewer innings and fewer pitches than pitchers did 40 years ago, they are throwing harder and having fewer respites than the older pitchers. Maybe that's why pitcher injuries haven't decreased?
10:27 PM Nov 20th

chuck
I think this is a brilliant idea, along with Tom's suggestion to have a reliever start the game for about 2 innings. The real starter- now long guy- can come in facing the bottom of the order, maybe starting with the #8 hitters. He could go 5 innings and not have to face the best hitters that 3rd time through the order. The reliever-starter could be matched up to the top of the opposition's lineup. It has the additional benefit that both the reliever guy and the long-relief starter would know when and how they were going to come into the game. The long guy would be warming up maybe in the 1st inning, and if the relief-starter gets into trouble, the change could still be made when it gets to, say, the #8 hitter.

8:27 PM Nov 20th

OldBackstop
HeyBill, I'm curious why you started in 1970. Looking beyond injuries, I would think that the expansion made longer pitching careers a bit easier in that five year stretch. And starting in 1973 in the AL's DH would extend pitcher's outings due to the lack of pinch hitting for them, no?
8:21 PM Nov 20th

rgregory1956

Aren't some of the low minors doing something like this? One sees at Low-A pitchers with 20 starts and 80 innings all over the place. For Bill's idea to take hold, that's where it would have to start, but maybe trying it first with 4 starters pitching 4 innings or 70 pitches (instead of 80), which ever comes first. I do know that in the Arizona Fall League, starters rarely (if ever) go 5 innings.


8:12 PM Nov 20th

sansho1
I'm for just about anything that would increase the number of bench position players on a team at the expense of a reliever or two. A return to the days when a team could carry a pinch-hitting specialist and/or a designated fast guy would warm my heart.
6:18 PM Nov 20th

MarisFan61
(ooops, I meant doesn't make much sense....)
6:07 PM Nov 20th

MarisFan61
Yes -- that's a good example of why it does make much sense to say (not that anyone here says stuff like this) "there will never be another 30-win season," or nobody will ever again win 20 games again and again.

What those kinds of things always mean is, ".....so long as the game stays just as it is right now."

I think it may have been Bill who wrote that things that are commonly said to be beyond reach have an uncanny way of actually happening pretty soon.
6:07 PM Nov 20th

tangotiger
With respect to the W/L, you can start the game with a reliever pitching 2 innings.

Then bring in your "long man" for 5 innings / 80 pitches. He'll now be eligible for the W and L in all 54 of his games. Indeed, since the "starting pitcher" can't get any W in his 2 inning start, but can get the L, then our "long man" will get a hugely disproportionate share of W relative to L.

In any game in which he comes in with a lead, and the team never loses that lead, essentially the only pitcher who will get a W is this long man.

2:58 PM Nov 20th

MarisFan61
.....bad final analogy I made there.
Forget "marathon" for what it was like in how those long-ago pitchers were exerting themselves. Let's call it the 800-meter.
2:50 PM Nov 20th

MarisFan61
About the "stress" of a given pitch or inning:

I wonder if something is missing in the comparisons to those past eras when starters pitched so many more innings. I don't know if this is so, but I've pretty much assumed it -- and I'd love to hear, from Bill or others who might be in a position to know, whether this would seem to be so.

I've thought that in those older days, starters paced themselves more. I think we know that there are differences on this between some kinds of classes of pitchers. Like, it's clearer (or seems clearer) that starters have long paced themselves more than short relievers. It sure seems that way even just from their demeanors -- not all of them; Mariano Rivera didn't look particularly different out there than starters do, but I'm thinking Dick Radatz, Goose Gossage, and most others: It's like they're sprinters out there, while starters look more like they're running the 400 meter. So, there are differences in the degree to which different kinds of pitchers are exerting themselves. Are there also differences for starting pitchers from different eras?

The reason I've almost assumed that the long-ago pitchers exerted themselves less -- maybe more like running a marathon, whereas now the starters are maybe like running the 400 meter......well I guess it's circular: I've figured that's why starters pitch fewer innings than they used to. Of course there are other reasons in there too, but I've figured it's likely that this is part of it.

If so, then we can't use long-ago numbers of innings-pitched as a support for the idea that this proposed system would be tenable. I'm not saying it isn't tenable, just more of an "I don't know" and that those past-era innings totals aren't necessarily a support argument. I do agree that in such a proposed system, there would very likely be fewer high-stress/high-risk pitches, because the pitch count in a given game would never get up toward the higher numbers. But I don't know if we can be sure about that, because maybe the higher overall total of innings per season would be an extra stress factor -- more than such innings totals were in past eras.
1:54 PM Nov 20th

steve161
The only question I have is recovery time. Is two days' rest enough time for a starter to regenerate after throwing 80 pitches?

Some might argue that this proposal would probably increase the effectiveness of pitching overall, which in this offensively-challenged age would make the game less attractive. Not me: I love a well-pitched game more than a slugfest.

As you say, probably ain't gonna happen. Pity.
1:47 PM Nov 20th

raincheck
I like that those 6th/7th inning guys would come from the current pool of 4th and 5th starters, and throwing just a couple of innings they should be more effective.

Question: when the starter gets hammered in the 1st inning, who relieves him? A 6/7 guy?
11:48 AM Nov 20th

matt_okeefe
First of all, I'd love to see what you're proposing here. You'd be able to name the starting rotation of every team in the league, and when was the last time you could do that? Second, and this is not quite to your point, but is it possible that the recent decrease in pitchers staying in the rotation, despite efforts to the contrary, has something to do with changes in the nature of the pitches being thrown, the stresses they put on the arm, etc.?
11:33 AM Nov 20th

©2016 Be Jolly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|Web site design and development by Americaneagle.com|Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy

Bottom of Form

A Season of Tournaments

By Bill James

October 26, 2015

 A Season of Tournaments

           Suppose that a baseball season was organized around tournaments.  This is not an unrealistic idea so far, is it?  A season could as well or as plausibly be organized around tournaments as in the current way; it is merely an accident of history that we went in a different direction.

           We have 30 teams now, and, as it happens, 30 teams is the perfect number to make this plan work.  Let us suppose that, twice every week, a new tournament starts with 16 teams.   Is that the right place to start this explanation?  Maybe not. . .maybe here.  The season is a long sequence of 3-game series; let’s say that a season is a series of 50 3-game series, or a couple more for some teams.   The loser of each series is eliminated from that tournament, and immediately entered into another tournament which starts the next Monday or the next Friday.   

           The season is a long series of 16-team tournaments.   Each Monday and each Friday, a new 16-team tournament begins.  The 16 teams in that tournament are the 15 teams which lost their previous series—thus were eliminated from their previous tournament—plus the one team which WON the tournament which has just ended.  

           At all times, then, all 30 teams are involved in a tournament:

           16 teams are playing opening-round games,

           8 teams are playing second-round games,

           4 teams are playing semi-final round games, and

           2 teams are playing the championship series.  

           Eight of the first sixteen lose, and start another tournament in the next series, joined by four of the second 8 teams, two of the 4 teams from the semis, and both of the teams which just met in the championship round.      There are always four tournaments being played, one in its opening round, and one having its championship series.  

           Qualification for the post-season, qualification for the World Championship, is based not on your overall won-lost record, but on (a) on how many tournaments you have won, and (b) I’ll explain later.  I see this approach as having the following benefit: that teams are constantly presented with the immediate opportunity to win something meaningful.    You have crucial games, critical games, being played throughout the season, and being played by every team—unlike the current system, in which (a) there really are no critical games until at least mid-August, and (b) some teams never play a meaningful series.   Every series is in a sense a critical series—at least more so in this system than in the current one.  Cleveland can be playing San Diego on May 5, and it’s a critical series because the winner moves on to the championship match of that tournament.  

           It creates "moments of tension", thus moments of great interest and great excitement, throughout the season.   San Diego may have a nothing team with nothing going on, but if they win three straight series—which can happen to anybody—then they’re playing for the championship of that tournament, and that makes that a BIG series.  The media spotlight comes suddenly to San Diego vs. Cleveland, because the winner of that series has won something that is very meaningful: A tournament championship.  They get a banner. They get a trophy.  They get a leg up for the post season.

           In theory, a team could win as many as 12 tournaments a year.  In reality, that’s impossible; you’d have to win every series all year.   The most tournaments that any team could win in the season is maybe 5, maybe 6.  If you win 3 tournaments during the season, you WILL qualify for the post-season, no matter how many teams qualify for the post season.   There are 50 tournaments and 30 teams, so an average team will win 1.67 tournaments per season.   You just have to win 3 two-week tournaments, and you’re above the mark.  

           You win your first-round series, your fans get a little bit excited.  You win your second-round series, your fans are excited.  You win your third-round series, your fans go crazy.  You win the tournament, your fans get to celebrate.  I see that as building the fan base, building excitement about the game.  

           A lot of questions to be answered here. . .How do you seed the tournaments? 

           There are 30 tournament lines.   Lines 1 and 2 are the teams playing for the championship.  Line 1 (Seat 1) is whichever of those teams was the higher seat in the previous round; Line 2 is whichever of those two teams was on the lower line (Lower Seat) in the previous round.  

           Lines 3 to 8 are the teams in the semi-final rounds of the next tournament.   Maybe I should map this:

           Seat 1 plays Seat 2, Seat 17 plays Seat 18, Seat 29 plays Seat 30, of course.   If you are on line 29 or 30 and you win, then in the next round you go to Seat 14.  If you are on line 29 and 30 and you lose, then in the next round you go to Seat 30. 

           If you are on line 27 or 28 and you win, then in the next round you go to Seat 13.  If you are on line 27 or 28 and you lose your series, then in the next round you go to Seat 29.  Like this:

           So far, so good, but then it gets a little bit tricky.   If you follow this logic through to the end, then what happens is that the two teams which have just played a championship series are left with lines 15 and 16, which means that they will meet again the next day in a first-round series.  Obviously that is undesirable; if the Cubs and the Rangers play for the tournament championship one day, they don’t want to be playing an opening-round match the next day.   

           We COULD put the two teams which have just played a championship game on Lines 15 and 23, but there is a problem with that, too.  If the Cubs and Rangers play the championship series and we place them on lines 15 and 23, then they COULD, in theory, play ANOTHER championship series starting ten days later; this could happen and would happen every so often.  We don’t want to repeat a championship series that we have just seen; we want to stir the pot.  To stir the pot, we place the two teams which have just met for the championship on Lines 15 and 19, so that they would meet again (if they are to meet again) in the THIRD round, not the fourth:

           And, in the following round, each team could land on any of four rows:   

           In this way we stir the pot, constantly creating new matchups, new series that (mostly) haven’t been played recently—but the seating is automatic; nobody determines what seat you occupy in your next series except you.  

           There is a SLIGHT tendency, in this system, for weak teams to be matched up against other weak teams and for stronger teams—teams which have just won a couple of series in the previous tournament—to be matched up against other strong teams.   This creates a slight "levelling" effect, a slight advantage for the weaker teams.  I tried to calculate how large this effect would be, but I failed; it’s too complicated to create the spreadsheet that simulates the problem. . . .I mean, I could do it if I worked at for a week, but we all know this tournament isn’t going to be adopted next year anyway, so I don’t see that that’s a good investment of my time. 

           It’s a small advantage, anyway; teams which were eliminated in the first round in the previous tournament play other teams that were eliminated in the first round of the previous tournament, like an NCAA tournament in which the 16th seed is matched up not against the #1 seed, but against the #15 seed.  But for that advantage to become meaningful relies on "good teams" being the same as "teams which did well in their previous tournament", which they can’t possibly be, since, if good teams are matched up against good teams and bad teams are matched up against bad teams, then as many good teams will lose as bad teams, thus destroying the advantage.  Does that make sense?  It is an advantage that destroys itself, thus cannot be persistent.  Pretty sure that the "weaker team advantage" would be very small.

           A larger levelling advantage than that is that, if you have a weaker team, then you wind up being entered in more tournaments.   If you lose your first-round series every time, then you are entered into 50 tournaments a year, giving you 50 chances to get hot and win a tournament.  If you WIN your first-round series every year, then you are entered into a maximum of 25 tournaments during the year, actually less, assuming that you sometimes will win in the second and third rounds as well.  The better teams in this system will waste a lot of energy winning one or two series before they are eliminated and have to start over; the weaker teams will waste less energy, and be given a fresh start more often.

           Suppose that a team wins a series by winning the first two games; what happens to the third game of the series?  

           The third game of the series becomes a "challenge game" or a "bonus game".  Getting into the post-season depends on winning tournaments, and (b) I’ll tell you later.  (b) is bonus games.    Since getting into the post season depends upon winning two or three regular-season tournaments, there are going to be a LOT of ties.  Ties are broken by the bonus games.   One team will have 2 tournament wins and 14 bonus games, while another team will have 2 tournament wins and 13 bonus games—2 + 14 against 2 + 13.  The team that is 2+14 gets into the post season.

           So those "extra" games, those games that are played after the series has been decided, rather than being throwaways, become tremendously important; in fact, those games may be MORE important, one for one, than the other games.  If you’re ahead in a series 1-0, then it behooves you to win the second game so that you have a chance at a bonus win in the third game.   If you are behind in the series 0-1, of course you want to win the second game so that you have a chance to win the series, but if you lose the second game, you still have a chance at a bonus win, which will be quite important if you can win a tournament here or there.  (Of course, there is no "bonus game" in the championship series, since that is just TOO anti-climactic.  If you win or lose the tournament championship series in two games, you get a day off.)   

           There is a strategy element there—how important is winning this game today vs. the game tomorrow—and it is possible that there could be some situation in which a team could benefit by losing, although I can’t actually see how that could happen.    Teams would occasionally benefit by losing a series 0-2, thus giving them a chance at a bonus game, but I don’t see how a team could ever EXPECT to benefit by losing, since the benefit of winning the tournament is always much greater than the benefit of winning a bonus game.

           How do you start the season?

           Well, there’s a problem there because the system relies on a rolling schedule, so the question is, how do you start the numbers rolling?   How do you do the initial seating?

           That’s not a huge problem because there are a lot of possible solutions.   My preference would be to seat the teams at the start of the season based on how long it has been since that franchise has won a World Series, and, in my view, that would give the #1 seat initially not to the Cubs, but actually to the Astros, since the Astros have NEVER won a World Series—never is longer than "since 1908"—and the Astros have been playing in their current city longer than any other team which has never won a World Series.   Anyway, you seat the teams initially in that way. . . .

           Except that that would enable one of two teams—let’s say the Astros or the Padres—to win a tournament by winning just one series, which I think gives an intolerable advantage to that franchise.   So I would seat the teams 1 through 30 on that basis, but then give the first weekend (or first series) off to the last two teams, which would be the most recent two World Series champions, and move everybody else down two, so that Seats 1 and 2 were empty.  That gives the cities which have gone a long time without winning a World Series an opportunity to get a little bit of a leg up in the race to the post-season, but they have to win TWO series in order to win a tournament, rather than just one.  I think that giving THAT much of an edge to the Cubs or the Astros or somebody. . . .I think that’s OK.

           But you don’t have to do it that way; you could start the season with two 15-team tournaments, and one team getting a "bye" in the first round in each tournament.   That’s a little awkward because then two more teams have to get byes in the second tournament. . . .it takes four tournaments to work itself out and get everybody playing on the same schedule.   It’s a little awkward, but not so awkward that you can’t make it work.   

           At the END of the season, the season would wind down slowly before the playoffs/World Series start, which I think would be a nice feature.  The last tournament starts on (let us say) September 17.  If you’re in the championship series at that time, that’s your last shot; win it, or you’re done (unless you have already qualified for the post season.)  On September 20 sixteen teams will have finished their seasons, but 14 will still be playing.  Many of those teams will be playing for their lives, since there will always be teams that will qualify for the post season if they can just win one more tournament.  On September 24 twenty-four teams will have finished their seasons, but six will still be playing.  On September 27 twenty-eight teams will have finished their seasons, but the other two will be playing a championship series.  In almost all cases at least ONE of those teams will qualify for the post-season if they can get this last tournament championship, and, since everybody will be done, that will be just a crazy series, with the eyes of the nation on that series. . ..an effect that will apply, in general, from September 20 on; as more teams have finished their schedule, more and more attention will be focused on the teams that are still going.  By September 30 all of those games will be done, all of the positions decided, and the post season can start.  

           The plan creates a new area of statistical analysis.  Each player would have a record in first-round games, a record in third-round games, etc.  An average team wins 1.67 tournaments a year, which means that an average team PLAYS IN 3.33 championship series a year. In a long career, a player might play in 70 championship series.  Somebody would hold the record for home runs hit in a championship series, probably Daniel Murphy, and that record would not be "7"; it would be "48" or something like that. Different games have a different leverage indexes. That would be fun.  

           Who’s the home team, and who’s the road team? Again, there are a lot of ways to do it, but the obvious way is this.  If one of the two teams in a "match" was on the road in their previous series and the other team was at home, then the team which was on the road is the home team for this series.  If both teams were on the road, or both were at home, then whichever team has been on the road longer (or has been at home for less time) is the home team.  If that is the same, then the lower-seated team is the home team.  

           Another problem with going to a system like this, probably actually the largest problem, is that it would require a major adjustment to how tickets are sold, since—like any tournament—the schedule is not known until the previous series is decided.   We go on these road trips; my wife buys tickets a month in advance for Philadelphia at Milwaukee, and we drive to Milwaukee.  You wouldn’t be able to sell tickets that way.  You could still sell season tickets, but you’d have to develop a quick-response model.  I don’t see that that’s a huge problem; with modern computers we sell a lot of things on a quick-response model, and take it for granted.   

           But I know that that’s not a huge problem, because I know that this isn’t happening, anyway.   I think that there is a certain value in learning to see options, even when we are committed to a different course.  New leagues will start; adjustments are made.   Over time, things do move from the "idea" stage to the "actually exists" stage.  A FEW things do.  Ideas are like maple seeds; a thousand seeds fly down from each tree, but only one seed in a million actually becomes a new maple tree.  

COMMENTS (7 Comments, most recent shown first)

Zamboni88
While it is an intriguing concept, my problem with weekly tournaments is that they are not that interesting every week. Consider for example the professional tour. They have tournaments every week, but most people don't have the time energy or interest to keep track of the Quad Cities Open or the Greater Greensboro Classic. The so-called majors get the lion's share of the interest and the others are of no interest to anyone other than hard core golfers, the golfers themselves, their families and their sponsors.
3:47 PM Oct 30th

hotstatrat
Well, this would confound Scoresheet (Fantasy) players and folks who like to compare seasonal records - folks like me on both accounts. However, as a live spectator sport, this would certainly be more fun - there would always be some championship happening plus a critical series with your favorite team if you have one.

Minor quibbles:

I don't think the Tampa Bay Rays deserve a championship more than the Cubs. Imagine if we have another expansion - the new team could easily get a quick championship. Let them pay some dues: start the counting from when a franchise was born, if they've never won it before. Another question: do the Rangers deserve a championship more than the Astros? The new Senators moved to Texas a decade after Houston arrived, but the franchise came along a year before. To eliminate contentious franchise moves, you'd have to go by franchise age.

Gosh, the teams playing for the championship shouldn't be deprived of an opportunity for a bonus win, even if one wins the first two - especially since they have to tumble back to the first round after the series.


3:58 PM Oct 28th

bjames
Well, but what I assumed was too obvious to say--apparently I was incorrect--is that beyond qualifying for the post season, one's POSITION in the post season depended on how many tournaments you had won. So if you've won three tournaments you'll be in the post season, but if you win FOUR then you have home field advantage in the post season, etc.
7:01 AM Oct 27th

tigerlily
Interesting thought Bill. One thing I'd suggest is that instead of awarding points only for winning a tournament points be awarded similar to tennis with points being awarded based on how far into the tournament each team makes it. For example, an ATP tournament with 32 players awards points as follows;

Rd of 16 - - - - 45
Quarterfinals - 90
Semifinals - - - 180
Runner-up - - 300
Winner - - - - - 500

I think this would help keep interest as the season progresses with each tournament meaning something for teams even if they don't win this or that tournament.
11:21 AM Oct 26th

Gfletch
I see a few problems:

1. Teams can qualify for the post season (and will) sometimes quite early, even occasionally by winning their first three tournaments. Then you have the old split-season issue where you have very little to play for during the balance of the season
2. I think fan interest would be good at first but then quickly decline. Ho-hum, another tournament, another trophy, happens every week anyway. And this might devalue the World Series, becoming just one more trophy along the way.
3. This is a little bit like tennis and golf, isn’t it? Especially golf, with the FedEx Cup. No one really cares who is named the player of the year, the focus is all on how many tournaments you won.

This made me think…why not 30 tournaments a year, one at each major league city? Each city would then be building a history for “their” tournament. I like it, but there are some serious, even fatal logistical issues with having all the teams in town at the same time…in particular I don’t know if you can fit all the games in one tournament into one ballpark, and unless you play in a domed stadium rainouts would be a disaster.

10:13 AM Oct 26th

bjames
Appreciate the thought. I can't see quickly how you could make it work with two leagues. . .maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see it. I can't figure how to make it work with two leagues, 32 teams or 34. I think you'd have to give somebody a "bye" each series to make it work.
9:44 AM Oct 26th

tangotiger
I love crazy ideas like this, especially as you note in the end, it gets us thinking in new ways.

In addition to the schedule not being known in advance, I think teams have time-zone issues. What would happen to your proposal if we split the league (actual separate leagues, not the conferences currently in place) into East/West, or even East/Central/West?

How much dependence does your proposal have to the number of teams in the league?


8:48 AM Oct 26th

©2016 Be Jolly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|Web site design and development by Americaneagle.com|Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy

Bottom of Form

The First Major League Game I Ever Saw

By Bill James

September 28, 2015

 The First Major League Game I Ever Saw

              I saw Joe DiMaggio play; yes, I did, it was the first major league game that I ever saw, and I shall never forget it.   It was during the War; DiMaggio wasn’t supposed to be with the team, but he was in Washington on leave or something, or else he was playing on that service team and the service team was in town the same time’s the Yankees were, and the rumor started about 11 o’clock in the morning that DiMaggio would play that day for the Yankees.   Washington was a smaller city then, and if you were connected—my Dad was connected, because he worked for the Washington Post selling advertising—if you were in the loop, as they say, by 3 o’clock you knew it was true.  The game was supposed to start at 5:00; they hadn’t started this nonsense of starting games at 5:05 or 5:07 then; it was a five o’clock start.   Dad called home from work and told Mama to get me dressed warmly and ready to go to the ballgame, and then he cut out of work about 3:30, took the train home, picked me up and we got right back on the train headed back downtown.  

              DiMaggio couldn’t wear his own uniform, of course; he wasn’t on the active roster and he was supposed to be with the Army, so he wore the uniform number 9, which belonged to an outfielder named Hersh Martin, who was about DiMaggio’s size.    He was pretending to be Hersh Martin, just for the day; course I wouldn’t have known one way or the other, but my Dad had seen DiMaggio play many times, and he knew for sure it was him; everybody did, and Hersh Martin couldn’t take a step forward or backward or sideways that night without the stadium just roaring with excitement.  One time the Public Address announcer said, "Now batting for the New York Yankees, JOE . . . .uh, uh, I’m sorry, Hersh Martin."     

              Well, it started to rain about 5:30; of course in those days the weathermen didn’t have any more idea when it was going to rain or when it was going to stop raining than they did when a monkey would take a piss, so that held up the game all of a sudden for about 20 minutes, and then they cleared the field and poured sand on the base paths, and 20-30 minutes they were ready to play.  They played another inning; it rained again, held up the game another hour, better part of an hour, then they played a couple of innings and it rained again, but nobody went home.   Crowd of 30,000 people there, maybe more.  Every time the game restarted everybody was anxious that maybe DiMaggio had cut out and gone home, since he wasn’t supposed to be there anyway, but here he’d come, popping out of the dugout and running to center field like there was snakes on every step.  That was the way my Uncle Fred described the way DiMaggio ran, like there was snakes on every step but as long as he didn’t look down at them he would be alright.  He always ran with his head high, looking straight ahead. He probably didn’t even know that the infield was just mud and sand.   I remember Hersh Martin had hit a double in that game and a tremendous hard drive to left field, and the first thing you know it was close to midnight and the game was in the fifth inning, and that was when all the trouble started.   

              In those days you didn’t have replay, of course, but what the Senators would do is, they’d hire a team of little people to rush on to the field and re-enact the play for you.  ‘Course they didn’t call them little people at that time, and you wouldn’t do that for entertainment now, but. . . .so there’d be a close play at first, and the first baseman and the first base coach would be yelling at the first base umpire, and while that was going on these little guys, 3-foot-5 and such, would all run out, and one of them would slide into the base and another one would tag the base and another one would play the umpire and would give this exaggerated "safe" sign, and then they’d hop up and run off the field, and the crowd would just yell and scream and carry on like the war was over.  With all the rain delays we had seen a lot of the little people that night; they’d been re-enacting scenes from the game in center field during the rain delays, and one of them had a number 9 uniform and he would prance around like he was DiMaggio, and carry this monstrous big bat; it was probably the same size as DiMaggio’s bat, only it looked like a telephone pole when this guy had it.  Why in the hell DiMaggio didn’t go home, I don’t know, but I guess he was there to play a baseball game, and by God, he was going to play a baseball game.  

              A bank of lights went out on the third base side but almost behind home plate; they just went out all of a sudden, and the umpires called the managers out of their dugouts and there was a confab at home plate, and then they started playing again, but without those lights.   It turned out, of course we didn’t know this at the time, it turned out that that bank of lights was pointed right at the White House and right at the window in the bedroom where Churchill was staying.   FDR was dead by then; FDR and Hitler had both died a few weeks earlier, and Churchill was staying there, getting to know Truman, only he couldn’t sleep with those lights on, and if Churchill couldn’t sleep, nobody could sleep.  So about 11:30, 11:45 Harry called Clark Griffith and told him to turn off those God Damned first base lights so that Churchill would go to bed and he could get some sleep, he had a God Damned country to run and a war to fight.   So they turned off those lights, and you know, the lighting in old Griffith Park wasn’t that good to begin with, but what are you going to do?

              So the next time Hersh Martin comes to the plate, he hits this pop up, highest pop up you’ve ever seen, I guess; well, we’ll never know for sure, because he hits this pop up a mile high to third base, looks like it might have been in fair territory, and the ball just disappears in the air.  To this day nobody knows what happened to that pop up; it got to about 150 feet in the air, and it just vanished into the night. Harlond Clift was the third baseman for the Senators at that time, Clift is just standing there and waiting for the ball to come down, only it never does. DiMaggio gets to second base and holds up, looks like "what’s happening here?", and Clift is waving his arms like "Where’d the ball go?", and this little man in the Number 9 uniform comes dashing out of the stands, crosses home plate, runs to first, turns left, runs to second, swats DiMaggio on the butt like "Let’s go; what are we waiting for?", and runs to third.  DiMaggio decides he might as well run, too, so he starts chasing the midget, pardon my language but that’s what we called ‘em then, he starts chasing the little guy to third, passes him and beats him home.  

              Well now, nobody has any idea what to do; everybody is yelling at everybody and the Senators Cuban shortstop, who was a real hothead, I forget his name, is chasing the little man with the Number 9 uniform and absolutely determined to kick his ass.  Torres; that was his name.   Torres is just in a rage; finally the little man reaches the safety of the stands and heads up a runway, and everybody in uniform is screaming at the umpires, who don’t really have any idea what they are supposed to do.  Finally one of them points at home plate, which at first people think is supposed to mean that DiMaggio has to come back and hit the ball again, but eventually they figure out that he means to say that DiMaggio is entitled to home plate; it’s an inside-the-park home run, because he hit the ball and ran the bases and nobody ever put him out.   

              Now the Yankees are happy but the Senators are mad as hell, and they all start yelling at the umpires; the home plate umpire throws out one of the coaches, and the first base umpire throws out one guy, and then the third base umpire throws out one guy; by the time the dust settles there’s been seven Senators thrown out of the game, not counting a coach or two.  Funny thing was that Torres wasn’t one of the guys who was thrown out at that time, and he was the craziest guy on the field, but anyway he didn’t get thrown out, which is how the later things came about. The Yankees keep scoring and scoring, and by the 7th inning or so it’s one o’clock in the morning and the Yankees are ahead 9 to 1, but nobody has gone home because DiMaggio is still playing, and everybody knows this is the only chance you’ve got this year to see DiMaggio play.  

              Top of the 7th inning, there’s runners on first and second, and there’s another high pop up to third base.  Torres is going to catch this one, because Harlond Clift’s been thrown out of the game and there’s some rookie playing third base who is not even really an infielder, so Torres runs over to make the catch, and this ball comes down out of the sky like it is supposed to. 

              Only just about as Torres is going to catch it, he collides with the third base umpire, and the ball drops.  In fair territory. Now it’s 10 to 1 and runners on second and third, and Torres just goes ballistic.  I mean, he just totally loses it; screaming at that third base umpire so loud that he probably woke up Churchill, I don’t know. The third base umpire is a big guy, an old football player, way bigger than Torres, and he ain’t backing down, he’s got his face right in Torres’ face and he’s giving as good as he gets.  

              So finally Torres decides that he’s going to fight the umpire, only if it was a fair fight he didn’t have much of a chance.  At that time the player’s uniforms had belts in them, leather belts, so Torres pulls out his belt and starts swinging it over his head like a calf roper in a rodeo. The umpire retreats, but Torres comes after him, the umpire moves away again, and finally the umpire is running top speed toward second base with Torres right behind him, snapping that belt on the umpire’s backside and screaming and hollering.   When the umpire got to second base he stepped on the base and turned right, heading to first base.  I always wonder why he did that, funny thing to wonder about under the circumstances, but it was like he had to stay in the base paths, even though he wasn’t really a ballplayer and he was running the bases backward and being chased by a crazy man swinging a belt, but I suppose it was just instinct; you touch the base, you turn and head to the next base.  

              So he gets to first base, he touches first, heads for home, touches home, heads back to third base, Gil Torres two steps behind him with the belt, all the way, and there’s a crowd of players all gathered along the third base line just trying to stay out of the way and looking on in some amazement, but just three or four feet away from the baseline, and out of this crowd of players here comes the little man in the number 9 uniform, that Torres had tried to beat up an inning or two earlier.  He puts a rolling block on Torres, and Torres goes flying ass over tea kettle, and as he does his pants come off because he’s not wearing any belt; not all the way off, but all of a sudden they’re down around his ankles.  Turns out Torres isn’t wearing any underwear; he’s got a jock strap on, but that’s all; I can still see it, been 70 years now.  

              The umpire gets away, but Torres gets to his feet, and he’s not giving it up.  Of course he’s been thrown out of the game by now, but he won’t leave the field.  At that time there wasn’t any security in the park, weren’t any cops on the field or anything like we have now, but fortunately there were a couple of paying customers who had brought handguns to the park, and they got out on the field and pointed their weapons at Torres and marched him off the field.  His uniform was long enough that it covered his privates most of the time, but he’s still steaming so as he is being marched off the field at gunpoint he pulls up his uniform and shows the crowd his willie.   Fortunately there wasn’t no women in the crowd by that hour.  

              End of the inning it was 14 to 1, Yankees, and the Senators had pitchers playing here and there, they’d run out of position players by now.  The Senators had some good hitting pitchers that year, though; Sandy Ullrich hit .270 something, and Mickey Haefner hit close to .250. Dutch Leonard and Marino Pieretti hit over .200, and by this time several of these guys are playing in the field, and they start hitting.  They score five runs in the bottom of the seventh, and then in the eighth they score a couple more.  By the end of the eighth inning it is 14 to 8.   Actually it’s 14 to 7, and Joe Kuhel, who was the Senators’ first baseman and maybe their best hitter, hits a nice drive to center field, probably would have been a triple except that Kuhel trips in the sand and mud between first and second and sprains an ankle, real badly.  A run scores on the play, making it 14 to 8, but Kuhel can’t get to a base, so he’s tagged out as he lays there, and then he is carted off the field.  

              Well, the Senators manager looks around the dugout, and he realizes that he’s run out of players.   He doesn’t have anybody to play first base.   We’re sitting right behind the Senators dugout, and he looks over the dugout at us, and he says "Can any of you guys play baseball for an inning or two?" Ossie Bluege was the manager; it’s pronounced Blue-Gee, hard G.  Of course all of the little people with the uniforms on are all waving their arms; they all want to go in and play, but Bluege isn’t going for that, so there are several guys in the first two or three rows waving their arms, too, and saying how much they’d like to get in there and play an inning, but for some reason, never know why, he picks my Dad, who was just sitting there minding his own business.  He looks him over closely and he says "You’re a white guy, ain’t you?  Hard to tell in this light."  My Dad said usually if somebody asks you that you’re supposed to knock their teeth out, but under the circumstances he lets it go and assures Bluege that he’s a white guy, and they come up with the top half of a uniform and a glove and send him out to first base.  

              By this time it’s like three o’clock in the morning, but there’s still about 15,000 people there, although, as we were to learn later, all of the reporters had gone home; the lights were on in the press box but there wasn’t a soul up there other than the PA announcer, who by this time is only announcing about every third batter. First batter hits a line drive right at the first baseman, and my Dad sticks out his glove and catches it.  Crowd goes wild; everybody’s excited to see the old man make a play like that.   Second batter hits a ground ball to short; I think Sandy Ullrich is playing shortstop by then, he’s another Cuban.  He fields the ball, throws it to first, Dad catches it, two away.  Crowd applauds.

              Then things start to go bad.  Ground ball right at Dad; he kicks it, runner reaches.  DiMaggio hits a single, which is like his sixth hit of the game or something, and Dad gets to meet Joe DiMaggio face to face, which of course he would talk about until the day he died.  Then there’s a ground ball to second.   Second baseman throws it to first, but it nearly hits Dad in the face and he doesn’t catch it, so a run scores and now it’s 15 to 8.    The crowd boos Dad, but it’s kind of a good-natured boo, and then the Senators get the third out somehow.  

              Well, by now the Yankees are pitching an outfielder; I think the guy who was pitching then was the actual Hersh Martin, wearing somebody else’s uniform because DiMaggio is in his.  Martin can’t throw a strike; he walks the first guy, he walks the second guy, throws a couple of wild pitches, hits a guy with a pitch.   You remember that Joe Kuhel made the last out of the 8th inning, and my Dad replaced Joe Kuhel, so he’s the 9th batter up in the 9th inning.  By the time he gets to the plate it is 15 to 13, two runners on base, one out.  There wasn’t any on base circle at that time, I don’t think; as he’s coming out of the dugout he talks to Bluege a minute, and Bluege says "He’s not throwing any strikes; just stand there and he’ll probably walk you."  First pitch is a fastball, right over the heart of the plate.  Strike one.  Second pitch is the same thing, borderline, but strike two.  Dad looks over at Bluege; Bluege nods and makes a little swinging motion with his hands.   

              Pitch comes in. Dad swings as hard as he can, and the pitch knocks the bat clean out of his hands. When the ball hits the bat the bat just goes flying over the catcher’s head, over the umpire’s head, halfway to the screen behind home plate.  The ball rolls forward about 30 feet, and Dad stands there dumbfounded for a second, not sure what he should do, but he sees the Yankee catcher, Garbark, running out toward the mound to field the ball, and finally he takes off for first base.  

              Garbark has the play, but the outfielder who is pitching, Hersh Martin or whoever he was, tries to field the ball as well.  In the mud the pitcher slides and wipes out the catcher, and nobody can make the play.  It’s 15 to 15, and Dad’s on second base with the winning run.  Next batter up is Hilly Layne.  Layne hits a line drive into the right field gap, and Dad slides home with the winning run. 

              In those days they’d get stuff in the newspapers an hour after it happened; I don’t know how they did it, but they did.   By this time all the trains had stopped running for the night, so we had to get a taxi cab home, and it wasn’t easy to get a cab; took us about an hour.  By the time we’re riding home, I’m in the back seat with my Dad, and the sun is coming up.  

              "If Mom asks you how the game was," he says, "You just tell her it was exciting to see Joe DiMaggio, OK?"

              "Do you think Gil Torres will be thrown out of baseball?" I asked.

              "He might be," said Dad, "If the commissioner was alive.  But the commissioner is dead."  

              "Lot of people dead," I said.  "Hitler, Roosevelt, the Commissioner, Uncle Tony." 

              "Yeah," he said.  "A lot of people dying lately."

              As I walked to school a couple of hours later there was a big newspaper headline, says "OLD FAT GUY SAVES GAME FOR SENATORS".    They didn’t get my Dad’s name, and Ossie Bluege told the reporters that that guy was an old friend of his who had played first base for the Senators years before and was now a Judge or something. He was an experienced major league player, and there was no way Bluege would put some total amateur on the field. He also said he didn’t know who the man was who had run onto the field naked, and he thanked the volunteer sheriff’s deputies for their help with crowd control.  It may be that the reports the Senators and Yankees filed with the league offices were not totally accurate on every detail. 

              Well, that was the first major league game I ever saw.  I am sure everybody remembers the first game they get to see, and I’m sure everybody’s game is as special to them as mine was to me, but this is my precious memory, and I thought I would share it with you, just to help you remember how great baseball used to be.  

COMMENTS (41 Comments, most recent shown first)

mauimike
The Britannica thing was written in the spirit of Bill's story, Maris.
9:48 AM Oct 6th

MarisFan61
(sorry that I doubled the t instead of the n :-) ....I guess I didn't want to put too much emphasis on 'n' in view of the subject)
5:48 PM Oct 4th

MarisFan61
Re those old Encyclopedia Brittanicas (or maybe it would be Brittanicae): :-)

Before you decide how much faith you have in it, maybe check out their article on "Negro" (or whatever they called it; I think it's that).

I'm not 100% sure that the 1911 edition had the kind of stuff I think it does, but I do know that editions around that time did. Some of the science in there is entertaining, if you're ready not to take it too seriously, and definitely embarrassing.
5:46 PM Oct 4th

mauimike
MattGoodrich, "From each according to his need." "Although Marx is popularly thought of as the originator of the phrase, the slogan was common to the socialist movement and was first used by Louis Blanc in 1851."

Matt, do you have any faith in the 1911, Encyclopaedia Britannica? I do. I have a set near my desk and I checked it, that night before I wrote what I wrote.
1:00 AM Oct 3rd

flyingfish
And, of course, Bill isn't old enough for this to be about him.
6:53 PM Oct 1st

flyingfish
"You Could Look It Up" by James Thurber.

www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2010/01/09/history/post-perspective/post-story-changed-baseball.html

Beautiful, Bill, just beautiful.
4:28 PM Oct 1st

niigii
Thank you Bill James for 'My First Game." Is there any possibility you might develop this into a series of games that you have 'seen' in the historic past of baseball? So we remember how the game used to be through your lens.
12:50 PM Sep 30th

bjbrown
I was born in 1971, but I think I was at that game. The way I remember it the other team was also short of players and my dad had to simultaneously play all 9 positions
12:19 PM Sep 30th

iramatetsky
Another giveaway is that the story has innings starting after the old American League 1 a.m. curfew.​
6:17 PM Sep 29th

jrickert
>The comments are like all-star quality. The story is like MVP candidate.
Are you sure what does "Words Above Replacement" have to say about this WAR story?
5:01 PM Sep 29th

MarisFan61
The comments are not more entertaining than the story. :-)
The comments are like all-star quality. The story is like MVP candidate.
11:29 AM Sep 29th

wovenstrap
I see the paywall is actually down for it -- so we agree!
11:02 AM Sep 29th

wovenstrap
A lovely yarn, Bill. Thank you.

You might consider taking the paywall down for that one. I can think of a couple of non-BJO subscribers who might enjoy it.
11:01 AM Sep 29th

MattGoodrich
I think the comments are more entertaining than the story.

"From each according to his needs" is Marxism, not socialism.

Do most people actually remember their first game? I don't.

Did they ever actually reenact plays with 'midgets'? I'll bet some team did that somewhere. That's too demeaning by today's standards, so now we have people dressed up as hot dogs, running races instead. You can't stop progress.


10:29 AM Sep 29th

esolo25
"The Aristocrats."
9:15 AM Sep 29th

r44fletch
it's an allegory, man. It's the bourgeoisie throwing off their oppressors, the corporate titans, and overcoming all so that we become one with the universe. I thought it was obvious.
8:53 AM Sep 29th

jimgus
Man, that was BEAUTIFUL!
I'm partly embarrassed to say that I was pretty much of a believer until, "...there wasn't no women in the crowd..." I don't think I have ever seen Bill use improper grammar like that (in about thirty years of reading him!). Although it did occur to me (after about the third or fourth, "Well, by this time" twist) that this story was a lot like something by Ring Lardner.
Thanks for being you, Bill. I love you, man!
Cordially,
JimmyG
7:52 AM Sep 29th

mauimike
"Artists use lies to tell the truth." Alan Moore

6:04 AM Sep 29th

mauimike
In the first paragraph, "my Dad was connected because he worked for the, "Washington Post," selling advertising." I knew it was BS. When have we ever read anything about Mr. James growing up anywhere, but Kansas and there's never been any indication that his Dad, was a white collar worker. Mr. James has been fairly open about his life, through his writings and I think he would have mentioned that his Dad had worked at the, "Washington Post," before this and that he grew up in Washington, DC. I knew he was born in 1949, I've been trying to figure out if he was the last guy from Kansas, drafted during the Vietnam Era.

I think you're on to something Maris. I think this is Mr. James doing a Ring Lardner tribute, along the line of, "You Know Me Al." Al, is one of the biggest BS'ers in the history of American baseball writing and that covers a lot of ground.

As an aside, Ring Lardner Jr., who was blacklisted during the McCarthy Era, wrote one of the greatest anti-war movies of all time, "M*A*S*H," and he won an Academy Award for it, if you're into that.

M*A*S*H, played for about a year at our local drive-in theater. Whenever we had nothing going on, we'd load up the beer and go and watch M*A*S*H again. I must have seen it 10 times before I got drafted. I based my Army career on it.

The Army is full of incompetent fools. Hopefully they won't get you killed. I was stateside so I wasn't in too much danger of that. Since most of the people in the Army either didn't care or didn't know how to do a good job, and here's the secret, if you could do a good job, if you could actually get things done you were golden and you could get away with a whole bunch of stuff. Like Hawkeye and Trapper John.

It didn't hurt if you worked in supply, which meant that you were a major crook. I always thought that I wasn't stealing. Since we all belonged to the the Army, our bodies, minds and all that equipment, I was just re-distributing it. I was a socialist in those days. Each according to his need.
2:22 AM Sep 29th

villageelliott
For PM Churchill to visit Washington during the War "to get to know President Truman", it would have to be after FDR died on April 12th and VJ Day, Sept. 2. 1945. If both "FDR and Hitler (April 30) died a few weeks earlier", it would have been before the Potsdam Conference in mid-July. But Churchill first met "and got to know" Truman at Potsdam. Midway during the conference Churchill was defeated for re-election and replaced by Atlee. Thus for the few weeks between the end of conference and VJ Day, Churchill was out of office. On Mar. 5th, 1946 during Citizen Churchill's first post[war US visit, both he and Pres. Truman received honorary doctorates at Westminster College in Fulton, Mo., Truman's (and my) home state. Churchill delivered his only major address of his weeks long North American visit, his famous "Iron Curtain" speech. I consider this Bill's use of artistic license to set up an excuse to include Truman's well-documented hands-on administrative style and creative profanity. He "Showed" me.
1:45 AM Sep 29th

MarisFan61
Confession time, perhaps: Who else has ever mixed up Ring Lardner and James Thurber?
Or thinks that someday they might? :-)

The only reason I realized Lardner wasn't the right guy was that I was inspired to go and read up a little on him, since I didn't know much about him, and when I saw that nothing was mentioned about Squawks McGrew or "You Could Look It Up"......
12:33 AM Sep 29th

jemanji
Whoops, if Bill had been born in 1950 that would make him 65 now, not 75. :- ) The perils of surfing (and writing) too fast ....

Lessee, wiki says Bill was born in 1949. I hadn't remembered DiMaggio being in Korea, but if Joe D hadn't retired so much younger than Ted and Willie, the story coulda synched. Didn't think about it while reading through.

Never mind that such an Eddie Gaedel moment in baseball shoulda registered... was a little bleary from sleep deprivation

... oddly enough, what did have me scratching my head right away was the unlikelihood of having your first ballgame be an Eddie Gaedel game :- )

11:42 PM Sep 28th

jemanji
Right, though I figured he was talking about the Korean War. Ted Williams was in Korea and I didn't remember off-the-cuff when DiMaggio retired.

Skimmed by it, figured we were talking 1954 or so. Now that I think about it, it still would have required Bill to be 75 years old now and about 4 years old then.

But yeah.
11:35 PM Sep 28th

Brock Hanke
This may be the best description of a game I've ever seen, real or imaginary. I caught on as soon as he said he'd seen DiMaggio during the war. I'm a couple of years older than Bill, and I was born in 1947. But knowing that turned out to be a good thing, as it allowed me to focus on the story as a story. Damn good story.
10:57 PM Sep 28th

BobGill
Aside from the fact that Bill wasn't alive during World War II, the first giveaway that this wasn't on the up-and-up was the mention of commuter trains in Washington. There weren't any. Of course these days we have the Metro trains, but those didn't appear until about 1976. In the 1940s the big public transportation system in D.C was trolley cars. I'm not sure if they still had any of them in operation by the time I came along, but I remember the trolley lines in the middle of the streets, which were still around for quite a few years afterward.

10:18 PM Sep 28th

MarisFan61
You could tell right away if you even just sort of know Bill's age. He couldn't much have been going to games in the early '40's.
8:12 PM Sep 28th

jemanji
I only realized it was satire when Bill said that a popup disappeared and never came down. Until then, I was going, "Wow, back then they let you get away with stuff like that?"

When Bill tells us something about baseball history, it takes a violation of an actual law of physics before I question anything :- )


8:01 PM Sep 28th

MarisFan61
.....I actually was able to find that item online, and it doesn't exactly say that. It says that the original reporting of it was "I will return" but that the army currently was saying a check of historical records showed he said the more known version. I'd go with the original reporting.
7:49 PM Sep 28th

MarisFan61
When MacArthur died, in addition to the obituary and various tributes, the New York Times had one of those little "filler" pieces, that what he had actually said was, "I will return."

MacArthur missed out on calling his autobio (if he wrote one) "I Didn't Say Everything I Said."
7:14 PM Sep 28th

steve161
When I was in school about 55 years ago, the teachers and the style manuals asserted that "I shall" is less emphatic than "I will"--usually accompanied by a gratuitous swipe at Gen Douglas MacArthur. No idea if this is still the convention.
6:32 PM Sep 28th

bjames
Well, I just checked the 134,000 word manuscript of The Man from the Train, and, sure enough. . .never used the word "shall".
5:41 PM Sep 28th

chuck
I didn't even have to do a tracer on this hooey. EVERYbody knows DiMaggio never popped a ball up in his life.
4:23 PM Sep 28th

337
The "shall" in the first line should have tipped me that something screwy was coming. I think it's Bill's first "shall."
3:39 PM Sep 28th

TKissane
I was thinking Philip Roth. Actually, I was at least half on the hoook till Churchill came up. No way you'd have to kill the lights for him till way after midnight.
1:48 PM Sep 28th

MarisFan61
I didn't get it either till you did that extra post. Thanks for not getting it right away. :-)
1:37 PM Sep 28th

337
Didn't realize you'd written "characters", tigerlily. Sorry.
1:34 PM Sep 28th

337
You get all the space you want here in the "Comments" section. It's in "Hey Bill" that you're limited to 500 characters (not words). Knock yourself out.
1:02 PM Sep 28th

tigerlily
That's nothin' compared to the first major league game I ever saw! I'd tell ya' about, but it'd take a lot more than 500 characters.
1:00 PM Sep 28th

MarisFan61
(I meant James Thurber, but Ring Lardner will almost do.)
12:51 PM Sep 28th

DanDanDodgerFan
Yep, that's pretty much how I remember it, too--more or less.
12:07 PM Sep 28th

MarisFan61
Actually ghost-written by Ring Lardner, I think. :-)
11:41 AM Sep 28th

©2016 Be Jolly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|Web site design and development by Americaneagle.com|Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy

Bottom of Form

A Weird and Petty Beauty

By Bill James

September 11, 2015

 A Weird and Petty Beauty

              There is something I do once in a while which is a little bit weird, but I can tell you about it (and risk the ridicule that may follow) because I know that I’m really NOT that weird, that everybody does weird little stuff on their own time and this is just one of mine. Occasionally I like to take a Hall’s cough drop wrapper, and restore it to a perfectly flat piece of paper.  I take the waxy, crumpled-up wrapper from a Hall’s Cough Drop, and wash it.  Washing it causes it to flatten out, lose most of its wrinkles, and then I let it dry for a half hour or so, then place it (still damp) on top of a piece of paper on a flat surface, with another piece of paper on top of it and a heavy book on top of that.  After a day or so the little crumpled-up piece of waxy paper becomes a flat, crisp square of waxy paper.  I have a stack or 20 or 30 of these on a bookcase behind me.  I do the same with currency sometimes.

              I could say that I don’t know why I enjoy doing this, but actually I think I do.   Why do we comb our hair—and, more importantly, why do we expect that other people should comb their hair? Because we like order, and disorder offends us.  A colleague’s messy work area offends us.  We all like, on some level, to take something which is out of order, and make order out of it.  I like to find an old, tarnished penny dropped in a parking lot, and see if I can clean it off and restore it to a bright and shiny finish. Beauty is a form of order; a rose or an orchid has a very strong sense of order about it, whereas grass and weeds are disorderly.  Taking a crumpled piece of paper and restoring it to a flat, crisp piece of paper is creating order, and thus, on a very low level, creating beauty. 

Medicine and Philosophy

              Many years ago I observed that everything which is a medicine is also a poison, and everything which is a poison is also a medicine.  I would be surprised if there is any exception to the rule that every medicine is poisonous in large doses and poisonous in the wrong applications.  For the opposite rule, that everything which is a poison is also a medicine, I do not know of any exception, but I am certain that there must be poisons which have no known medical use. But in those cases, I would suspect that this is merely that the medical use of the poison has not yet been found.  

              It occurred to me recently that the same is also true in philosophy: that everything which is a curative in philosophy is also a poison, and that every poisonous idea has its safe and appropriate use.  By the "thing" in "everything" I mean things like a belief in order and a belief in the power of chaos or freedom, a belief in self-reliance and an openness to asking for help, a belief in the power of logic and a faith in intuition, a belief in the power of the will and an acceptance of the powerlessness of the will to overcome that which we do not understand, a belief in nature and a belief in what must be created, a belief in community values and a belief in rebelliousness, a faith in courage and a commitment to caution, a belief in altruism and a belief in self-interest, a belief in God and a belief that there is no God, a belief in humility and a willingness to act out of ego, a belief in kindness and a willingness to do what seems harsh, a belief in respect and a willingness to say and do what others may see as disrespectful, a belief in loyalty and a belief in practicality, a belief in sanity and a recognition that sanity is not happiness, a belief in the lessons of experience and an openness to new ideas, a belief in peace and a willingness to resist evil, a belief in hard work and an understanding that work is not the purpose of life, a belief in intelligence and an understanding that intelligence is not virtue, a belief in honesty and a belief in good manners.    

              I have listed twenty-some "scales" there, twenty medicines and poisons, and let us say that there are 100 more like that that I have not listed, and there are two virtuous ends to each scale.  

My Own Poisons, and Yours

              A world in which there are 150 or 200 scales of philosophy, with virtues on each end of each spectrum, is beyond the capacity of the human mind to manage faithfully.  Overpowered by the options of practical philosophy, each person chooses certain cornerstones to their philosophy, which I would say were usually three to five for each of us.  

              There is a comic scene you have seen several times in media, in which a person is asked to name their faults, and the person says that his biggest problem is that he is a workaholic, or that she is too much of a people person, or that she is too enthusiastic, or whatever.   I would suggest that these are honest answers, unartfully stated—that our faults are merely our virtues, carried to the ends of the spectrum, as medicine taken too far becomes poison.  If we assume that there are 200 lines of philosophy and that each of us chooses four cornerstones to our personal philosophy, then there would be 1.55 billion philosophical variations, but reality is more complicated than that, I think.  I would think that on each of the 200 philosophical scales there might be (about) 10 discernable stopping points; that is, that a person might believe 70% in honesty and 30% in good manners, whereas another person who had the same four cornerstones might believe 60% in honesty and 40% in good manners. Thus, the varieties of personal philosophies that we select is effectively infinite. 

              I was trying to suggest for you what my own failings were, but, like the job applicant who is just too enthusiastic and too much of a people person, I cannot really claim my failings without claiming the virtues which are on the opposite ends of the spectrum.   Whatever one believes in too much, too strongly, is the poison that will ultimately undermine one’s comprehension.  To mix metaphors so that a building becomes alive, a cornerstone is the Achilles heel of each philosophy.  But I would say this, that my poisons have been along these scales:  a belief in the power of logic as opposed to a respect for what is intuitively obvious, an undue amount of caution versus bold and courageous decisions, a belief is humility vs. a respect for the power of the ego, and the use of good manners as opposed to a recognition of the importance of speaking the truth.  

Politics and Practical Philosophy

              A few weeks ago Donald Trump shocked the political establishment when he mocked John McCain’s claims to be a war hero, and called a McCain a loser.   The immediate reaction of commentators across the map was that this was an intolerable breach of manners, and that the backlash would sink his political ship.   At the time, this was what I thought, too—but we were all wrong.  In fact, there seemed to be no negative consequences at all for Trump. 

              In retrospect, I think I understand that.  John McCain for many years now has been trumpeting his claims to military heroism.  That is putting too fine a point on it; John McCain is a self-important ass.  He was standing on his soap box to tell others in his party what they could say and what they could not say.  Donald Trump simply walked up to him and kicked the soap box out from under him.  Good for him for doing that (although he may yet pay a price for it, who knows.)  

              It is manners against honesty. It is entirely appropriate to respect war heroes—unless and until those heroes take advantage of that respect to regulate the political debate.  When they do that, they’re asking for a smack down. Disrespect becomes appropriate when respect becomes a commandment.  

              A few weeks ago I was trying to explain the generation gap of the 1960s to those who are too young to understand it.  You remember, in the first segment here, that I was talking about Order, and Hair.  The generation before us believed in order, and in haircuts that reflected good order.  Men got crewcuts and buzz cuts; women piled up long hair in complicated designs.   In rebellion we just let our hair flow—men and women—as a way of saying that on the spectrum of order vs. freedom, we were choosing more freedom.   

              Is hair political?  Sure it is.  Look at Mitt Romney’s hair.  Mitt Romney’s hair was a symbol of his absolute commitment to good order—and people were uncomfortable with that.  There was too much order there.  I’m not saying that Mitt Romney lost the election because of his hair, but he lost the election because of concerns about him that were related to that.   

              Bernie Sanders a year ago had wild and carefree hair that spun off of his head like sagebrush.  When he started running for President, though, he cut his hair so that he looks like your Grandpa.  He’s got mainstream hair. 

              One could say in general that in seeking a mate, or in choosing our friends, or in seeking people that we want to work with, that we tend to choose those who have philosophical cornerstones which are like our own, except to the extent that we recognize our failings.  When we recognize our failings then we tend, as much as we can, to choose those who complement our failings and offset them, rather than those who are like ourselves. 

              In politics, however, this is less true; in politics people tend to claim all virtues as if to claim each virtue did not also tug on the rope to claim a failing.  In the list of philosophical tenets that I gave in the second segment, in almost every case one end of the spectrum is claimed by one political party, and the other end by the other.   Republicans believe in self-reliance; Democrats believe in the interdependence of success.    Republicans believe in the creed of Invictus; I am the captain of my ship, I am the master of my soul.  Democrats were instructed by their college professors that this is nonsense.  Democrats believe in altruism; Republicans in self-interest.  Republicans believe in the lessons of experience; Democrats believe in being open to new ideas.  Democrats believe in the direct pursuit of peace; Republicans believe in the need to resist evil.  

              Whenever I state this more or less directly, I am confronted with the offended yelps of those who want to claim every virtue on both ends of the spectrum.  How dare you say that only Republicans believe in the need to resist evil, they will squeal. . .why, I am a Democrat and I believe in the need to resist evil as much as any Goddamned Republican does.   How dare you say that only Democrats believe in altruism, squeaks the offended conservative; don’t you know that studies show that Republicans give 40% more to charity than Democrats do?   I am a Republican, but I believe every bit as much in altruism as any damned Democrat does.

              Yes, of course you do, Dear.   The people who say these things are like the job applicants whose only faults are that they are too enthusiastic and they try too hard to please others. What I think. . .well, first of all, what I think is that those of you who want to claim every virtue on both ends of every scale are full of shit.  But this is what I think about politics:  that about 35% of Americans are Democrats, about 30% are Republicans, and about 35% recognize on some level that what is needed is balance.  Those in the latter category will ultimately vote for whoever offers us no medicine so strong that it may be toxic. 

COMMENTS (92 Comments, most recent shown first)

gejerz
Thank you MarisFan61.

Reading Bill's Commentary, and the notes below they just doubled into thoughts of my trip that I was trying to get my arms around. They gave me a framework, and I ran with it. Eventually, I had to run and posted what came out. Should have edited it more. Sorry if it got too long.

Being peaceful as we enter the playoffs, is better than being all foamin' and yellin', I think. Save that yellin' for later, after a victory. Peaceful is better to enjoy, observe, and think about baseball. Until your team wins, that is.

Hope that's what you meant by a trance. Peaceful.


11:27 AM Sep 28th

MarisFan61
Gejerz: Thanks for that beautiful article (which is really what it is).
It put me in a nice little trance.
8:41 PM Sep 27th

gejerz
Bill, thank you for your thoughtful commentary. I am entering the response stream late, having just returned from travel and not having taken my laptop. You see I was in NYC and well didn't want to risk it. NYC was my home away from home for several days as I was completing my MLB circle of current stadiums. Had not yet been to either stadium and they were for me (Citifield) 29 & (Yankee Stadium) 30. Well actually more because over the year I went to games in places that no longer exist like Candlestick Park or County Stadium.

As I have traveled over the years through these cities, initially not intentional on checking a stadium list, I have enjoyed the experiences of meeting not only stadiums, but also cities, fans, people, and cultures. I have also the colors displayed even demanded in the (red) crowd. I have seen entire stadiums demanded to applaud in respect, too. There can be ugly versions of cheer at times, of that I am certain.

This adventure has included times when I approached it demanding advance order, planning the trip to a minute, I am sure. Because I have been taught to seek order, in our American way. And at times I have sought simply comfort in my planning, or relief from a connected business trip. Say sitting in the sun before a flight home. And other trips when I wantonly was seeking risk and avoiding order in the hopes of a .... different experience, seeking letting the experience come to me.

America (and Toronto), or perhaps 'Murika for some, is a strange and unique geographical gathering of sapien souls. And MLB baseball of course dices the geography in a specific manner. And when viewing that geography with a baseball lense, one can observe similarities and differences on varying scales.

One can rank stadiums, yes, certainly. Rankings can even be done by available food, or views, or values, or neighborhoods, or fan... 'fan-ness.' Stadiums, fans, and food can be spectrumed (a word?) too, just as philosophies can be spectrumed along a line to one end or another. Or one end of a hemisphere or another. Whenever a person hears you are trying to experience '30', they almost unanimously ask, 'Which is your favorite?' How do you sum up years and cities and people into one choice, or even a simple list?

Oh yeah, and then there is the baseball being played, too. The baseball you see in person is usually different than the baseball you see on TV. The baseball, that is after all the underlying purpose of the stadiums. In my view, I can state as simply and directly as possible, it is more fun to watch a home team win. It is palpable, it can be felt in the air. So, the stadiums are about the baseball, right?

It could be argued, Or I will at least, that many stadiums today are not necessarily about the sport contest, the game, but instead it is about the experience. Or more appropriately, 'The Experience.' Heck, if a restaurant can make a big deal about yelling, "Hot Bagels" as if that makes the bagel you eat taste better, then The Experience is perhaps as important as anything else today.

My travels suggest it seems in different geographies, the objective experience that is sought still has some, less every year perhaps, but they still have some uniqueness. Oh, I am not talking just about a hill in center field, a short porch in Right Field, the Pesky Pole, or even an expected fog blowing in over the left field wall. I am talking about all of those things combined into one place. And not necessarily all designed as such.

And so, a Manager that has wild hair may dissuade some fans from liking a team just by its singular event, while others may see the wild hair combined with the fog blowing in as the whole experience. And then they may decide the experience was enough to encourage them to return, or in current terms, enough to 'post it' as a worthy experience that others should seek.

So let me put ME out there in my own weird and petty way. What I found in my journeys were people, some I liked, some I didn't. Stadiums and cities, some I liked and some I didn't. In the end, the people I didn't like, say because ... they were spending their energy loudly flipping off AJ Pierzynski and getting thrown out of the stadium, thus disrespecting my experience sitting near them, those people were not The whole Citifield experience, nor the whole NYC experience. A few days later, i can see that. And although it annoyed me greatly at that moment, their acts would not prevent me from going back to see another game at Citifield someday. And those several fans poisonous acts which may have been medicine to their Met's fan soul, may cause me to initially cheer for the Met's opposition in the first round of the playoffs. Eventually, if they survive, I will judge that team on its own merits, not my experience at their park.

I am weird in that I like to watch good baseball, and I will cheer for teams (in the playoffs) that may not be my favorite but are GOOD baseball teams. Well, as long as they are not trying to beat 'my team' in that series. Last season's Royal's come to mind. They were fun to watch. So, I think us sapiens can have abstract ideas to cheer-on, ideas like 'good baseball' that may distinct from a uniform of colors or shapes, and may differ from our own geography. We humans can hold complex ideas and even be able to change our minds along the way.

I do have to say that as i traveled, I was reminded that in the 60's and perhaps even the 70's, fans did not routinely wear only their team's colors into the stadium, at least not in Chicago. Maybe you wore a team hat, sure, or a lucky hat that was different. But fans did not typically own a whole suit of clothes for their team. And in fact, growing up in Chicago, it was a place where the gangs demanded its members to wear specifically colored sweaters (think a letterman sweater with buttons) and it seems that this current demand of unity in display is a bit scary at times.

My travels to reach 30 were fun, I met people, good, bad, and mostly in between. I ate some good food, I learned things about places, even about baseball!!! And not all I learned was about me. At least not about the 'me' that existed before I started this journey.

Again, thanks Bill for prompting the discussion amongst different people, from different places but with at least one think in common, that we enjoy reading your thoughts and the thoughts of other writers on this site.

Happy Playoffs.

May we see some great games next month.











What joy it has been to experience these 30 places and the people


6:06 PM Sep 27th

SkeptiSys
"SkeptiSys - You have captured, perfectly, the spirit that will drive a future U.S. civil war.

"Moderate doesn't even EXIST. And anybody who pleads for a reasonable meeting on the 50-yard line is by definition closed-minded and unfair. Let's get back to real intelligence and pragmatism, which understands that there is no such thing as moderate."

Good thinking. And thanks guys.

- Jeff"

You have strangely twisted my words to where the meaning is unrecognizable. Pacifism will start a war? Asking for a reasonable meeting is by definition closed-minded and unfair? Nonsense.

To have a reasonable exchange of ideas, you need to take the time to understand others' ideas.
11:37 AM Sep 23rd

steve161
Glad to hear it, Mike. I've always found it to be one of life's true satisfactions: sharing a really good book and the response to it.
9:12 AM Sep 23rd

mauimike
Steve, about half way through, I'm really enjoying it. Don't know what I'll think at the end, but "Sapiens," is a keeper. One of the best books I've read in a long time. Thanks. Here's another great quote from the book. "It's relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don't really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven."​
1:34 AM Sep 22nd

jdw
"Since invitro asked in a civil manner, I'll respond for his benefit, but will need a 2nd motion before responding to jdw again :- )

1. jaw put on the searchlights, Googled far and wide, and found one crank who wants to jail homosexuals. I and 99.98% of Christians reject his rantings decisively. I leave it to you Invitro whether this Holmes guy is *representative* of your own *experience* interacting with Christians."


Are you really being serious? I didn't use the Google to find that. It simply popped up on my Facebook feed shortly before I brought it over here. There are plenty of other things that pop up on my feed on any given day that touch on anti-gay intolerance. I simply thought that was a good for what we're talking about.

No one wants me to bring over 100 different examples, certainly not in a Comments section. Anyone who follows the issue knows there are plenty out there. But if you really want me to drop 100+, we can take this to the Readers Board.


"2. I am not searching far and wide for liberal scorn of conservatives."

When did this turn to Liberal vs Conservative?

The topic was about Gay Intolerance of Christians vs Christian Intolerance of Gays. That's not a Liberal vs Conservative thingy.

My father is a Conservative going back to the Truman Administration. But he is also pro marriage equality, not just in the current issue of making sure that the right included gays, but also back in the 60s when certain conservatives did want Blacks and Whites to get married. So... this isn't a Conservative vs Liberal thingy. It's always been focused on what you and Bill initially brought to the table:

Gays are every bit as intolerant of Christians as Christians are of Gays

Now a fair number of us called bullsh1t on that and asked for equivalent examples. Which not only have to refused to do that, but now you've attempted to shift the discussion.

Well done.


"I'm pointing my finger right at jdw. Charity begins at home."

You're pointing a different finger than the one you started with. So it's a wasted finger.


"It's one thing to point a thousand miles away and say "that guy needs to get into the 21st century. It's another thing to BEHAVE in a tolerant manner. BE THE CHANGE!"

I've spent several decades pointing to people and things that aren't a thousand miles away. Ones that are in my own community, and among my own friends and family. I've been working on "be the change" my entire adult life, and even before I was an adult.

So again, you're pointing the wrong finger. This is a bit like you rolled out the gay brother spot: you're better off not trying to put me into a box created in your own mind.


"3. Gay intolerance of Christians ... we also do not have to search far and wide to find people who want to media-lynch Phil Robertson for merely saying that he believes in "one man one woman" marriage. The GENERAL CONSENSUS is that Phil Robertson needs to be suppressed, not debated."

The one man, one woman thing wasn't the problem, Jeff. It was the AIDS = God's Penalty For Being Gay spot that people has an issue with. Along with the Bestiality comment the year before.

So what's the equiv of Gays saying X is God's Punishment for Being Christian?

And Christians = Bestiality?

Let's get some real equivalents.


7:58 PM Sep 21st

jemanji
SkeptiSys - You have captured, perfectly, the spirit that will drive a future U.S. civil war.

"Moderate doesn't even EXIST. And anybody who pleads for a reasonable meeting on the 50-yard line is by definition closed-minded and unfair. Let's get back to real intelligence and pragmatism, which understands that there is no such thing as moderate."

Good thinking. And thanks guys.

- Jeff
12:38 AM Sep 21st

steve161
Mike: hope you're still enjoying Sapiens. I've now finished it and stand by the description 'thought-provoking'. I don't agree with everything in it, but that's not the point, is it?
6:45 PM Sep 20th

SkeptiSys
"Those - Absolutely not. I'm not asking for any help whatsoever in "throwing stones at" jdw, as you characterize it.

I'm asking whether there is anybody yet unconvinced, somebody moderate and considering the situation, who might benefit from an exchange of ideas. If there is, I'll be happy to try to explain the minority position.

Clear that time?"

'Moderate' is a useless term when describing complex ideas like politics. It is only useful as a term used to control a debate by describing any issue as linear and further restricting the conversation by limiting that scale to 2 distinct points. The idea is that if you control both sides of the debate, any idea off the scale is considered radical, no matter how true or logical that idea is, and it appears like an open discussion is taking place.

Example: Iraq war. Both sides of the debate deliberately ignored the fact that we had no legal right to invade another country, it is a war crime. That true, uncontroversial, well known popular fact is considered radical when the few media outlets define the entire debate.

Another example: Clinton and Bush or the 2 political parties owned by the ruling class are defined as the 2 sides of the debate. Both pro-war, so anti war is considered radical. Both sides anti-workers, so worker rights are considered radical. Both sides for giving our public money to banks and other giant corporations for nothing in return, so any candidate who wants to provide for the majority of Americans is considered radical, even if his ideas align with the public's.

When you ignore others' opinions and request a 'moderate' opinion, you are dismissing their opinions as radical and useless - the exact opposite of an open exchange of ideas.

12:58 PM Sep 20th

jemanji
:: shrug :: No "qualifications," obviously. As I've said many times now, I'd love to participate in a *discussion.*

Discussion: "the action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas."

Flinging angry retorts back and forth, spitting into the wind, that is not what BJOL is about.

Cheers,
Jeff


11:59 PM Sep 19th

337
Sorry --hadn't realized your strict qualifications for being able to second the motion. I thought anyone here could second, jemanji.
10:16 PM Sep 19th

those
And the idea that you are showing more willingness toward an exchange of ideas than jdw is frankly ridiculous. There's you saying you want that, and then there's all of your other insulting, baiting posts. You're right down there with him, no matter where you think you are.
4:55 PM Sep 19th

those
I was talking about this post, not the one you're talking about:

"Half-a-dozen unmoderated responses since my last proposition, and you guys tell me which one of them has a tolerant spirit.

The subject here is, "Who is intolerant." I believe any objective observer can discern, in a few seconds, the insufferably self-righteous tone of the militant left."





4:52 PM Sep 19th

jemanji
Those - Absolutely not. I'm not asking for any help whatsoever in "throwing stones at" jdw, as you characterize it.

I'm asking whether there is anybody yet unconvinced, somebody moderate and considering the situation, who might benefit from an exchange of ideas. If there is, I'll be happy to try to explain the minority position.

Clear that time?


4:22 PM Sep 19th

jemanji
337 - if I remember your posts right, you share jdw's position, correct?
4:20 PM Sep 19th

337
I second the motion that you respond to jdw.
12:45 PM Sep 19th

mauimike
"Yet none of these things exist outside the stories that people invent and tell one another. There are no gods in the universe, no nations, no money, no human rights, no laws, and no justice outside the common imagination of human beings."

"Just try to imagine how difficult it would have been to create states, or churches, or legal systems if we could speak only about things that really exist, such as rivers, trees and lions."

"As time went by, the imagined reality became ever more powerful, so that today the very survival of rivers, trees and lions depends on the grace of imagined entities such as the United States and Google."

Thank you Mr. Steve for your recommendation of "Sapiens, A Brief History of Humankind," by Yuval Noah Harari. One of the best non-fiction books I've read in a long time and I'm only 40 pages in.


1:34 AM Sep 19th

those
Interesting to read this conversation. I think this is what Bill was talking about when he said both sides want to claim every virtue on each side of the spectrum. Read through them, and you don't see an argument about Christianity -- you see an argument about who is a better person. Both jemanji and jdw say that they are perfectly tolerant, and it's just the other side is the bad guy. Read through the posts, and neither of them gives any strong indication that they could be doing anything better -- yet they have no shortage of advice on how the other person should behave. Not satisfied with that, jemanji even appealed several times for other readers to join in and throw imaginary stones at jdw for being intolerant (unlike jemanji, according to jemanji). But of course, jemanji says he is very kind (like every Christian, according to jemanji) and really tries to listen to his two gay brothers, as though "really trying" to listen to an opposing point of view is an amazing virtue.
8:59 PM Sep 18th

jemanji
Since invitro asked in a civil manner, I'll respond for his benefit, but will need a 2nd motion before responding to jdw again :- )

1. jaw put on the searchlights, Googled far and wide, and found one crank who wants to jail homosexuals. I and 99.98% of Christians reject his rantings decisively. I leave it to you Invitro whether this Holmes guy is *representative* of your own *experience* interacting with Christians.

2. I am not searching far and wide for liberal scorn of conservatives. I'm pointing my finger right at jdw. Charity begins at home.

It's one thing to point a thousand miles away and say "that guy needs to get into the 21st century. It's another thing to BEHAVE in a tolerant manner. BE THE CHANGE!

3. Gay intolerance of Christians ... we also do not have to search far and wide to find people who want to media-lynch Phil Robertson for merely saying that he believes in "one man one woman" marriage. The GENERAL CONSENSUS is that Phil Robertson needs to be suppressed, not debated.

Invitro, or others who are more moderate, I'd be happy to follow up on your reaction to that.

Cheers,
Jeff​
6:58 PM Sep 18th

jdw
Again, I'd love Jeff to give us examples of Gays with this type of Intolerance towards Christians:

kmherald.com/holmes-pushes-antigay-message-p8687-144.htm

"I would get the D.A. to swear out a warrant on any man who says he’s gay. Sodomy is a crime, a felony in the state of North Carolina."

"What’s wrong with eradicating homosexuals? We should jail them, throw them all in jail!"

"You would probably classify me as someone needing help. I’m not a rocket scientist. But I do believe in holiness, in the Bible."

So there are a lot of gays running around saying that straight sex is a crime, that Christians should be eradicated, that they should be in jail simply for being Christian?

Seriously? That just happened while we were in this discussion - the article is from Wednesday.

What are the equivalents to that from Gays, Jeff?
3:29 PM Sep 18th

jdw
So Slasher asks the same thing that I have several times: give equivalent examples of major Gay intolerance towards Christians.

Not surprisingly, Jeff ducks it yet again and wanders off.

“I have here in my hand a list of 205 intolerances that Tuh Gayz have shown Christians..."
-Jeff McManji
1:25 PM Sep 18th

invitro
jemanji: I'm interested in your replies and theirs. (I don't know if I'm politicially neutral, though.)​
1:13 AM Sep 18th

jemanji
jdw, slasher & co. - I think we've easily passed the point at which we're spitting into the wind. Which of us is doing the spitting, I'll leave to you. ;- )

If there are folks here who are politically neutral and interested in my replies to all the other commenters here, *and* in theirs to mine, just let me know. Otherwise, we're chasing our tails and I'm happy to let slasher et al have the last word below.

Cheers,
Jeff
12:40 AM Sep 18th

the_slasher14
jemanji: I would be grateful if you would address the issue I raised rather than retreating to one you feel more comfortable with. My point is that intolerance comes in two varieties -- I don't like you and won't have anything to do with you, or I don't like you and am going to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, like take away your rights and, in more than a few instances, your life.

The left can be very intolerant of Christian conservatives, sure, but it doesn't drive into New York to beat up Christians, as Christians did to gays for years. It doesn't beat Christians senseless and leave them to freeze to death tied to a post, as Christians did to Matthew Shepard. And it doesn't pass laws or argue in court that gays should be thrown in jail for things they do with consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes.

When you're ready to own the difference between the intolerance of the left and the intolerance of the Christian right, I'll listen to you. Until then, you're just ducking responsibility.
8:41 PM Sep 17th

jdw
In response to the poster Those:

I seem to recall the comment Bill made, as it looks like at least one post in addition to Jeff does as well.

The site's search engine is pretty poor, as if all the articles don't index properly. I've at times looked for easy and unique names and failed to find articles that I know exist. The best example that I can think of is the name Yastrzemski. Do a search for it, narrow the results down to Bill's articles, and see if this one pops up:

www.billjamesonline.com/yaz_and_billy

It's strange that it doesn't.

FWIW, I also had no luck finding Bill's comments on tolerance. I was trying to recall the context of how he said them.​
8:12 PM Sep 17th

jdw
I want to go back to this earlier sentence by further down the thread in response yesterday:

"As far as [Gays] demanding "affirmation," I would ask you how often you have affirmed Christianity."

I would like to be clear that I used the words "open and affirming" in this way:

"... the open and affirming nature of his church..."

Specifically in referencing Bill's church. I used the terms Open and Affirming because Bill's own church uses it in their About Us page:

plymouthlawrence.com/about-us

As far as your question on how often I've affirmed Christianity, you'll have to be more specific since that covers a wide range of possibilities. So offer up 10 questions in your mind that you wonder if I affirm them related to Christianity.

Here's an example, with answers:

Do you affirm that think that Christians can openly be Christians in public?

I affirm that I believe that's perfectly fine and good.

Do you affirm that Christians can get married?

I affirm that I believe that's perfectly fine and good.

Do you affirm that Christians can adopt?

I affirm that I believe that's perfectly fine and good.

Do you affirm that Christians can serve in the military?

I affirm that I believe that's perfectly fine and good.

Do you affirm that Christians can lead a Boy Scout troop?

I affirm that I believe that's perfectly fine and good.

Do you affirm that Christians can be a K-12 teacher?

I affirm that I believe that's perfectly fine and good.

Do you affirm that Christians can hold hands walking down the street?

I affirm that I believe that's perfectly fine and good.

Do you affirm that Christians can kiss on TV?

I affirm that I believe that's perfectly fine and good.

Do you affirm that can advertise sites like Christian Mingle?

I affirm that I believe that's perfectly fine and good.

We could go on with a hundred more public and private things. We'd run across some that I wouldn't affirm, such as a teacher leading a class in prayer in a public school, or any level of Government enacting a law that Christianity is the official religion of an area and all other religions are prohibited. For the most part, the things that I wouldn't affirm are illegal.

But fire away, Jeff. I'd be interested in seeing what of Christianity you'd think it's important for me to affirm to be tolerant.​
7:53 PM Sep 17th

jdw
"JDW - yeah, one of mine has passed too. He, like you, blamed everybody but himself for his self-destructive tendencies. Drugs, gambling, dangerous associates, irresponsible promiscuity, and he was the poster boy for his sermons on "America is killing gays.""

I don't blame anyone for my own self destructive behavior in the 80s. Took responsibility for my actions, sobered up, and cop to my stupidity in the era. It's rather hard for me to be a poster boy for "America is killing gays" since I'm not dead, nor gay.

As far as my brother, he didn't deal with your wonderful list of "self-destructive tendencies" such as "drugs, gambling, dangerous associates, irresponsible promiscuity". A ruptured pancreatic cyst that led to a rather horrific and painful death. That after 30+ years of fighting kidney disease which wrecked his body. That also wasn't caused by "self-destructive tendencies" such as "drugs, gambling, dangerous associates, irresponsible promiscuity", unless you think he was a rather active and ambitious 4 year old when it was discovered he had kidney disease.

So no, neither my brother or myself are your brother. It's probably best not to paint with broad brushes people you don't know.


"I loved him dearly, and unfortunately financed/enabled his escape from problems, but it didn't work out in the end."

It's odd. I've helped a number of people over the decades since my sobriety try to deal with their own demons. Some have walked the line as I have, some of hit bumps but got back up to move forward, and some were eventually unable to beat their demons. I don't think I would term any of those who failed as flippantly as "but it didn't work out in the end".


"At least I get a viciously sarcastic slow clap from you. Makes it worthwhile."

It was, admittedly. Your dropping your brothers in a "I have some X friends/family so I'm okay" fashion was an eye rolling thing that warranted sarcasm.


"Half-a-dozen unmoderated responses since my last proposition, and you guys tell me which one of them has a tolerant spirit."

Perhaps it's better to ask "you guys" / objective observers which person keeps ducking the question of what intolerant actions he sees from a mass of gays that is on par with the ones I listed.

I'm not the only one who has touched on that issues, as others have have talked about equivalencies.

So will you list you're examples of major anti-Christian intolerances by gays that are on par with the anti-Gay intolerances by Christians? Or cop to having nothing?

FWIW, I also enjoy your "unmoderated responses" spot looking to look for the moderator to clean up things for you.


"The subject here is, "Who is intolerant." I believe any objective observer can discern, in a few seconds, the insufferably self-righteous tone of the militant left."

I think the objective observers might find some irony between that first sentence and the second one.


"Christians may get it wrong, that's for sure. But they indoctrinate themselves to be kind to those who oppose them, and do it on a weekly basis. Where and when do individuals on the militant far left, such as the last five commenters, work on their self-awareness?"

Do they indoctrinate themselves to claim intolerance then run for the hills when asked for examples? Or wave their fists at "the militant far left" as another way to avoid presenting facts?

To pull this slightly onto topic, this would be like Bill claiming Roy White was underrated, Jim Rice was overrated, White was better than Rice... and then not offering up any information on why.

I would hope that you don't think that objective observers will just take on faith your claims.​
7:37 PM Sep 17th

jemanji
Steve - I am talking about YOU.


5:25 PM Sep 17th

jemanji
Steve - "nausea combined with contempt." That would be your visceral reaction to those who differ with you intellectually, then?

Because Bill wrote that mildly, politely, and as an honest observation of what had occurred in his own experience. It was *testimony.* And the live element was a plea: Can't we apply the plea for tolerance to ALL parties?

If you guys are still viewing such genteel observations with "nausea" and "contempt," it's hard to imagine how the country is going to find middle ground on real issues.

It's hard to think when you're sneering, bro.


5:22 PM Sep 17th

steve161
Who's intolerant? How about Kim Davis, who puts her religiously motivated bigotry above her professional and constitutional responsibility? Kareem Abdul-Jabbar says it much better than I can:
time.com/4024556/kareem-abdul-jabbar-kim-davis/
5:21 PM Sep 17th

jemanji
JDW - yeah, one of mine has passed too. He, like you, blamed everybody but himself for his self-destructive tendencies. Drugs, gambling, dangerous associates, irresponsible promiscuity, and he was the poster boy for his sermons on "America is killing gays."

I loved him dearly, and unfortunately financed/enabled his escape from problems, but it didn't work out in the end. At least I get a viciously sarcastic slow clap from you. Makes it worthwhile.

Half-a-dozen unmoderated responses since my last proposition, and you guys tell me which one of them has a tolerant spirit.

The subject here is, "Who is intolerant." I believe any objective observer can discern, in a few seconds, the insufferably self-righteous tone of the militant left.

Christians may get it wrong, that's for sure. But they indoctrinate themselves to be kind to those who oppose them, and do it on a weekly basis. Where and when do individuals on the militant far left, such as the last five commenters, work on their self-awareness?

Respectfully,
Jeff


5:14 PM Sep 17th

steve161
Oh, he wrote it, all right. I distinctly remember the feeling of nausea combined with contempt.

As an expatriate American, I point with pride to the fact that the US is the first country to establish, as a matter of law, that nobody may be denied civil rights simply because of who they are. That's codified in the 14th Amendment, of course, but it's taken a long time to make it a reality. Still: no other nation has done it.

I admit (not without shame) to a visceral discomfort when confronted with the fact of homosexuality, especially male, and don't doubt that feelings like that are the reason for centuries of persecution and for the hateful passages in both testaments that are used to justify it. I'm glad so much progress has been made in overcoming them and understanding that granting the state's recognition of the union of two people who love each other hurts absolutely nobody and is an unalloyed good.
1:21 PM Sep 17th

those
For what it's worth, I searched the site for "gays", "Christians", and "picnic" and couldn't find anything like the quote Jemanji is attributing to Bill.
6:47 PM Sep 16th

337
That's my issue with Bill's even-handed, they-all-do-it, Democrats-and-Republicans-are-equally-self-righteous stance. Really? If you don't distinguish between gross differences in levels of self-righteousness, you must be trying pretty hard to see equivalence where there's very little.
4:52 PM Sep 16th

the_slasher14
"Just a few months ago, Bill mused about a family picnic he attended in which the Christians were "much more tolerant of the gays than the gays were of the Christians."

Did Bill really say that? I mean, I have no doubt it's true if he did, but it's an incredibly stupid thing to say because it implies that there's somehow an equivalence in intolerance between all gays and all Christians. I know Bill didn't SAY that, exactly, but the implication is clear, or else why did he say it at all?

Would he say that Jews, in 1945, were more intolerant of the Germans at a party than vice versa? I'm sure that would have been the case -- I know Jews of that generation who cannot ABIDE hearing a German accent to this day, even from a Holocaust survivor. But the implication is that tolerance is a matter of manners, rather than how it often plays out in the real world -- in matters of discrimination, terrorist violence, and occasionally murder. And on THAT scorecard, Christians have no right to complain of intolerance because gays are sometimes impolite to them.

You can talk about the equivalence of tolerance when the price exacted by intolerance is even. A Jew TODAY should be polite to today's Germans because Germany is a very different country than in 1945. But the price exacted from gays by Christian intolerance is not over and done with. And Bill's statement is evidence that he thinks it is, or why else would he say it?

Pat Buchanan once said, of affirmative action for blacks, "well, 20 years should have been enough time for them to catch up." (He said this around 1980, but never mind...) Bill's statement implies that two or three months are enough for gays to get that chip off their shoulder. If I were gay, I'd take it as blaming the victim.
4:33 PM Sep 16th

jdw
As far as you having gay brothers, I think this is where I slow clap.

My gay brother is dead.

He passed when Baehr v. Lewin/Mike was in its infancy. He missed out on watching DOMA pass, signed by a President he not only voted for also supported on a grass roots level including knocking on doors for him. He missed watching 30 states pass amendments banning marriage equality, including his own "liberal" state which yo-yo'd the right back and forth.

On the other hand, he missed being able to read Judge Walker's findings of fact and opinion in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which no doubt would have brought a smile to his face. Same goes to the slew of other opinions he would have enjoyed reading, from Windsor to Obergefell.

Most of all, he missed out on being able to marry his long term partner. Something that both his conservative Republican father and his DFH liberal Democratic brother would have both happily stood next to him as a groom and his best man if is rights were recognized at the time.

So when I hear "I try to really listen" and "they haven't yet convinced me"...

*clap*

*clap*

*clap*
2:34 AM Sep 16th

jdw
Since you ducked the question, I'll ask it once again and eliminated everything else from this post so it's clear:

Do you think there are many gays who think that Christians can't openly be Christians, can't get married, can't adopt, can't serve in the military, can't lead a Boy Scout troop, can't be a K-12 teacher, can't hold hands walking down the street, can't kiss on TV, or can't advertise sites like Christian Mingle?

What exactly are the true equivalences of intolerance as opposed to likely false equivs?
2:02 AM Sep 16th

jemanji
Last post was by phone. Sorry. "Gays" rather than "Giza," "a genteel fashion" rather than "agent he'll fashion."

.....

You have the institution here, the heritage of Washington and Jefferson, saying "Let's sit down and discuss this calmly. Let's go point-by-point as to whether gay marriage is healthy in the long term."

You've got the counterculture saying, "We bitterly resent the need to discuss anything. Your job is to affirm our position and affirm it now. Sign here or suffer the consequences."

So, yes, we leave it to the reader which side is coming from an authentically "tolerant" heart. When I hear my gay brothers out, I try to really listen. It's just that they haven't yet convinced me.

Best,
Jeff


9:31 PM Sep 15th

jemanji
JDW - I have two gay brothers, whom I love, Who reason exactly as you do. Their worldview stands or falls with the assumption that sexual taboos are evil, and that there is exactly nothing for Christians to "tolerate".

Christianity did not invent sexual taboos. 95% of world cultures have had them in some form or another, so there debate does indeed require tolerance from both sides.

As far as Giza demanding "affirmation," I would ask you how often you have affirmed Christianity.

Back on topic my experience is that one side is much more civil towards the arguments of the other. One debates, usually in agent he'll fashion, one gets angry and suppresses in "Fire Phil" style. What I am calling for is an intelligent debate of the pros and cons on sexual taboos. Nothing more.

Peace,
Jeff
9:22 PM Sep 15th

jdw
The "tolerant" almost certainly revolves around what one is asking the other to be tolerant about.

Do you think there are many gays who think that Christians can't openly be Christians, can't get married, can't adopt, can't serve in the military, can't lead a Boy Scout troop, can't be a K-12 teacher, can't hold hands walking down the street, can't kiss on TV, or can't advertise sites like Christian Mingle?

Not a single state in the country allowed same sex marriage. When exactly did the states not allow Christian marriage, unless it was an interracial Christian marriage or a same sex Christian marriage?

What exactly are the true equivalences of intolerance as opposed to likely false equivs?

I suspect that Bill knows that his Church, and the ones its affiliated, are a rather small % of the Christian churches in the country. Over time, more will line up with the open and affirming nature of his church. But he's not likely to say that the majority of regular church going Christians, and Christian churches, in this country are there yet.​
4:56 PM Sep 15th

337
And I am a professional editor, Mike, but I don't get paid to edit your stuff so I'm just pointing out places where you crack me up without trying. I do see it as my Christian duty now to kill as many infields as I can, given the vast number of infields out there and my limited resources, but I'll try. By the way, have you seen Noam Chomsky's latest response to the 9-11 truthers? Basically, he tells them that if they had any useful information, they would have published it in an academic journal. Seriously, that's his recommendation. I'll find the link for you.
4:55 PM Sep 15th

steve161
It's not often that Mike and I are on the same side, but on this one we're at least uneasy allies.

Let me recommend a book I'm in the middle of: Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari. Descriptive rather than prescriptive, skeptical of all our myths and paradigms, thought provoking.
7:10 AM Sep 15th

mauimike
I think the great line is, "He'd be at least taken out by a drone."
3:14 AM Sep 15th

mauimike
And there's one too many, 'are' in there, but once you post, you can't edit. It's like asking Mr. James a question, it disappears into the, vapor, or something. About the tolerance of Christians for Gays, were you thinking about Kim Davis? Yes, Mao and Stalin killed more people than Hitler ever dreamed about. (And remember, Stalin was our ally and checkout, Operation Keelhaul.) They didn't really kill the enemy, as in the other, they killed their own. Stalin mostly killed Russian's. Mao mostly killed Chinese. It was a government killing their own people. It had little to do with God or lack of God. It had more to do with Muammar al Gaddafi, famous line, "I rule you or I kill you." Soon coming to a country you hold dear. A government can buy your vote and then if it can't, "I rule you or I kill you." Doubt me? Look at history.
3:08 AM Sep 15th

jemanji
++ when are Christians are gonna follow Jesus. ++

Catchy line, Mike. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Just a few months ago, Bill mused about a family picnic he attended in which the Christians were "much more tolerant of the gays than the gays were of the Christians." Or, taking America as an example of Judeo-Christian philosophy, you could compare its genteel attitude toward "enemy" civilians to the attitude of Mao's China, Stalin's Russia, or any other dominant power in history.

Great line, though. Says everything and says nothing.


1:29 AM Sep 15th

mauimike
Good for you, skeptisys, we are a tad controversial, especially around 9/11.

I was the worlds worst speller. After a life time of reading, I've gotten better and with spell check, I'm usually pretty good, but I still screw up. If I was getting paid the big bucks, I could afford an editor, but I'm not, so I can't. Anyway I would probably ignore the editor and just let him correct the spelling. And I'm always happy to amuse you all.

Reverend, with all due respect, our exchange is an example why I haven't paid much attention to religion for many a year. I'm a big fan of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Henry David Thoreau, civil disobedience and the pacifism of Jesus Christ. I just wonder when are Christians are gonna follow Jesus. You know like take to heart the words of the Sermon on the Mount. I think if He came back again, he'd be crucified again. He'd at least be taken out by a drone. So it goes.

I began this all with a quote from Robert Anton Wilson, I'll leave you folks with another. "The Bible tells us to be like God and then on page after page, it describes God as a mass murder. This may be the single most important key to the political behavior of Western Civilization."
1:18 AM Sep 15th

jemanji
It occurs that there will be lurkers who are honestly interested in the nature of humility. So we'll skip past the grievous insults toward Christ and Gandhi and suggest a few principles.

When Christ rejected a political crown, when George Washington rejected U.S. Kingship for himself, when Gandhi rejected physical rewards, they did it because they regarded the Mission to be more important than themselves as individuals.

None of the three were greedy for praise. None of them were touchy about criticism. None of the three walked around life trying to justify their own feelings of self-superiority. They walked around life trying to push their agendas: Love, Self-Discipline, Freedom, Betterment of the Human Race.

When you get to the point to where you sneer at ANYONE (among 7 billion people) as being CAPABLE of self-sacrifice, I'd say you're in trouble.

Without any exaggeration, Christ invented humility, in the sense that He popularized it. Before His birth, the idea of "a low opinion of your own importance" was considered a character flaw -- the self-view of a groveling slave.

In his work, Bill James has been much more interested in baseball than he has been in bleeding, savoring, and licking the maximum amount of glory for himself. It's one of the reasons that his material is so compelling and readable.

If we'll reflect on it, meditate upon it, give it a chance, I think we'll find "self-forgetfulness" to be among the most important human virtues.

My $0.02,
Jeff


5:03 PM Sep 12th

jemanji
To discuss and understand humility might be a life's work. This thread is clearly not the place in which to make fast progress.

I didn't put Bill James in "company with" Jesus, Gandhi and George Washington. I held them up as *reductio ad absurdums*, extreme examples by which a simple principle could be understood.

These extreme examples provided us zero movement toward understanding what humility is about. Instead, the thread held those Three up as extreme examples of people who got their way.

In other comments, readers held up the U.S. Army as --- > no place from which once could source Courage, Honesty, and Integrity (though those are three of their seven Core Virtues). Skepticism characterizes the U.S. military as "a con game" by which millions are murdered.

Honestly, I think you guys are better off talking to each other in your echo chamber. I'll maybe join some other conversation. Consider yourselves humbly victorious. :- )

Best,
Jeff


4:51 PM Sep 12th

the_slasher14
jumanji: I'm confused -- is Bill humble or not? You argue both sides of the issue in your response to me -- read it carefully and you'll see it.

Bill stated that his "poisons" were, among others, on the scale of a belief in humility vs. a respect for the power of the ego. I don't think there is anything in the totality of Bill's career that can be described as humble. He may be PERSONALLY humble -- I don't know the man but people I know who have worked with him describe him as unfailingly polite. Not at all the kind of person who would, as he did in response to a post of mine, attribute a radically incorrect interpretation to it and then beat me over the head with it at great length.

As far as my remarks about the Abstracts are concerned, your analogy to Jesus, Gandhi and Washington (how do you like THAT company, Bill?) tries to pretend that there can be a total separation between what one does in one's professional and personal lives. The men you cite put themselves and their followers at extreme risks. That they were humble in their personal lives is irrelevant to the totality of what they were. We don't remember these men because they were modest about themselves. We remember them because they took on the most powerful armed forces in the world of their times and, in the end, got their way. Bill's un-humble actions are on a smaller scale, but it's the same thing. It takes a powerful ego to tell the people who dominate the portion of the world you spend your time working in that they're wrong and are going to have to get out of the way. Bill's movement along that scale is FAR from the humble end of it, for which I say "thank God."
1:24 PM Sep 12th

Gfletch
jemanji, who the hell argued against "Courage and Honesty and Loyalty"? Nobody did. maumike was gentle in his response to you. For which I thank him.
11:36 AM Sep 12th

flyingfish
well, the comments continue to be interesting,even though some of them have interesting spellings and they seem to be at cross purposes. What I take from mauimike is that we should not see the Army--maybe the military as a whole--as a source of honesty, courage, and integrity in our society. My Lai and Abu Ghraib are the names of places where atrocities were done by members of the United States armed forces. I don't believe that the people who did those things would have done them as members of the general public before they became members of the armed forces, although of course I cannot know. War is an activity that must be mind-numbing, soul-breaking, and utterly terrible to take part in, at least for those who see action. As a college teacher, I encountered students who seemed to have suffered from the experience. As one more senior colleague who I went to for advice on one particular student said, "the military did not take him in this condition." So, to get back to Senator John McCain once again, I do find it puzzling and troubling that as someone who has seen war and its effects firsthand, he is so ready to do it all over again.
11:35 AM Sep 12th

SkeptiSys
@mauimike
Your opinion should not be controversial, over a million people were killed in Vietnam, and millions more in Iraq/Afghanistan. Republicans and former Republican Hillary Clinton have pledged to attack Iran. It's so bad that Obama, the man who bragged about the 7 countries he bombed including the illegal F-up in Libya, is considered "too weak" to kill Iranians.

The more we kill, the more trillions in dollars we need to attack those we piss off. A big dangerous con game.
10:42 AM Sep 12th

337
I always learn things reading BJOL. Today, I learned from reading mauimike, that "infields" is a perfect anagram for "infidels."
5:05 AM Sep 12th

mauimike
Reverend, I think honesty, courage and loyalty are fine virtues. I don't think the Military instills them. Their job is to break things and kill people. We're seeing the results. Folks risking everything to get to somewhere safe, where their children might live in peace. People don't get in a boat and leave everything on a whim. America, has been bombing and destroying things in the Middle East for 20 plus years now. Maybe we should stop and save our soldiers, though I fear Syria and Iran are next to be invaded. I hope I'm wrong.
4:41 AM Sep 12th

jemanji
I dunno; it seems like we're talking past each other too much here in order to find a place to start.

1. Why do combat veterans tend to come out broken men? I don't know that this syndrome isn't exaggerated. But suppose it wasn't. It would be bad form for me, in safety and comfort, to download 15 college credits at the UW, play ping-pong at the HUB, throw beer parties and then point over at a Navy SEAL with all he's been through and say "Hey! Why isn't that guy as peaceful and contented as me?"

I doubt that's what you're even asking, so, pass on.

2. How do we know a thing is true? Whether we are sure of ourselves or not in setting A or B or C, it doesn't affect our philosophical dilemmas.

Is America going to hold up Courage and Honesty and Loyalty as American ideals? Are we going to teach 4-year-olds that telling the truth is good, or are we going to teach them that taking the expedient way out is cool, since that's what everybody else does?

Over the last 40 years, we've seen Courage and Honestly and Loyalty argued against, argued against inexactly the ways that MauiMike and GFletch have done. Fine in the abstract, a fool's errand in the real world. And the country has changed for it.

Careful. Because the next generation will absolutely take this thing several steps past where you intended it to go.

- Jeff


3:32 AM Sep 12th

Gfletch
"The young Soliders who come through are, as a group, an organized, disciplined, and orderly group of men with great attitudes."

I am sure such things exist. I also believe that we live in a world on truth buried in lies. How do we know a thing is true, except that it appears to be so. It is dressed well, it's hair is neat, it speaks respectfully. But I have seen that same thing drunk and violent and in despair. Everything teaches you something; I don't know if I want the lessons imparted by the military if perhaps the best lessons can be gained in some other way.
1:53 AM Sep 12th

mauimike
Reverend, I was in the Army 40 years ago. Maybe things have changed, but I doubt it. The "Iliad," still rings true. A few years ago I was driving through Oklahoma and I drove past Ft. Sill, where my grandson is doing Basic Training, as we write, after joining the Indiana National Guard, dummy. As I drove past a gate of the Fort I saw a strip mall. In the mall was a topless bar, a regular bar, there might have been a nude bar, but I not sure, a liquor store, a pawn shop and I'm sure there were ladies who could be bought, but they weren't advertising as such. Not that there's anything wrong with any of those things. I believe in free markets.

I remember serveing mass on Sundays as a teenager and as I put the eucharist plate under their chins to receive the Body of Christ, dressed so prettily in their Sunday, going to church dresses, I knew how many of those girls had been rolling around on the back seats of their boy friends cars the night before. Me, I had a 1956 Chevy station wagon with fold down backs seats. It was a 2 door station wagon and I didn't know it at the time, but it was a predictor of my future. The wagon was called, 'the handyman.' I quit being an altar boy and never looked back. That's a lie, I enjoy looking back.

You could be right, the Army could be producing fine upstanding Christian men, killing the infields in the name of the Lord, doing God's work, you know like turning the other cheek and loving your neighbor and stuff like that. If that's so, why are they killing themselves so much Why do so many come out of that experience broken men?
1:24 AM Sep 12th

jemanji
... but let's take MauiMike's premise at its own face: that juvenile delinquents join the Army and actually wind up thinking even less of themselves, and others, than they did before they went in.

The main question still remains: is the virtue of (say) Honesty, Search for Truth, capable of being taken *too far* and becoming a poison, or if Honesty seems to lead to a problem, is it more the case that *the absence of a complementary virtue* (say compassion) is too blame?

I'm thinking of (say) Jesus, who never told a lie, who thought of the search for Truth as inherently good in ALL circumstances, as the test case for this thought experiment.

Is Love, in the classical definition of it -- a mom's search for the best interests of her baby -- ever a "poison" in itself? Or do we have to bring in a second virtue/attribute, say "Lack of Caution Towards Instilling Wisdom," in order to become contraproductive?

My own thesis would be that certain human virtues --- > are absolutely good and right on their own merits. Nobody can be "too honest" with me. But it *is* true the life is complex, and at times a 2nd or 3rd virtue (say, tact) has to be blended via good intentions.

Cheers,
Jeff


12:10 AM Sep 12th

jemanji
I wasn't in the Army, but minister near a military base. The young Soliders who come through are, as a group, an organized, disciplined, and orderly group of men with great attitudes.

I'm trying to extract what your essential point seems to be. Are you saying, you don't think much of the accomplishment of attaining the rank of Private First Class?

Or are you saying the Army has a dubious process which it applies to its recruits?

Or are you calling into question the merits of values such as Courage, Honesty, and Loyalty?

I'm not sure where you're going here. Certainly my own observation is that in 10-13 weeks (depending on branch of service) the Army achieves results that are quite remarkable when compared to that of private organizations.

Jeff


11:51 PM Sep 11th

mauimike
jemanji, you have a navie view of the Army. I bet you were never in. Basic training is 10 weeks long not 12. When I was in it was 8 weeks. If you think that the Army is going to instill, "honesty, integrity, loyalty, respect, duty, courage and selfless service," in an 18 year old drug addicted punk, I don't think so. He could easily wash out. The lifers I dealt with when I was in, were some of the best men I ever met, most were mediocre, and a large number were pretty sorry excuses for human beings. It's easy to get drugs in the Army and drinking is highly encouraged. And your soldier might become one of those 22 who commit suicide daily after their selfless serve.
11:26 PM Sep 11th

mauimike
Your right, jdw, my number of 12 million, was 3 million to high. So about 9,000,000 served during the Vietnam Era, 8/5/64 to 5/7/75. About 9.7% of age eligible men served. A pretty small number When they instituted the lottery and more than half the guys didn't have to worry about being drafted, the draft protests and Vietnam War protests died down. They're not dumb.

Here's something to think about, 2,709, 918 served in Vietnam. About 850,000 are still alive today.
11:01 PM Sep 11th

steve161
Congratulations, Bill, you have rediscovered Aristotle's Golden Mean and found a completely new and original way of expressing it. Quite an accomplishment (and I suppose I should add, to avoid being misunderstood, that I say this without a hint of irony).
7:49 PM Sep 11th

jemanji
Taking the (wonderful) paradigm presented in the article ... I wonder about taking these 200 continuums, laying them out as if on a stereo EQ, and then adding a Z-axis to what we're talking about ...

You take (e.g.) an 18-year-old punk on drugs, never done anything productive, and you put him in the U.S. Army. Twelve weeks later he is functional as it pertains to Honesty, Integrity, Loyalty, Respect, Duty, Courage, and Selfless Service. He's a changed man and, quibbles aside, he is headed for a much more blessed life than he was.

Without a doubt, too much "Courage" (willingness to face pain and fear) can bite you IFF YOU DON'T SYNCH it with other qualities, such as Wisdom and Foresight. Is this a failing of Courage as such, or is it a failing of "medicines" that should be associated with Courage? Like Pepcid should be associated with chemotherapy?

Fascinating convo in philosophy. Thanks yet again, Bill :- )


5:35 PM Sep 11th

jemanji
Slasher - ++ There's nothing humble about the Baseball Abstracts. They were a gauntlet across the chops of the pundits who defended practices which they showed were absolutely wrong. That's why we loved them -- for their LACK of humility in the face of baseball's bigshots whose response was "this is how it's always been." ++

I'll take the other side of this one Slasher. The Baseball Abstracts were not about Bill James the Person; they were about truth and science vs. intuition, baloney and tradition. At one point after another, then and now, Bill emphasizes the importance of the subject at hand, rather than his own importance.

To contrast it, take a Kobe Bryant, who wants to win but desperately wants to win *because he was important.*

Aggressiveness in pushing a cause, we believe, does not run counter to humility. History's most famous humble characters (Jesus, Gandhi, George Washington, etc.) might have been self-forgetful but relentless in their determination.

There are things you could criticize Bill James for, but humility would not be one of them. It's one of the reasons that the Boston Red Sox like having him around, as opposed to having the average sabermetrician around :- )

My $0.02,
Jeff


5:30 PM Sep 11th

hotstatrat
"One could say in general that in seeking a mate, or in choosing our friends, or in seeking people that we want to work with, that we tend to choose those who have philosophical cornerstones which are like our own, except to the extent that we recognize our failings. When we recognize our failings then we tend, as much as we can, to choose those who complement our failings and offset them, rather than those who are like ourselves."

I love this part. My wife and I can be very particular - not your average Joe's. I think our friends are quietly suprised we have been together for over three decades. I've always said we have similar tastes and philosophies and what not, but we are very different in the ways that it is good being complimentary. This excerpt of Bill's essay here largely explains how those ways exist - and how people could have a better idea of what they are for themselves.​
4:03 PM Sep 11th

kimchi
The 2000 edition of the BJ Historical Abstract, p439, in a discussion of the embarrassing selection of Palmeiro for the Gold Glove in '99, when he had only played 28 games at 1b:
"A voting structure like this is an open invitation to an eccentric outcome. If we were to use a system like this to elect President, the absolute certain result would be that, within a few elections, someone like...Donald Trump...would be elected President. An unconstrained plurality vote gives an opening to someone...who has a strong appeal to a limited number of people."
Remember that, Bill? Comments?​
3:52 PM Sep 11th

jdw
The comment on McCain's "integrity and honesty" is pretty funny. It's not really what McCain has been about in his life.
3:17 PM Sep 11th

jdw
And yeah, I understand Mike said "served", which still was 3M too high. There are also degrees of getting a sniff of Viet Nam. Serving in Texas running a base warehouse isn't really sniffing Viet Nam. Bill being based in South Korea is a much stronger sniff, though I don't want to put any words in Bill's mouth on what he felt or was thinking about in terms of how close he was.

I have friends who fall across the spectrum. Easy duty in the US, relatively easy duty warehouse within Viet Nam, and grunt. They have wildly different experiences and points of view on it.
2:50 PM Sep 11th

jdw
Mike's Viet Nam number is high.

3,403,100 (Including 514,300 Offshore) Personnel served in the Southeast Asia Theater (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Flight Crews based in Thailand, and sailors in adjacent South China Sea Waters.)

2,594,000 Personnel served within the borders of South Vietnam. Jan. 1, 1965 - Mar. 28, 1973

www.veteranshour.com/vietnam_war_statistics.htm

I've seen elsewhere the number prior to Jan 1965 as being in the 50K range.

So the number of people who avoided Nam is even high than Mike stated.
2:39 PM Sep 11th

the_slasher14
I think most sabermetricians would agree that a sac bunt is not counter-productive in certain circumstances. I've seen it said that men on first and second, none out, in certain score situations overcomes the loss of the out. And I believe Bill said something similar in one of the Baseball Abstracts, noting that since a sac bunt isn't ALWAYS an out (the batter might beat it out, the fielder might throw the ball away), just using the base-out percentages isn't accurate enough.
2:37 PM Sep 11th

MarisFan61
re Rtallia, "Thus: great actors can be shy people, murderers can be sweet to their moms, and otherwise rational managers can still sacrifice bunt in the early innings":
Can we add that sabermetricians are capable of seeing that it might occasionally be rational to order a sacrifice bunt in the early innings?

(No? OK, I tried.) :-)

When I see someone like Buck Showalter doing it, and more than once, I figure it's likely that it's rational and sound, notwithstanding what any formal analysis might show.
12:58 PM Sep 11th

StatsGuru
I believe Marijuana is a medicine with no poisonous side effects. I have heard that no one ever died from smoking too much Mary Jane.

I suppose it has non-lethal poisonous effects, but I don't think that's what you meant.

To a great extent, antibiotics are non-poisonous medicines. The reason they work is that they target elements of the bacterial cell that are not shared by eukaryotic cells.
11:02 AM Sep 11th

rtallia
I really do love this piece. It essentially provides a framework for all human behavior--the 200 lines of philosophy, and the 10 discernable stopping points for each line. Extreme positions/philosophies tend to get more ink in the press, and people who are always on one end or the other of their continuums are generally a) fun to be around at parties and, b) a nightmare to live with. And with the fickle nature of human behavior, even if someone is *generally* extreme in one of their positions, or cornerstones, they can--and will--in a specific instance go against their "nature," due to any number of factors. I think the most discerning individuals are the ones that can, even though it might be against their natural tendencies, look at a particular issue and, after thought and research, come to a different conclusion than their knee-jerk reaction (which we all have). Thus: great actors can be shy people, murderers can be sweet to their moms, and otherwise rational managers can still sacrifice bunt in the early innings.
10:47 AM Sep 11th

packbringley
This is great, Bill, up until the self-congratulatory last couple sentences. It's a fallacy to think "balance" falls at about the middle of wherever the two political parties have staked their territory. It could, or it could not. There's no particular reason to look down on partisans or assume the wisdom of independents.
10:40 AM Sep 11th

mrbryan
"All things are poison and nothing is without poison; only the dose makes a thing not a poison." - Paracelsus (1493-1541)
9:54 AM Sep 11th

bjames
I can't imagine how anyone thought I was suggesting that I might be too polite. I've never really had that problem. . . .
9:38 AM Sep 11th

flyingfish
Strange comments on a strange article but all are interesting, and I thank you all for writing them. Bill's article is a strange mix of insight and assertions based on nothing--at least nothing that I can see. Bill's political writing differs from his baseball writing in that the baseball writing starts with a question and then seeks evidence that might shed insight, and then (sometimes, if the evidence is good enough) provides an answer. Bill's tendency to rudeness seems more noticeable in political discussions, as when in a Hey Bill answer he said that committed voters don't understand issues, or something like that. My favorite part of this article was Bill's characterization of Democrats and Republicans and how their views really aren't completely dichotomous, even if they often seem to be; they are different places on continuums. As for McCain, although I often wasn't in agreement with his political positions, I always was a huge admirer of his integrity and honesty. Seems to me McCain changed after George W Bush so disgustingly trashed him in the South Carolina primary in 2000.
9:17 AM Sep 11th

MarisFan61
re Gfletch, "These are the strangest comments I've seen connected to an article yet":
This isn't a very usual article. :-)
12:59 AM Sep 11th

337
And of course it serves a useful function because now Scott Walker can never claim (legitimately) "Hey, I would have answered that question, I was just never asked, so it's your fault, reporters, for not doing your jobs properly." We know he dodged it, and we know when and where he dodged it.
10:48 AM Sep 10th

OldBackstop
McCain is getting old and dotty, and when he decided to run maybe he slightly morphed into that braggy candidate jerk model that America created. But prior to that, I spent time with him on a number of occasions, and I found him to be thoughtful, honest, self-deprecating...a non-politician.

And when your father was a four star admiral in charge of all US forces in Vietnam, and your grandfather was a four star admiral, and you spend five and a half years as a POW getting your ass kicked by the North Vietnamese, and you come out with snow white hair unable to ever lift your arms over your head....well...it must be annoying to have to politely listen to all the braying an elected official has to hear about patriotism.

That said, I would like to hear where you think McCain has been "trumpeting his claims to military heroism." I've always found him to be well under both trumpeting and proof of claim levels.
2:14 PM Sep 9th

Gfletch
Slasher, I agree with you. But, you see, I don't think tough questions are rude. I agree that some questions are impertinent, some questions are dishonest in their intentions, some questions are irrelevant or irreverent.

All good so far. Scott Walker has every opportunity to give a great answer to a tough question. He has every right to refuse to answer. And we have every right to make our own judgements. What the hell does rudeness have to do with it? People make judgements about whether questions are rude, too.
1:23 PM Sep 9th

the_slasher14
About six months or so ago I posted a "Hey Bill" screed in response to Bill's defense of Scott Walker refusing to answer a reporter's question whether or not he believed in evolution. Bill thought this was great -- the reporter was asking a "gotcha" question and Walker had blown him off. I hope Bill has noticed by now that Walker ducks pretty much ANY question whose answer might offend some of the electorate, which has a lot to do with why he's getting no traction in the polls. But that's not the point.

The point is that Bill replied with a very lengthy diatribe which stated that I was saying that it was a reporter's job to be rude, and that this was somehow wrong. I was somewhat shocked by the vehemence of his statement. He went on forever about it.

I was a reporter, long ago, and was schooled by veterans of the profession that it's not rude to ask questions somebody doesn't want to answer, it's your JOB. Reporters have access to the powerful; the rest of us don't. If they don't ask tough questions, who will? And of course the powerful think it's rude to be asked a question they don't want to answer. Since when do we defend them from that? So when Bill talks about his faults being too much humility and being too polite, frankly I think he's full of it. I think he's opinionated and can be very impolite when he feels the occasion calls for it.

And as a reader of Bill's since 1984, humility and politesse are the least qualities of his that I value. There's nothing humble about the Baseball Abstracts. They were a gauntlet across the chops of the pundits who defended practices which they showed were absolutely wrong. That's why we loved them -- for their LACK of humility in the face of baseball's bigshots whose response was "this is how it's always been." And in "Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame," Bill's voice became even more acerbic. We loved that, too. Skewering the establishment is un-humble almost by definition.

But Bill has had an advantage here that reporters do not: he has the numbers to speak for him. Your leadoff hitter has a .280 OBP -- here's why you're going to lose a lot of ballgames. The 1961 Yankees weren't even close to the best team ever. He has had FACTS to marshal. In political reporting, these are not always available.

We don't KNOW how Scott Walker's opinion on evolution will relate to his actions in office, so all we can do is ask him and proceed from that answer. John Kennedy was asked in 1960, over and over, how his religion would affect his governance if elected. He didn't duck that question, because he understood it was legitimately relevant to how he would be perceived. Bill would have us believe that Walker's opinion on evolution -- which has been a hot button issue for a century in this country and which is an obvious indicator to which constituencies a politician favor if elected -- doesn't matter. And he said, at considerable and acerbic length, that the question should never have been asked because it was rude to do so. It was also rude to point out that the sacrifice bunt is a losing strategy, when almost the entire baseball world thought otherwise. Bill had the facts to prove it. Reporters do not, because they don't have numbers to help them out.

I've continued to follow this site because politics is politics and baseball is baseball, and I love Bill's writing precisely because he's NOT humble and he's NOT polite in the face of mindless resistance to the facts. And while it's true that every medicine is a poison and vice versa, SOMEBODY -- be it curanderos with foxglove or Salk with polio vaccine -- went into the trenches and made the right call. In his sphere of interest, thank God Bill was UN-humble enough to do that.​
12:31 PM Sep 9th

ventboys
I think your analysis of the Trump/McCain controversy is a little results-driven, but who cares? I love the balance metaphor, and the perfect little bow tied on the end of the article with your last sentence is as insightful as it is artistic.
12:23 PM Sep 9th

evanecurb
Donald Trump has figured out how to get attention. He's really good at that. He'll say some more stuff that will get more attention. People won't get tired of it, either. The media spotlight will remain on him for quite a while. Trump is a symptom of one aspect of the country. The masses want to be entertained.

There is a more toxic problem than the masses needing to be entertained. Those idealogues on the right and those on the left are more interested in having their beliefs validated than they are in running the country. At some point, the politicians need to stop pontificating and start governing. Show me a politician who's interested in the nuts and bolts of governing and that's the person I'll vote for.
11:13 AM Sep 9th

Gfletch
These are the strangest comments I've seen connected to an article yet. Including my own.
9:50 AM Sep 9th

MarisFan61
("gotte"??) :ha:

Took me a second to remember how it's really spelled, once you put gotte in my head....
8:32 AM Sep 9th

mauimike
A couple of weeks ago I was gonna ask you, Mr. James about your beard. You've had it for awhile and it seems to be very popular in baseball. I'm not being critical, I had long hair for most of my life. I hate to shave. I had a gotte for a number of years. Then I thought, why should I keep growing more grey hair, when my head is full of it. And then I keep looking at old farts with long hair and thinking, "they really look dumb." And I thought I must look dumb. So as you look in the mirror each day, do you think, "Yeah, that's how I wanna look." Or do you seldom look at the mirror, because you don't have to shave, which is my philosophy and if the wife says nothing, I'm good to go. Do you have a philosophy about beards or did it just grow on you.
3:38 AM Sep 9th

mauimike
About McCain and the Vietnam War. There are about 79 million of us baby boomers. Let's say 40 million women. Off the 39 million males about 30% served during the Vietnam Era. Perhaps 12 millions males. Most of us never sniffed Vietnam. How many of the men who were in the shit are still around. How many care. How many young people, know when Vietnam happened? Knocking Vietnam is a good stradegy. It was a stupid war and so many lives were wasted. Those who didn't go were lucky or smart. Clinton didn't go. Elected twice. W, played in the National Guard, for awhile. Elected twice. No one cares.
3:14 AM Sep 9th

mauimike
I'll just quote my MVP, (Most Valuable Philosopher) Robert Anton Wilson, though he claims that George Carlin owns that award. Just so you know where I'm coming from. Mr. Wilson, "I DO NOT BELIEVE ANYTHING. Most people, even the educated, think that everybody must "believe" something or other, that if one is not a theist, one must be a dogmatic atheist, and if one does not think capitalism is perfect, one must believe fervently in socialism, and if one does not have blind faith in X, one must have blind faith in not X, or the reverse of X. My own opinion is that belief is the death of intelligence." Robert Anton Wilson.

There were folks like that and they were called Sabermetricians.

My own take, "Beliefs are opinions. Let's not force our opinions on each other and to try not kill each other over opinions and things could work out."

But probably not. So it goes.
2:12 AM Sep 9th

MarisFan61
Classical musicians spend much if not most of their time doing essentially what you like to do with the cough drop wrappers. It's probably the case also for other activities, but that's what I know about, although I'm not a professional -- and maybe it's only the non-professionals who'd say it or admit it. I'm sure that many musicians would argue against this, and sure, there are higher things that we musicians are doing when we practice and prepare our performances, but I think it's not far off to say that we're mostly straightening out crumpled cough drop wrappers. I can imagine that 500 years from now, or maybe 20, just as we laugh or shake our heads at some things that people did 500 years ago (or 20).....as everyone in town is creating beautiful and perfect music with their smart-watches and i-Orchestras, they'll be laughing at how people used to sit at those archaic instruments, slaving away for hundreds of hours to be able to play stuff just-so.

And I pity them a little, because they'll need to find other ways to ply their drive toward working hard for order and beauty, which may be hard-wired into us. If they don't find other ways, they might need medications or poisons to treat the symptoms of this unexpressed drive. :-)
1:22 AM Sep 9th

Gfletch
Okay. Yes. Not just a new viewpoint, perhaps, but a new tool that I can use...specifically to assess the motivations of those people and institutions around me. We got a federal election going on here in the Great White North. Maybe this will help.
12:41 AM Sep 9th

©2016 Be Jolly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|Web site design and development by Americaneagle.com|Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy

Bottom of Form

Home>Articles

An Award Obtained Without the Requisites of Fairness or Due Process

By Bill James

September 4, 2015

An Award Obtained Without the Requisites of Fairness or Due Process

Had someone suggested on Monday that the Brady suspension might be reduced, I would have been disappointed but not surprised. But knowing what we now know, he should feel fortunate that the suspension wasn’t lengthened. I would have suspended Brady for the season.

--William Rhoden

New York Times

July 29, 2015

           William Rhoden of the New York Times has been writing incisively about the Deflategate case for several months, and now that a Federal judge has ruled that every word that Rhoden has written for the last eight months is total and complete nonsense, Rhoden announces that the real issue is "sportsmanship".   Well, not to be immodest, but I’ve been right about everything connected to this case all summer, and, since this is such a rare event, let’s talk about this in more specifics than are being covered, it seems to me, in most other accounts.  

           On May 6 the Wells report was made public, the Wells report being the NFL’s hired professional investigation into the case, conducted by the law firm of Theodore V. Wells and his associates.  I have no problem with the Wells report; to the best of my knowledge it was a serious and fair effort to understand what had happened (although Judge Berman did have some problems with it, which we’ll get to later.)   The Wells report concluded that "it is more probable than not that Brady was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities of McNally and Jastremski involving the release of air from Patriots game balls." 

           Responding to a question in "Hey, Bill", asking whether Brady would be suspended by the NFL based on this report, I replied that I didn’t see how he could possibly be suspended, based on that report.   You cannot punish someone, as a rule, because it is more probable than not that he was generally aware of inappropriate conduct.  Let us say, to put this in a context both relatable and common, let us say that your co-worker is stealing things from the office, and that your boss believes that it is more probable than not that you were at least generally aware of this.  Can your boss legally fire you because he believes it is more probable than not that you were generally aware of the thefts?

           No, he can’t—not if you have a good lawyer, not if you have a decent union, not if you live in the modern world in which employers have a legal responsibility to deal fairly with their employees.  I took the words "more probable than not" and "generally aware" to be code words telling Goodell to back off.   That’s an understatement; they were code words telling Goodell to back off.  There is no other way to read them.  

           Wells, to his credit, was trying to let some of the air out of the controversy before it was placed on Goodell’s desk.  Unfortunately, Roger Goodell doesn’t go for that subtlety nonsense.  Another reader, identifying himself as "Pablo", took the NFL’s side in this dispute, and sought to edjacate me about the American legal system:

A lot of the uproar over the "more probable than not" standard is based in a widespread misunderstanding, or lack of familiarity, with the American legal system. As a previous poster pointed out, the "preponderance of the evidence" standard is the ordinary civil law standard, and the basis for the vast majority of legal actions in America. People get punished--yes, punished--all the time based on that standard. When the SEC fined an insider trader $93 million dollars, or when the FTC won $30 million in fines from a robocaller, or when OJ Simpson was ordered to pay $25 million dollars to his ex-wife's family, those were civil judgments based on the "more probable than not standard." We don't incarcerate people under that standard, but we certainly punish them, including barring them from conducting business or working in a profession. Nobody is putting Brady in jail here. There is no requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt when you're talking about a 4-game suspension.

--Pablo

           This discussion wandered off into a debate about the meaning of the word "preponderance" and whether that had changed over time. . .an interesting enough discussion, in that we learned something from it, but let’s not retrace that.  

           I am inclined, of course, to make blanket statements in disputes of this nature, and judges are not generally inclined to make blanket statements.   Judge Berman’s structured legal analysis of this problem is:

           a) The investigative report says that "it is more probable than not that Brady was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities of McNally and Jastremski involving the release of air from Patriots game balls." 

           b) Commissioner Goodell’s report of July 28, resolving the arbitration hearing, concludes that "Mr. Brady knew about, approved of, consented to, and provided inducements and rewards in support of a scheme by which, with Mr. Jastremski’s support, Mr. McNally tampered with the game balls." 

           From (a) to (b) is a rather large step up. In order to take that large step up, there has to be some basis in fact or evidence—but in fact Goodell stated repeatedly that his actions were based on the Wells report, and that the Wells report was the factual basis for his actions.  Goodell simply took a leap forward from the factual record.  

           Why? Berman doesn’t tell you, so I will.  Because the NFL’s lawyer told him that you can’t suspend someone for a quarter of the season based on the conclusion that it is more probable than not that he was general aware of someone else’s misconduct. Goodell wanted to suspend Brady, but the evidentiary report didn’t support that, so he made up additional conclusions, and counted on his unassailable position as the arbitrator to sustain those made-up conclusions.  

          A judge does not like to overturn an arbitrator’s judgment, and there is in the law a strong presumption in favor of the arbitrator—who, in this case, was Goodell.  Goodell had a right under the collective bargaining agreement to appoint himself as the arbitrator to review his previous decision.   But when he became the arbitrator, he had a responsibility to act equally on behalf of all parties in the dispute.   He did not do this. 

           Berman hammers Goodell on point after point after point after point, and I have mentioned two of them:

           1) Goodell took a very large step forward in his interpretation of the evidence, with no factual basis, and

           2) There was hardly even a pretense that, as an arbitrator, he was acting equally on behalf of all parties.   Rather than acting equally on behalf of all parties, he ratcheted up the charges based on his own undocumented assumptions.  

           It is acknowledged by everyone that a suspension is a greater and heavier punishment than a fine, but at times Berman seems to be saying that the factual record would not have justified Goodell even had he fined Brady, let alone suspended him. His other blasts at Goodell include: 

           3) Goodell cannot make up industrial law as he goes along. As Berman stated it, "It is the ‘Law of the Shop’ to provide professional football players with advance notice of prohibited conduct and potential discipline." There is no trail anywhere suggesting that a player can be suspended for an equipment tampering violation.  No player has ever been punished in a like manner for a like offense—and, in fact, there have been similar offenses committed in the past, with no punishment at all directed at the players who benefitted.  In 2009, a New York Jets employee was caught using a sideline heater to warm up the football that would be used to a attempt a field goal, making the ball travel further.  The Jets’ kicker was present and obviously aware of the activity, but no action was taken against him. The league’s Competitive Integrity Policy states that the fine for a first offense for equipment tampering is $5,512.  But since Mr. Brady did not tamper with the equipment and there is no real evidence that he was even aware that it had been done, even that fine would be problematic in this situation.  

           A phrase in the NFL Game Operations Manual states that if the footballs are tampered with in this manner "the person responsible and, if appropriate, the head coach and other club personnel will be subject to discipline, including but not limited to, a fine of $25,000."  However, the Game Operations Manual is not provided to players, is not subject to collective bargaining, and is not a basis for disciplinary action against players, even if that disciplinary action was within the range outlined in the directive.  

           4) League policy of which the players are informed states specifically that the punishment for a first offense of equipment tampering will be a fine. 

           5) That Brady benefitted from this transgression is a presumption unsupported by any evidence.   In fact, Brady in the game in question completed 11 of 21 passes with the "illegal" balls, and 12 of 14 when the balls were re-inflated to meet the league standard.  No evidence is in the record that Brady benefitted from the balls being deflated or that he expected to do so.  

           6) Goodell has stated in numerous places and times that Brady’s alleged misconduct is parallel to the use of steroids, but has offered no explanation for why or how they are similar, other than that he sees them as being similar.  They are objectively not similar at all.  Steroid use is prohibited by specific policies which were negotiated with the union.  There is an extensive program of educating the players about the health risks of using steroids, an extensive program of warning the players that the use of those substances is prohibited, and there is a testing program to determine who violating the policy.  There is an appeals process, there is a specified burden of proof, and there are discovery rules. This alleged offense doesn’t have any of that. In the words of the ruling, "The Award offers no scientific, empirical, or historical evidence of any comparability between Mr. Brady’s alleged offense and steroid use." 

           7) For that matter, what does it even mean to say that Brady was "generally aware" of the misconduct?  In the exact words of the court (oral argument), "I am not sure I understand what in the world that means, that phrase.  So it says, at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities of Mr. McNally and Jastremski involving the release of air from the Patriot game balls. So I don’t know what that is.  You know, did he [Brady] know that McNally took the balls unaccompanied into the bathroom? Did he know that in the bathroom, if it in fact happened, McNally deflated the balls? Did he know that McNally then went to the field with the balls?"

           Judge Berman’s point here is that the conduct alleged is of such a vague nature that it would be very difficult to see how the NFL could have complied with its obligation to notify the player what the penalties would be for such an offense. 

           8) Goodell justifies his action against Brady by citing the Game Day Operations Manual.  But the Game Day Operations Manual does not normally apply to players, is not a part of the collective bargaining process, and has never been provided to the players.  It is a guidebook sent to the NFL teams, regulating the conduct of the teams.  

           9) Goodell arbitrarily denied Brady the right to question witnesses, the right to see evidence, and the right to see the records of previous related cases, while allowing those opposed to him access to the same resources.  In Berman’s summary this is a long series of different offenses, but for brevity we will list it as two (9 and 10).

           10) Goodell made judgments about what persons involved in the investigation would or could testify to, and denied Brady the opportunity to question these witnesses based on his own improper evaluation of the relevance of their testimony.   

           11) In numerous times and places, Goodell states that some portion of Brady’s punishment is for obstructing the league investigation by destroying his cell phone, although he never says what portion.  However, while there have been many documented incidents of players interfering with misconduct investigations in the past, no player has even been disciplined for this in the past, and there has been no warning or notice that players will be disciplined for this in the future.  Former Commissioner Paul Tagliabue, in a recent and related case, states very specifically that no player has ever previously been disciplined for refusing to cooperate with an investigation.   

           The letter notifying Brady of his suspension, which is called the Vincent letter, states that the Wells report "documents your failure to cooperate fully and candidly with the investigation, including by refusing to produce any relevant evidence (emails, texts, etc.) despite being offered extraordinary safeguards by the investigation to protect unrelated personal information."  

           This is really the key to understanding this mess.  Unquestionably, Goodell attempted to go far, far, far beyond the punishments for this offense which are outlined by league policies.  Why did he do this?

           For two reasons.  First, in the arbitrary and random nature of publicity, the deflated footballs received an absolutely fantastic amount of immediate attention.   Goodell attempted to create a punishment which was in keeping with the publicity given to the offense, rather than with the league rules governing the situation.

           And second, when Brady destroyed his cell phone, he pissed Goodell off.  

           In Goodell’s mind, and in the mind of those like New York Times reporter William Rhoden, there is no plausible explanation for this, other than that the cell phone contained damaging information related to this.   But in reality, it is very easy to imagine, oh, I don’t know, ten billion extremely plausible alternative explanations for this.  Cell phones typically contain a wide variety of extremely personal information.  

           Tom Brady’s wife is a supermodel.  Let us suppose that the cell phone contained video of private intimate interactions between Brady and Giselle.  What do think Giselle is going to say, when she hears he has been ordered to turn over that cell phone?  I’ll tell you exactly what she is going to say: Tom, we are not turning over that cell phone, and I don’t give a shit who is going to see it and who isn’t.  You destroy that cell phone right now.  

           Second scenario: What if the cell phone contained some record of a relationship between Tom Brady and some other woman?  

           What if the cell phone contained messages from a friend or former teammate, telling personal and possibly damaging information about a relationship in HIS life, the friend or former teammates?  

           What if it contained medical information, either about Brady or about some family member, that that family member does not wish to share with the masses?

           Yeah, it is fine for the NFL to guarantee Brady that no one else will ever see this data, and there is no possible way it could ever become public, but we all know of a hundred situations in which somebody was given a promise exactly like that, and then the private data somehow became public.   Brady and his wife are both very famous people.  Some people make quite extraordinary efforts to invade their privacy.  Sometimes those efforts are successful.  

           It is entirely reasonable to believe that Brady destroyed his cell phone for reasons having nothing to do with this case.   But whether he did or not, Goodell cannot make up the rules as he goes along.  No player has ever been disciplined by the NFL for failing to cooperate with an investigation; therefore, within the collective bargaining arrangement, no player can be disciplined for failing to cooperate with an investigation unless or until the players are placed on notice that this will be done.   

           Goodell tries to use the magic words "conduct detrimental to the league" to justify overthrowing precedent, and making an example of Brady.  He skipped the necessary step of proving that Brady actually did something he shouldn’t have done.  In the words of the Berman ruling, "the deference due an arbitrator does not extend so far as to require a district court to countenance. . .an award obtained without the requisites of fairness or due process."

​

COMMENTS (54 Comments, most recent shown first)

steve161
Jeff, I have no idea as to the merits of the cheating allegations--as I said below, I neither like nor follow American football and all I know about this case is what I read here. But you're missing Bill's point, which is that Goodell didn't have a legal leg to stand on, and mine, which is that the NFL has been told what MLB was told in 1995: you are not above the law.

This may be an even harder lesson for the NFL to learn than it was for MLB. Its fan base pretty much gives it a pass on every one of its many blemishes: domestic violence, PED use, brain damage, you name it. It is not used to being told that it can't do any damn thing it pleases.
6:14 PM Sep 11th

jemanji
Postscript: a friend of mine at SeattleSportsInsider.com pointed out that if Belichick had done this to David Stern, then Stern would have the Patriots referee'd out of the playoffs. LOL.

It will be an interesting subplot to the 2015 NFL season, whether the Patriots suffer from dubious officiating.

Just sayin' :- )


5:01 PM Sep 8th

jemanji
If ESPN's take be at all accurate here ...

For one thing, I would hope that if you can empathize with Roger Goodell's seat in any way at all, you can see that he didn't have a lot of choice here. What would YOU have done? He is the voice of the owners. If you believe the decision was unfair to Brady -- and maybe it was -- your ire should probably be redirected away from Goodell and toward the body that is the NFL Owners Twenty-First Century.

For another thing: personally I would see Tom Brady as a scapegoat here IFF (if and only if) he were not an enthusiastic participant in Belichick's system. In other words, with Belichick as the Godfather, is Brady a happy hit man or a reluctant shop owner getting shaken down with little choice. For me, on the moral side, that's a key pivot point on Brady. DeflateGate may serve the function of establishing Brady as a Company Man complicit with Belichick.

From the 30,000-foot view ... I believe that you've got to have SOME way to deal with a renegade franchise that's spitting in the water hole. If you've got 25-30 other owners who agree on something, well, those billionaires come from a variety of backgrounds. Some are amoral, no doubt, but others are reasonable and another portion of them are "Doves" rather than Hawks.

I've got nothing to grind against the Patriots, but when they are successful in generating this kind of a consensus against them, I *doubt* that they are victims of sheer jealousy. That's my opinion I could be wrong.

Cheers,
Jeff

​
4:54 PM Sep 8th

jemanji
There is an article up on ESPN today (Don Von Natta Jr.) that purports to answer our questions. Those of us who have questions, of course, as opposed to those of us playing the role of advocate on one side or the other.

espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/13533995/split-nfl-new-england-patriots-apart

Exec Sum:

(1) The NFL owners were aghast at Belichick's videotape files on other team's signals and Belichick's response, to a room full of owners, annoyed them.

(2) Goodell helped cover for the Patriots, including a very quick punishment and a fast destroying of the Pat's files, because Kraft had been an ally for Goodell in getting his job.

(3) In order to keep his job, Goodell had to assure the 31 NFL owners that if the Patriots were caught again, he would be tough.

(4) So, DeflateGate is an extension of SpyGate, a "makeup call" in NBA ref parlance.

Not saying it's right, or isn't right. But that's the kind of thing that is very, very typical in Fortune 500 boardrooms.

Best,
Jeff





4:31 PM Sep 8th

Marc Schneider
The reality is that Goodell's actions had nothing to do with whether he thought Brady was cheating or not. I mean, even if deflating the balls gave Brady an advantage, it probably wasn't much more than what other players try to do. Let's fact it, to some extent cheating is an inextricable part of professional sports. Gaylord Perry loaded up the ball. Players did (and do) take steroids. Linemen hold.I think the reason that Goodell made this such a big deal is that he was trying to get the public's mind off the more serious issues the NFL has had, in particular, the Ray Rice episode.

My personal feeling is that even if you accept that Brady did what Goodell said, it was a minor violation at worst that may have merited a fine. It's not as if Brady did something that would have hurt the Colts; say, done something to their footballs that would make it harder to throw. At best, he gave himself what appears to be (and I realize there is dispute over this) a minor advantage.
Goodell knew this was a tempest in a teapot, IMO, but he wanted to distract the public from the domestic violence issues that the NFL is experiencing.

It's clearly ridiculous for the commissioner of a sport to be the sole arbitrator of disciplinary actions. This isn't the days of Kennesaw Mountain Landis anymore. The owners want the commissioner to have the power because they want to be sure that he is able to protect their interests. In the early 70s, the MLB players association managed to get a requirement for independent arbitrators. If Bowie Kuhn had been arbitrating the Messersmith and McNally cases, what are the chances that he would have declared them free agents? I would say nil.

Past commissioners probably would have used the power more reasonably and perhaps avoided all this kerfluffle. But, really, this is a function of having a commissioner who is really the CEO of the league; his job is to protect the owners' interests; the players are secondary except to the extent that certain things, such as concussions, affect the reputation and profitability of the NFL.
2:21 PM Sep 8th

78sman
I have a response to Jermanji, who made the claim that Patriots fumble rates were exceptionally low.

That is not a correct statement. Patriot fumble rates were close to average. However, the Patriots had a high rate of recovering fumbles, which is something that they practice. There is no reason to believe that it would be easier for a Patriot to recover a deflated football (even if the footballs were actually deflated) than it would be for a player from another team to recover a deflated football.
12:23 PM Sep 8th

mauimike
"After being cut from the Eagles, Tim Tebow's ego was so deflated, that Tom Brady tried to pass it." Tim Slagle.
9:43 PM Sep 6th

the_slasher14
The analogy between this case and those of Rose or the Black Sox is 100% bogus. The rule specifying permanent banishment from baseball for participating in a scheme with gamblers (or even just knowing about some other player doing it and not telling management) has been in place since the 1880s or so and is posted in every major league clubhouse for all to see. The union, which has had many savage fights with management on any number of issues, has never even suggested modifying that rule.

8:18 PM Sep 6th

jemanji
Zeth - right. Bill said politely, in his Ask Bill area, that he doesn't know what Goodell's merits are. Neither do I. Maybe he has few. He certainly doesn't come across on TV to me as likable or impressive.

But he obviously is a consensus-builder. I take him as the voice of the owners. And there was SOME reason the owners wanted the Patriots slapped down.

Could be sheer jealousy; that's VERY possible. But it could also be that the Patriots often break code on competitive integrity.
6:38 PM Sep 6th

jemanji
Mark - couldn't agree more. A real pleasure to run into an online 'friend' with whom real idea exchange is easy.

Of course, Bill fosters this kind of environment, in which his readers use their indoor voices. His 'judicial philosophy' is to learn about the situation first, and state conclusions later. And if further arguments shed light, to revise conclusions.

Too much of the 'net works otherwise. Nice to find an oasis for idea exchange.


6:36 PM Sep 6th

Zeth
It's already been said, but I want to add my voice of assent to this: Bill cited two valid reasons why Goodell tried to punish Brady far beyond what the evidence warranted, but probably more important than either of those is that at least 24 of the NFL owners--the number whose support Goodell needs in order to keep his job, so that is to say, his bosses--wanted him to harm the Patriots to the fullest extent he can get away with. By all accounts Bob Kraft is not a popular man in the cabal.

This rings true to me, because otherwise Goodell would not still be Commissioner. He retains his job despite enormous public unpopularity, because he remains popular among his 32 employers. Or at least among 24 of them.
6:35 PM Sep 6th

jemanji
Don - thanks for the perspective from your experienced camera angle.

From where I sit -- let's say, on the jury as you folks argue the case in front of me -- this idea of "past practice" has tons of traction. (Of course it's one of the ideas that Bill underlined from the beginning.)

When a punishER's actions come in to question -- let's say Adrian Peterson's -- I definitely want to put it into scale, against what previous human judgments have been in similar circumstances.

.......

Asterisk: I don't know that this principle is absolute, trumping all others. Again, it's possible that a sports commissioner has a "feel" for a pattern of behavior, against which this particular offense is just the tip of the iceberg. Al Capone was nailed for tax evasion. In that situation, a common penalty for tax evasion misses the point.

But yeah. Tremendous 'put.






6:33 PM Sep 6th

doncoffin
I want to bring this back a bit to the labor relations issue. (I am not a lawyer, but I taught collective bargaining regularly over a period of 20 years.)

In arbitration, especially of a discipline issue, a major factor that the arbitrator is, if not legally, then by accepted practice, required to consider is *past practice.* If past practice indicates that an employee committing a comparable offense I the past was suspended for 2 days without pay, then no reasonable arbitrator would uphold a seriously more punitive action. And, in fact, one of the few reasons someone appealing an arbitrator's decision might have a chance of winning, is that past practice has been violated.

Another way for an arbitrator to get over-ruled in court is to deny one side the opportunity to present clearly relevant testimony or evidence.

Goodell has, in imposing initial discipline, consistently violated past practice, which is why the (non-independent) arbitrators, including a former NFL commissioner, have over-ruled his decisions so often.

In this case, in imposing the initial penalty, it seems clear to me that he did, in fact, ignore past practice. As an arbitrator, he ignored past practice. And, as an arbitrator, he clearly denied one side to present clearly relevant testimony and evidence. In short, he gave us a textbook classic example of how to get discipline wrong to begin with, and how to get arbitration wrong as a follow-up.

In saying this, I am resolutely NOT making a judgment about the penalties imposed. Getting the penalties right while getting the procedure bass-ackward is not, in a collective-bargaining situation, and even less in a legal setting, something we want to allow.
11:56 AM Sep 6th

OldBackstop
Well, I don't like to quarrel with Bill about anything, lest he be disqualified from serving as jury foreman in my felony trial, cuz he's the one I'd want... :-)

But:

-- the lack of precedent in punishment on "obstruction of justice" or "destroying evidence" (or whatever) is a poor point, and weakens the argument. The pool of NFL cases is certainly not impressive in a sense of appealed precedent, and whatever other cases considered may have been diminimus and not risen to the level of an advantage sought, against the rules, in a playoff game, and...

-- we are talking about is an advantage sought in a playoff game, right? I have always felt a bit more outrage on this issue than Bill has expressed, corked bats come to mind...

-- destroying your cell phone feels right in my libertarian soul,it seems like a private communication that is no one's business. That is what it would seem like to an idiot, unfortunately, because in the workplace and in the courtroom your use of telecomm is in bounds. (shrug) rail against it, but Bin Laden and Tony Soprano and Hillary Clinton all understood that, or do now.

To me, maybe the outcome here was maybe about the best you can expect in a non-court setting. Did Brady seek an illegal advantage in a playoff game? I'd say probably. Beyond a reasonable doubt? Well, we never got to the adversarial court rules where that would be fought out.

I think the situation is analogous to the Black Sox or Rose where the integrity of the game must be protected. It is not, as some have said, comparable to Adrian Peterson...he was not trying to beat opponent's game plans out of his kid.

I think Brady was trying to gain an illegal advantage, as the Pats have a history of doing. I think his legacy will correctly reflect that situation.

If Brady doesn't like that, I assume he can sue the NFL and allow further discovery. Sorta doubt we'll see that.

Play ball!

PS: the real legal action that should be taken here is against the NFL for the sandlot level bizarro rules about each teaming bringing balls, like it was a t-ball league. WTF?
12:27 AM Sep 6th

markrice
jemanji
Thanks for that last comment, and right back at you - I am going to have to look closer at the fumble thing. Its weird, at the very least....
I live in Europe but visit the US and Canada often (born and raised in Nova Scotia). One of the great pleasures of visiting North America is getting a rental car with Sirius XM and listening to all the talk radio. This past summer i drove all around Nova Scotia listening to ESPN's camp reports. It's great - for about a week. There is soooo much hyperbole around all things NFL, that after a while I go a little crazy.
That's a big reason why I treasure this site. I get to have a conversation with people like you. and we try to understand an issue, and each other's point of view. Its such a pleasure to discuss an issue from the point of trying to understand it rather than winning an argument.
Thanks, and keep it coming....


8:51 PM Sep 5th

steve161
I don't like or follow American football, so pretty much everything I know about this case is what I read in the article above. I think many of you are missing the point. It's not about whether Roger Goodell and/or Tom Brady are good or evil. It's not about whether or not the Patriots are chronic cheaters.

It's about this: there exists a collectively bargained agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA. This is a relationship that is governed by labor law; there is no room for either side to make up the rules as it goes along.

Seems to me that Judge Berman has sent the same message to the NFL that Judge Sotomayor sent to MLB in 1995: you are not above the law.
7:45 PM Sep 5th

jemanji
Mark - agree with almost all of that amigo.

In particular, I *like* Bill Belichick's personality. He is about winning, not about ego. He's a steely-eyed assassin. And I also like the fact that he comes from the film room, rather than from an NFL roster. His non-football background is part of his cool.

I don't know the mechanics of a soft ball vs. fumble rate. But ... there are a lot of that scientists know to be true, without having a physical explanation. It is certain that the Patriots' fumble rates became insanely low, at the very moment they gained control over their footballs. How would this work? I don't know the middle part of the explanation, but the bottom part of the essay is very legible.

Brady and Belichick have had an incredible run of championships. Was it wind-aided? I dunno, and you make a very even-toned argument that it wasn't.



7:40 PM Sep 5th

jemanji
Izzy - I'm wide open to that point of view. By default I assume that some portion of ... aahhh ... pushing the boundaries "is just part of the game."

Am genuinely confused as to whether Belichick/Brady deserve a slap-down or whether they don't. I'd like to read an insider's book or something about it.

Whether they "break warrior's code" or whether they don't, Belichick and Brady are tremendous gladiators, with the hearts of champions, and this kind of stuff wouldn't diminish that either way. Brady against the Legion of Boom last year ... it was a for-the-ages matchup that (for me) forever cemented Brady's place among the greatest competitors in sports history.

It's more a question (for me) whether you slide Brady from the Lou Gehrig category into the Barry Bonds category. I don't know the answer to that.

Muchas gracias for the link. :: knuckle bump ::


7:34 PM Sep 5th

markrice
Re: jemanji
Thanks for sharing this. I don't normally read the NY Post, so I never saw this. A couple of comments to your comments:
1) It was until 2006 OK to tape other teams from anywhere in the stadium, and as far as I understand it is still legal to tape them as long as it is not from the sideline. I don't see how you can tape the signals, analyse them and pass the information to the defense in the same game. Once again, I must be missing something here. Although I know no one believes him, Belichick has always said he did it to prepare for the next time the teams would meet, and this was also stated by Goodell in announcing the punishment.
2) I recently read something about that fumble rate. To be honest, I really don't understand how we connect this to deflation of footballs. We are talking about footballs that for the Colts game were deflated by something like 5-10% (much of that has to be from the game conditions as well). This is supposed to make that much difference? I don't see how.
In fact, no one knows if the Patriots really did deflate footballs. We have data that was poorly measured from one game. It has always seemed weird to me that somehow no one - refs, opposing players, league officials handling the balls - ever noticed. I think the Patriots fumble less because Belichick will not put players on the field who fumble. Period. Its not that he worries about it, or that he is aware of it. Rather, he is (I think) easily the most extreme coach in the league in this regard. Stevan Ridley would be a star on many teams, but kept getting benched by Belichick because he fumbles too much for him (btw look for Ridley to have a big year if healthy). In general, I think we should be really careful about spotting what seem to be statistical anomalies and tying them to unsubstantiated claims of cheating.
3) So the Patriots put players on IR who may not have been injured, or really that badly injured? There could be something there. Thee are more than two players PO'd at Belichick. He is not the easiest coach to play for. Of course, many more think the organisation is first class, straight laced and by far the best in the league.

Seeing as how I am wandering all over the map here anyway...
My own feeling is that this all seems from a couple of basic causes:
- the Patriots have been astonishingly successful in a league that is designed to prevent what they have been - a team that wins every year.
- the Patriots win largely because they play smarter than other teams. They have one of the best QB's ever (which counts for a LOT), but they also seem to get great performance out of players who don't seem to be as good elsewhere. Even today players do not really respect the talent on the team. I really think a lot of players can't believe the Patriots beat them.
- Bill Belichick makes no attempt to court the press or public opinion. In addition, he seems to enjoy provoking anger and irritation from opposing coaches, players, and fans. He is often rude to the media, and as much as I admire him for never grandstanding, I do find this element of his coaching approach somewhat juvenile and unnecessary.

And I think the Patriots do pay for this. Look at the controversies that other teams have been involved in. Take the Jets. Remember when the assistant coach tripped the player on the field, and the Jets were also caught with that ridiculous "trip line" strategy? If the Patriots had done this, Belichick would have been suspended for multiple games, and we would still be hearing about it. But it was the Jets, so no one cares or remembers.

One last thought... when did cheating become so awful in the NFL? Seriously, I remember back in the early 80's all the stories about things like Al Davis bugging locker rooms, Lester Hayes covering himself in stickum, Conrad Dobler wearing a club on his hand for a cast. We used to laugh at a lot of this, didn't we? Maybe it was just me...
7:32 PM Sep 5th

izzy24
Jeff (and anyone else who may be interested:

If you can stomach the over the top homerism (and I say this as a huge Patriots fan) you might want to read this for an interesting look at spygate: yourteamcheats.com/what-is-spygate; If you buy the facts that are being stated here it's hard not to see this as overblown.

Or just check out the site in general: yourteamcheats.com/ The Patriots are not special.

I would argue that the salary cap issues by the Broncos in 1996 was much worse than anything the Patriots have done.

Again, I think anything the Patriots do wrong tends to get blown out of proportion in large part because of their success and Belichick's arrogance.


6:16 PM Sep 5th

jemanji
Bill provides a critical service when he takes a Pete Rose or Tom Brady and says, "Slow down here. Take the pitchforks home. How would YOU like to be railroaded through a kangaroo court? And the public cheering things on? Let's THINK about this, point by point. Let's be fair about this."

I'm doing kind of the same thing ... on behalf of the other side of the courtroom. It's not popular to defend The Man, but ... is the internet not in its own kind of Lynch Mode against Goodell?

We've heard him compared to Bowie Kuhn. But for a Komissar-type commish, Roger Goodell hops through one whale of a lot of hoops, advisors, and legal counsel before he tries to make a decision. When then results in another firestorm. Honestly, I would hate hate hate to have that guy's job.

It's not like there aren't a lot of checks and balances on Goodell, compared to (say) David Stern.

I don't know if Goodell is a good guy. On the contrary, he may be a bad one. But the question remains: should a trusted NFL / NBA / MLB commissioner be able to slap somebody down when they need to? Or are those days gone, and commissioners should be there to rubber-stamp processes?


6:08 PM Sep 5th

jemanji
Mark - good Q's.

I don't know if the Patriots are considered cheaters by their peers.

Personally I don't care about "cheating" that is against the rules but accepted by the players on the field, like a batter erasing the back line of the batter's box. My question is whether a player "breaks code" and infuriates his fellow *players,* ignoring the warrior's honor, like (say) Joe Jackson and the 1919 White Sox did. There's cheating and there's cheating.

1) Spygate, in 2007, received the kind of reaction (such as from Cary Williams and Steve Young) that tells you the Patriots were way, way over the line. You videotape the other team's signals illegally, deciphering (for example) that flapping your arms means a blitz? As Steve Young put it, "That's the whole game." All Brady needs is a tipoff on a few plays in order to tilt the game.

Spygate is the kind of incident that calls Belichick's character into question. Sometimes it only takes one incident to ruin your reputation, provided that incident is of a certain flavor.

The Patriots are accused of having done this on a massive scale since 2000-01. Link: nypost.com/2014/10/12/they-are-cheaters-spygate-the-nfl-scandal-that-started-it-all/

2) There's this current issue of whether the Patriots have gained a big edge through deflated, non-fumbleable balls. It's not "equipment tampering" like cutting your socks too high; a fumble in the NFL is worth 50 yards or something like that.

3) Patriots players, leaving the team, accuse the Patriots of stepping way over the (normal) line when reporting injuries. Link: www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/another-spygate-former-patriots-say-belichick-is-cheating-injury-reports-032014

I don't know what it takes to raise the *objective* observer's antennae. But me? I've got no bone to pick with New England - they've been a fave team, in fact - and my antennae are raised.

FWIW,
Jeff




5:43 PM Sep 5th

markrice
Excellent analysis, and I agree with it entirely...
One thing that I would to see is an actual list of all of the things the Patriots are supposed to have done to earn this reputation as cheaters. The prevailing view among many football fans seems to be, as Flyingfish puts it: "....the Patriots cheat and will do anything to win" (not saying this is his opinion, just using the quote as a good example of what I have seen elsewhere).
We all know about Spygate, but what else have they actually done, except win a lot of games? I see and hear former players like Marshall Faulk periodically make references to allegations that I understood to be totally discredited (ie filming the Rams walk-through before the Superbowl). I suppose I am missing something here. Does anyone know where I could find documentation of what the Patriots have actually done?
5:15 PM Sep 5th

jemanji
Thegue - good post.

The two jerseys my son owns is a Tom Brady jersey and a Randy Moss one; he's always been among my top 5 favorite players. The 50-TD season was a lifetime sports memory. I almost cried when the helmet catch ruined a perfect story.

But whatever we think of Goodell, my opinion of Brady has taken quite a hit this winter. And that's hard to do for somebody who has watched pro athletes for 40 years.

It's one thing to be caught in a lie; it's another thing to be a Liar. Brady's view of himself, and of others, has really come across the TV this winter.

It makes me wonder what the other 31 owners really think of Belichick and Brady. Not that I know; I'm saying I *wonder* what the story is behind the scenes, here.


4:24 PM Sep 5th

jemanji
Partially complete? :- )

Nah, Those ... there are lots of points I made that you could call partially complete BS. But the Patriots' fumble rates are certainly not among them. I'd like to think you know why.

The CAUSE of the fumble rates ... that has a certain amount of plausible deniability to it. But THAT the Patriots fumbled very, very seldom... that's not BS, partial or otherwise.

C'mon, let's be serious.


4:19 PM Sep 5th

those
Jemanji -- because you said "the Patriots' fumble rates have been extraordinary the last several years, and *that* is huge"

So I started looking at the data. When I got to the second year back and realized your statetment was at least partially complete b.s., I didn't bother looking anymore.

And instead of correcting or amending your statement, you asked why I didn't do more research. So carry on. Have fun. But myself, I have no doubt your original statement is incorrect. If you want to amend it to, "extraordinary so long as you don't look at 2013, and I really don't have any clue what happened that year because I'm just talking out of my butt," I'd agree with that if the data supported it.
4:06 PM Sep 5th

thegue
My two cents:

A friend and I do a podcast on Sports and Law - just started, still working out the rough edges, but he's a lawyer, and an excellent one at that (might have some bias).

Along with many talking heads, my friend thought Brady's appeal didn't stand a chance, whereas I thought Brady was getting railroaded (As a Raiders fan, it took Goodell to make me root for Brady...ugh).

But based on our evaluation of the Wells Report/arbitration hearing, I think it was accepted that something happened to those footballs. And Goodell asked Brady, would either McNally/Jastremski do something to those balls without Brady telling them, and Brady answered "No".

My friend called it the "Code Red".

Goodell did a LOT wrong here, and he continues to by appealing the ruling...but Brady doesn't look great. He was right by saying there weren't any winners here.
3:34 PM Sep 5th

jemanji
Incidentally, I asked a very experienced trial attorney what he thought of this situation, of the courts taking over a steering wheel that had been collectively bargained already. He's not at all a Patriots fan or not, but he said, wryly,

++The CBA and football in general is like Mad Max Thunder Dome Court. With Goodell being Aunty Tina Turner of course. Brady knew the law: break a deal and face the wheel. Federal judges should not try to fix the NFL and should just roll with it.++

I'm not saying that's the end of the discussion, but it's a voice worth thinking about.

Cheers,
Jeff


3:25 PM Sep 5th

jemanji
On the 'arrogance' of Goodell -- I agree that Goodell may not be the commissioner the NFL needs.

I'm certainly not arguing that he is (necessarily) the right person to command respect, or the right man to make a judgment call and produce resolution from it, rather than chaos.

I get the impression, though, that for some people there IS no such person.


3:14 PM Sep 5th

jemanji
Those - why do you take 2013 only? Why wouldn't you take 2007-14?

.......

Izzy - I turned over to that article, expecting (based on your characterization) to find something interesting. I was very disappointed.

The author acknowledges that the Patriot's fumble rates 2007-14 were a crazy fluke on the order of 1 in 16,000, but ... sneers at Warren Sharp's verbiage, he takes two minor Sharp remarks out of context and uses them to misrepresent him, he offers a couple of excuses for the fumble rate (let's edit out WR's who catch the ball and don't fumble, etc), and tries to massage the Y-axis so it doesn't look quite so outlandish.

.........

Guys, if Bill Belichick be the one coach in the NFL who doesn't like fumbles, his genius in coaching it utterly failed prior to 2007. Before the rule changed on ball inflation, the Patriots were right in the middle of the pack. ... also, Patriots running backs who leave town, promptly resumed their lifetime fumble rates.

You're talking to a Seahawk fan; Pete Carroll has one day of practice every week devoted to not fumbling. There was never a coach who emphasized turnovers more than Carroll. But he doesn't have a magic ability to prevent fumbles; the Seahawks have non-fluky fumble rates.

.........

But this article isn't about Patriots fumbles. It's about whether Roger Goodell followed process, and my QUESTION is whether --- > a sports commissioner should be limited to process, or whether he should have a certain amount of discretion and judgment when he (and the 32 owners behind him) believe somebody has been spitting in the water hole.

Goodell reacts to PR, as Bill said; the NFL fits its punishment to what the lynch mob wants. We all applauded him for doing this with Ray Rice and Adrian Petersen.

But Goodell is also a consensus-builder, which is good; a lot of the time he trots around to the 32 owners and asks, "What is the will of the corporate body here?"

The problem isn't as simple as some of you guys in the comments are making it sound. And I doubt that Goodell is an appropriate target for 2-D cartoon characterizations.

Cheers,
Jeff


3:10 PM Sep 5th

Gfletch
Rcrout, I'll take a shot at that, albeit without any expertise to offer. First of all I think that judges generally prefer that people settle their differences in a civilized manner, away from the courtroom. I also think that Goodell / the NFL rigidly refused to modify their position, which probably led to the "...sharp rebuke..."
2:49 PM Sep 5th

Rcrout
What I find a little odd is that the Judge's sharp rebuke of Goodell doesn't exactly square with the fact that he wanted both sides to come to a settlement. I mean, if Goodell was so capricious, and the process so arbitrary, why waste any time pressuring them to settle?
2:39 PM Sep 5th

Gfletch
doncoffin, thanks for the arrogance link. This is an excellent companion piece for Bill’s article. I say so partly because it supports my first comment, that the NFL / Goodell could have so easily avoided all this. I’m also glad of my Kuhn comparison. This is what happens when you take the actions that you think will please the masses, rather than the actions…or inactions…that are appropriate.
1:50 PM Sep 5th

doncoffin
And in other news of over-reach in football (college edition), this, which I somehow managed to miss until today:

www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2015/09/in-other-news-from-the-jerks-who-run-american-football
11:06 AM Sep 5th

doncoffin
Just in case you all aren't tired of this entire thing:

sports.yahoo.com/news/the-arrogance-of-roger-goodell-215731603.html
10:55 AM Sep 5th

flyingfish
rgregory1956 and MarisFan61: I'm not really a football fan but one can't help noticing some of what goes on in that business if one is generally aware. :) I was in the camp that said the Patriots cheat and will do anything to win. Roger Goodell has done something quite impressive, though; he has put me into the Patriots' corner. There is an old saying that revenge is a dish best served cold, which means if you're going to get revenge, make sure you do it right. As far as I can tell, Goodell hasn't done of anything much right except pad his bank account since he's been NFL commissioner. And now, by announcing that he will file an appeal of Judge Richard's Berman's ruling, he has proved to me that he doesn't even have the sense to come in out of the rain. I think this debacle and Goodell's wretched performance completely overshadow any concern about the Patriots' behavior, at least for me.
10:12 AM Sep 5th

izzy24
Jemanji, here's an article ripping that fumble rate crap to shreds: regressing.deadspin.com/why-those-statistics-about-the-patriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710

Belichick will bench players for fumbling. He knows how important the turnover battle is and has said so on many occasions. The original fumble articles that came out were just a way to get ahead of the story.

I disagree with the assertion that the Wells report was independent. NFL Executive Vice President Jeff Pash edited the Wells report before it was submitted. Therefore, how can the Wells report be considered independent?

If the logo gauge was used (like referee Walt Anderson claims) then 8 of the 11 balls were well within the PSI range according to the Ideal Gas Law. And the average of the PSI's for the footballs (11.49) was exactly where you would expect it to be given the temperature. The NFL/Wells rejected this conclusion and insisted Walt Anderson must have used the non-logo gauge. Why? The only reason I can think of is it makes the Patriots look bad.

Had Mortensen not received faulty information (presumably from the NFL) this story probably never would have taken off. But because the Patriots have been dominating the rest of the NFL for the last decade and a half it became a bigger story.
9:46 AM Sep 5th

rgregory1956

Personally, I am 100% behind Goodell. As a Colts fan, anything bad that happens to the Pats is okay by me.

'Course, if it was Andrew Luck who Goodell was going after, I'd be 100% behind Bill.

Ain't fandom wonderful?

8:43 AM Sep 5th

those
Jemanji -- in 2013, the Patriots fumbled 24 times, the 9th most in a 32-team league. That doesn't qualify as extraordinary.
8:40 AM Sep 5th

jemanji
Fletch - I agree this is one of Bill's strongest points (among many). What's the precedent for a big Invisible Hammer on equipment tampering? Probably none.

That said, we DO hand out (non-criminal) punishments because "everybody knows." Even in the absence of an airtight proof and documentation. Or do you think all of the golf country clubs should be required to throw their arms wide and give O.J. Simpson his preferred tee times?

I don't believe that a Mafia-esque commissioner should have a free hand to ruin people he doesn't like. Of course not. But it also would be nice to find some middle ground, in which a *respected* commissioner -- one who has the trust of his colleagues and the public -- can make a judgment call when he needs to.

.......

I don't want Mafia-type commissioners running amok. But neither do I want the leagues impotent to handle a situation that needs handling.

I dunno what the answer is. Maybe it is in strict process, in abandoning "The Spirit of the Law" in favor of "The Letter of the Law." I hope that's not the best we can do, though.


2:04 AM Sep 5th

MarisFan61
......but Fletch, as is mentioned in Bill's article, even within the court system, differing standards are recognized -- y'know, not just "beyond a reasonable doubt" but also "the "preponderance of evidence" thing." It depends on the standard for the particular kind of case. Rightly or wrongly, this isn't a case that requires 'beyond a reasonable doubt." I think inevitably this does get back to what "preponderance of evidence" means, both in general and what it should mean for a case like this. That said, I'd guess it will play out according to what you're indicating. They'll want to go on what's solid and ignore what isn't, and they won't find any problem with Judge Berman's having followed that.
1:49 AM Sep 5th

Gfletch
Marisfan, jemanji...be thankful that punishments are not handed out just because "...everybody knows..."

If you cannot prove it, then you don't know. If there is no law against something, how can you break it? If there is a law and an agreed upon punishment, how can it be justified to grossly exceed that punishment?
1:11 AM Sep 5th

MarisFan61
Loved every word, and indeed it makes me wonder what legal grounds the NFL could have in mind for an appeal.

That said, I'm mostly of Jeff's mind (jemanji) on this. The trouble is, I don't know how that's supposed to fit into the legal system and how it would or should reasonably bear on this case.

Although, I feel as though I have no trouble understanding what "generally aware" meant. It's exactly along the lines of what Jeff said, and what has been said and implied by many football insiders, and what seems like common sense. It seems impossible to think Brady didn't know what was going on, or that it wasn't being done according to his stated and known preferences -- not necessarily or particularly at his direction, but according to his stated and known preferences. To me, that's what "generally aware" clearly meant, and I don't see how it wouldn't be so -- not necessarily that he knew how or where or when it was ever done (that's the reason for the qualifier "generally") but that he knew it was being done in some way and according to his wishes.

But, should this hold any legal water? Any disciplinary water? Should "legal water" and "disciplinary water" require the same degree of backing? I guess now they should, because it's in the legal system; but I think that very often in our society those things are kind of separate. Discipline in many contexts if often done according to "C'mon, we know you did it." And, I'd guess that in the legal system, rightly or wrongly, it happens pretty often that decisions are made on the basis of "We're damn sure he did it even though there wasn't anything in court that really proved it." Is that enough of a standard? We could say no, it never is, but in any event I'm thinking that in this case it definitely won't be, because of how any decisions will be so scrutinized and discussed that no court would take anything beyond solid demonstrable facts.
12:41 AM Sep 5th

jemanji
Addendum to the previous, re: 'Fairness and Due Process.'

1. I agree that Bill has documented, here, that there were serious holes in Goodell's adherence to the process.

2. In the 30,000-foot view ... fairness is fairness. Agree with that too. But would add that there comes a point to which "fairness" means a different thing for a defendant in a murder trial, than it does to a boss who is evaluating whether to keep me on as an employee in his company. In the latter case, the boss's judgment is a factor; in a murder trial it's not.

The process included the idea that Goodell was/is an arbitrator, and apparently that's in keeping with the CBA. I don't know whether it's appropriate for us to call for the total elimination of Goodell's judgment as a factor here.

But then again, I don't know anything about unions or CBA's. Just from a bleacher-bum point of view, I personally would like to see SOMEBODY (in any pro sport) have discretion as to whether Joe Shlabotnik is a bad guy and deserves to be rebuked for it. Without having to hit the standards used in a criminal trial.

3. I agree that the NFL is itself highly suspect as it pertains to fairness. It's easy to visualize them just getting ticked off at somebody and deciding to ruin them. Am not naive about that.

But as a general rule, if you DO have a team that is continually "breaking code" about cheating and integrity, I do think that the league should retain an Invisible Hammer it can bring down.

Suppose some team or player really were spitting in the water hole? Do you ever want the commish to be able to slap them down for it?

Cheers,
Jeff



10:33 PM Sep 4th

jemanji
Hey Bill. Good stuff. Particularly enjoy your thoughts when it pertains to this general territory. In my mind, you'd be an interesting nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court, at least a couple of hundred years ago when the legal resumes were more negotiable. You've got a unique blend of logic, fairness, and perspective. This article is great.

....

That said, I'm *wondering* whether the article is "true but not accurate" as they say at Boeing. I loved your defense of Pete Rose, because it was the only even-handed, presume-innocence voice at the time. But as it turns out, Rose was kind of a bad guy, and Giamatti knew it. Giamatti's written arguments against Rose of course had (these kind of) holes in them, but sitting at Ground Zero is it not possible that Giamatti had a feel for the situation that we lacked?

....

With all respect, I'm wondering whether NFL owners may have gotten tired of the Patriots' cheating (?) shenanigans, and whether they all agreed that it was time to bring down the Invisible Hammer. I'd be interested in your (famously even-handed) take as to this POSSIBILITY.

I didn't, and don't, care about Brady's ability to grip the football in the rain. But the Patriots' fumble rates have been extraordinary the last several years, and *that* is huge.

I also care that Brady looks the camera in the eye and says that he didn't know squat. The ballboys are there to say Yes Sir Mr. Brady Sir or they get replaced. Aaron Rodgers and others have spoken to the idea that the ballboys are extensions of Brady's will. I suspect that this is common knowledge around the NFL, and that among NFL insiders, Brady's denials are preposterous, like an ML player claiming he didn't know his bat was corked.

....

Again, appreciate the sterling analysis. Mostly just seeking your take on a (hypothetical) situation in which a guilty verdict is hard to document by the P's and Q's, but in which the people at Ground Zero know good and well what is going on.

Best,
Jeff


10:11 PM Sep 4th

shthar
I thought the punishment was a joke. 4 games off? That's a vacation.

Make him play every minute of 4 pre-season games.
9:41 PM Sep 4th

flyingfish
CharlesSaeger: I think it's called "irony."
6:18 PM Sep 4th

CharlesSaeger
Bill: hate to nitpick, but Rhoden has been writing "incessantly," not "incisively" about the case. I normally wouldn't go this route nowadays but the error makes the first graf hard to read. Was there an autocorrect failure?
5:43 PM Sep 4th

CharlesSaeger
The "Bowie Kuhn of football" is right. Has Goodell ever won one of these fights?
5:40 PM Sep 4th

flyingfish
Great analysis, and many thanks for it. I've read Berman's decision and you have iot exactly right. Now, here's a worse part: Goodell has announced his intention to appeal Berman's decision. I am very curious to know what his grounds for appeal might be. I have heard nobody suggest that Berman has misapplied any law. Stay tuned. By the way, the NFL Player's Association's lawyer Kessler seems to have done an outstanding job. Goodell is nuts to take him on again.
5:28 PM Sep 4th

BobGill
If you're keeping track of the best stuff to save for the next Fool's Gold type of collection, I'd put this one at the top of the list.

5:10 PM Sep 4th

Gfletch
Love it! Great to see a step by step explanation of why Goodell was wrong. He's the Bowie Kuhn of football.

It would have been so easy and sensible for him to tell everyone to calm down, that the quarterbacks have been adjusting the footballs for years with league knowledge, and that if anything it is the league that should be tightening up its own procedures.

Thanks, Bill.​
4:40 PM Sep 4th

GOODFRIEND
As in all instances when human thought is required, if one begins the evaluation process with a conclusion in mind the facts seem to magically align themselves with that conclusion. This is what Goodell did.
When one begins the process without a conclusion the facts dictate what the conclusion is. This is what Bill did.
Strangely, this is the same way Bill uses baseball metrics and he never knows the conclusion until AFTER the facts are evaluated.
4:39 PM Sep 4th

llozada
The support from what appears to be most of the owners, to go after the Patriots/Belichick/Brady for transgressions real or imagined, was in my opinion very encouraging for Goodell to proceed the way he did. I looks like the commissioner and most owners felt that it was payback time: "This may not be a big deal, but they (the Patriots) have done a lot of wrong in the past, so this make it right". This is also why we won't see Goodell losing his job, most of the owners were very happy with the way he was acting. I believe this is stupid as any of them could be next in line for arbitrary offenses.​
4:35 PM Sep 4th

©2016 Be Jolly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|Web site design and development by Americaneagle.com|Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

1 capture

12 Dec 2025

About this capture

Skip to main content

Top of Form

Remember me

Forgot your username/password?|Not a member? Join now $3/Month

·       Articles

·       Hey Bill

·       Ratings

·       Stats

·       Contact Us

PrintEmail

Share

Home>Articles

Recent Game vs. Full Season Performance for Pitchers

By Bill James

September 1, 2015

Recent Game Vs. Full Season Performance For Starting Pitchers

Hey, Bill: If you were choosing a pitcher to start a critical game, say a one-game playoff or game 7 of a series, would you be more likely to choose the pitcher on your team who has the highest pitcher score or the pitcher who has pitched best over the past four or five starts? Or would you use other criteria or a combination of criteria? --Flying Fish

              The general principle is that more information is usually better than less, but I decided to study the specific question.   I took my data base of games, 1950 to 2014, and looked at the question of how well one game by a starting pitching predicts the next, how well the previous TWO games predict the next, three games, four games, etc., up to 30 games.  To begin with, I took all game lines in the data—a little more than 240,000 lines—and marked each by the career start number. Then I eliminated the first 30 starts from each pitcher’s career, so that pitchers who hadn’t been around for a full season wouldn’t be included in the study, since they aren’t relevant to the Fish’s question.  This left 179,844 game lines in the data. 

              Sort those, first, by the pitcher’s performance (Game Score) in his previous start.  In the top 10% there are 17,984 games.   The pitchers who had pitched best in their previous starts went 7,486-6,467 with a 3.55 ERA, while those who had pitched worst in the previous start went 6,328-6,680 with a 4.23 ERA:

              Group A1 is the pitchers who had pitched best (Group A) in their previous ONE (1) start; A2 is those who had pitched best in their previous two starts, etc. I have more data than this, but the additional data doesn’t fit. The "A1" group pitchers pitched 4,406 complete games including 1,049 shutouts, and the won-lost record of their TEAMS, as opposed to the pitchers themselves, was 9,589-8,376 (19 ties).  

              Anyway, we can see that the previous start predicts the next one to a limited extent, and in the next chart we can see that the extent to which previous performance predicts next-start performance increases when we use the previous two starts, rather than one:

              A GS is "Average Game Score". The predictive power of the previous games increases again when we go from two starts to three:

              Whereas the 10% of starting pitchers who had pitched well in their previous ONE start had a .537 winning percentage and a 3.55 ERA, the 10% of pitchers who had pitched well in their previous THREE starts had a .559 winning percentage and a 3.38 ERA, and whereas the 10% of pitchers who had pitched most badly in their previous one start had a .486 winning percentage and a 4.23 ERA, those who had pitched most poorly in their previous three starts had a .458 winning percentage and a 4.50 ERA. More information is better; the predictive power increases.  

              This continues to be true as we add more starts—up to at least 15 starts.  Since really only the "A" group and the "J" group are interesting, I will trim the charts to just those:

              In this chart, then, we can see that the predictive power of the previous starts increases when more starts are considered; that is, the winning percentage of the "best" pitchers improves, and the ERA declines, as more starts are considered, up to 15.   Also, when we look at the worst pitchers, they continue to get worse:

              The predictive power of the last six starts is twice the predictive power of the last one start, but the predictive power of the last 15 starts is only 20% greater than the predictive power of the last six starts.   The predictive value of each additional start is less than the predictive value of the previous one. 

              After 15 to 20 starts, the charts flatten out to such an extent that it is difficult to say with confidence that any additional gains are being made.   There are two other things that are happening, beyond the natural law of diminishing returns.  Since a pitcher only makes about 30 starts in a season, after 15 starts about half of the "old" starts we are adding into the data are from the previous season.  It is likely that last year’s data has less predictive value than this year’s data, even if this year’s data was three months ago.   

              Also, there is a technical issue with using the Game Score, unadjusted, as the indicator of how well the pitcher has pitched, since the Average Game Score by a pitcher is higher in 1968 than in the steroid era.   This is a small effect, and it isn’t an actual problem in the part of the study where we are measuring noticeable effects, but as the effects being measured grow smaller, the technical issue becomes more significant relevant to the effects being measured.  As a consequence of these things, after 15 starts some measures go one way and some go another, and it is unclear whether we’re actually gaining any more useful information or not. This chart compares the data for the last five starts compared to the last ten, 15, 20, 25 or 30:

              Probably the data continues to gain predictive significance after 15+ starts have passed, but the gains are very small and we cannot be certain that they are real.  

              So the answer to your question, at this point, is that the last year’s data is a better predictor of pitcher performance than the last five games, but that one should not ignore the last five games, either.  Suppose that a pitcher has pitched moderately well over the last 30 games, but extremely poorly over the last five?  Then the short-term effects might be more important than the longer-term effects, and perhaps the answer is that one should go with the hot hand. 

              Or not.  

              I did one more study.  Suppose that we compare a pitcher who has been pitching well lately but has not pitched well over a longer term with a pitcher who has pitched well over his last 30 starts, but has pitched poorly over his last five starts?

              I figured for each pitcher his G5 – G30; that is, his average Game Score over his last 5 starts minus his average Game Score over his last 30 starts, but with the additional qualification that to be in the top group the pitcher must have genuinely pitched poorly over his last 30 starts, and to be in the bottom group the pitcher must have genuinely pitched poorly over his last 5 starts.  

              Conclusion?  You want the pitcher who has pitched well over his last 30 starts—absolutely and without question.  I looked at the 1000 most extreme examples on each end. 

              In the top group were, for example, Marty Pattin in his start of May 8, 1973. In his previous five starts (April 16 to May 4, 1973) he had lost all five, had pitched less than four innings per start, and had an ERA of 11.17.   But in his last 30 starts (June 20, 1972 to May 4, 1973) he had pitched 220 innings and had gone 16-11 with a 3.07 ERA.  Pattin pitched very well in that game, although he lost the game 1-0.

              Second example: Gaylord Perry in his start of August 15, 1974. In his previous five starts he had pretty much been pounded every time, giving up a total of 44 hits and 31 runs in 38 and a third innings, and losing all five starts.  But in his previous 30 starts he was 20-7 with a 2.27 ERA, meaning that in the 25 starts BEFORE the last five he was 20-2 with an ERA under 1.50.  Gaylord pitched well in his start of August 15, and won the game.

              On the other end we have, for example, Brian Bohannon in his start of September 15, 1999.  In his previous five starts he had pitched 8 innings, 9 innings, 7 innings, 8 innings and 8 innings, and his ERA for those five starts was 2.25, with 32 strikeouts and 12 walks in 40 innings.  But over his last 30 starts, although he was 12-11, he had pitched 182 innings, struck out 110, walked 82, and had a 5.79 ERA.  

              Bohannon was hit hard in his start of September 15—and the next one, and the next one, and the next one, and the next one.   He was Brian Bohannon; he was what he was.  It’s baseball. The cream doesn’t ALWAYS rise to the top, but the sand always falls to the bottom.  

              Comparing 1,000 pitchers in each group, the pitchers who had pitched poorly in their last 5 starts but had pitched well over their last 30 starts had a Winning Percentage in their next start of .538, and an ERA of 3.40.  The pitchers in the opposite group had a Winning Percentage of .438, and an ERA of 4.70.  

COMMENTS (17 Comments, most recent shown first)

evanecurb
I had wondered how Gaylord Perry managed to lose 16 games during that 1974 season. Now I know. If I remember correctly, he had a lengthy winning streak that year in mid summer: 14 or 15 in a row, something like that. For Cleveland, no less.
9:54 AM Sep 5th

evanecurb
Whenever I think about managers selecting pitchers to start big games, I am reminded of an interview with Casey Stengel a few years before he passed away. They asked him why he started Johnny Kucks in the seventh game of the 1956 World Series, and he said (as only Casey could) "Well the fella was from New Jersey and I'll tell ya how they celebrated. They just put the keg of beer on the sidewalk and danced in the streets."

So now you know how Casey did it.
9:03 PM Sep 4th

bjames
It's been a few years and I'm not sure how relevant it is, but I once did a study of pitchers with losing records who started a World Series game. You know this has been a few years, because nobody would do that study now; now you'd study all post-season games, and you probably wouldn't use the won-lost record. Anyway, the conclusion was; they get murdered. You look at pitchers with losing records who wind up starting a World Series game . ..BAD results. I would assume that most or many of those pitchers started a World Series game because they were perceived to be pitching well recently.
11:36 AM Sep 3rd

flyingfish
MarisFan61: I am not sure I agree with your last comment. How often do you hear managers say "Well, I'm going with the guy who has the hot hand" when discussing how to choose the rotation for a critical series? I hear it a LOT.

As for Zack Greinke, I wish he were pitching for my team. :)
6:17 PM Sep 2nd

MarisFan61
I thought it would be good to try to add, as a point of reference for the article, what it is that teams have actually been doing in such situations. I think probably the way such actual decisions have been made for such post-season games mostly follows what Bill finds, but with some role of things like what some of us have brought up.

By far for the most part, teams do follow longer-term success. In particular, if they have a guy who they've considered for a while to be their "ace," it's not easy to move him off the chosen spot. Absent that, there's a strong drive toward picking a guy who's been doing it all year.

But, there are exceptions. In line with what Bill finds, having a few bad games near the end of the season wouldn't generally take a guy off the spot. But, if it felt there's something physically wrong with him, whether injury or tired arm or whatever it might be, or even if he "hasn't been looking good" (whatever that might mean) in those games, he could be bumped or even removed.

So, I think this study actually supports what's usually done. Does it argue against the occasional exceptions? I think not particularly. It says that in general teams are best off to follow longer-term success. I think that's what they generally do, and when there are exceptions, I think it's a case-by-case kind of thing that might be hard to study systematically.​
1:03 PM Sep 2nd

MarisFan61
Thanks for addressing it so specifically -- you really did. I would add -- and I wish I could put this in tiny print, like we can do in Reader Posts, because it's probably only worth a footnote if anything, that I see an additional quibble. Rather than taking up any further space and rhetoric here, I'll put it in a "Hey Bill" to see if you think it's anything.

I love the Greinke example because it shows how there can always be a "yes but" about such things, although we can gather from this study that there are probably fewer "yes buts" than might have been thought.
11:27 PM Sep 1st

bjames
And, of course, one can sometimes "see" changes in a pitcher's skill level without relying on the stats. Zack Greinke in 2008 was kind of a .500 pitcher most of the year, but I moved back from Boston to KC in August, 2008, and went to a game in KC. I happened to have really good seats behind the first base dugout, and after the game I wrote back to the guys in Boston that Greinke had become the best pitcher in baseball, which he demonstrated the next season that he was. You could just see it. . .he was throwing 96 with no effort and had A+ command of every pitch. I remember a similar game that Dave Stewart pitched in KC (against KC) in late 1984; Dave Stewart in 1984 was 7-14 with a 4.73 ERA, but I remember thinking "I don't know what's up with the record, but that was one hell of a pitcher I saw tonight." He actually didn't get it turned around until mid-season 1986, but it was always there.
11:04 PM Sep 1st

bjames
Responding to the late-season concern as best I can, I took a copy of the data and eliminated from it everything except September and October starts. Since there were 179,000+ data lines in the full-season study, this left us with 31,105 data lines in the September/October version of the study, or 3,110/3,111 data lines in each 10% "file" such as A1, A2, B1, J30, etc. This wasn't difficult to do; all I had to do was eliminate the pre-September starts and re-calculate the results; just took me 30 to 45 minutes.

You may think that 3,000 data lines is a good number, but you certainly do get some instability in the data, with 3,000 lines in each file, that you would not get with 18,000 in each file. There are also two other changes noted: 1) that all of the ERAs are lower and the average game scores higher, since September tends to be a pitcher's month, and 2) that there is more decentralization in the data--that is, the top and bottom move away from further away from one another--due to the "September decentralization." This time of year, a few teams just more or less quit.

Aside from those effects, the data patterns in the September study are the same as noted in the larger study. The data flattens out after about 15 starts; however, the pitchers who have been good over the last 30 starts are substantially better in their next start than those who have been good over their last 4 or 5 starts, and 30 starts is probably (those less clearly) a better "read" on the pitcher's current effectiveness than is 15 starts.

Of course pitcher's levels of effectiveness sometimes change, particularly young pitchers. Randy Johnson in 1995 is not the same as Randy Johnson in 1992; Roy Halladay in 2001 was not at all the same as Roy Halladay in 2000, and Zack Greinke in 2005 was 5-17 with a 5.80 ERA. It is a question of what you bet on. You don't bet on the last 4-5 starts; you bet on the last 15 or the last 30.
10:43 PM Sep 1st

flyingfish
Sorry, you actually said more information is USUALLY better than less. I need to read more carefully.​
6:52 PM Sep 1st

flyingfish
Thanks for answering my question, Bill. Very interesting indeed. As you said in the beginning of your article, more information always is better than less, and so I think when we get to the way MarisFan61 rephrased my question to focus on the postseason, or indeed the question as I originally phrased it, we do have additional information. For example, Joe Kelly of the Red Sox has not been very good overall this season but his last several (5?) starts have been very good. Will he revert to the old Joe Kelly? Well, we know that he says that in his recent trip to AAA, he LEARNED TO PITCH DIFFERENTLY. Other players, both teammates and opponents, have said he looks like a better pitcher recently. I'm not quite sure just how much to make of that information, but it certainly helps to some degree; you wouldn't be using only his statistical record because you know some other, relevant, things. Similarly with a pitcher who is pitching through a seemingly minor injury and then ends up on the disabled list (Steven Strasburg comes to mind, more than once). If HE starts pitching badly, then I'm going to need to find out if he's hurt. Thanks again.
6:08 PM Sep 1st

337
So what I take from this is that if a team expresses interest in acquiring your so-so starter who has pitched very well the past month, make sure you don't quit the discussion without swapping your so-so pitcher for someone--anyone-- you really want on the team expressing the interest. Of course, there aren't straight-up trades like there used to be, and teams may not be snapping up starting pitchers coming off a good month anymore, but if you get the chance, make the deal.
5:54 PM Sep 1st

DanaKing
As always, lots of interesting stuff here. Thanks for taking the time on this, Bill.

To me, what this shows more than anything is that, while recent stats can clearly show if a player is hot or cold, it's almost impossible to show whether said player will remain hot or cold in his next game. There are two many variables, not the least of which is human frailty. (Some days or weeks people just feel better or worse physically, and it affects their performance.)
12:52 PM Sep 1st

stevekohlhagen
great analysis, bill.

however, as we all know, no matter how much you show objective evidence that forecasting future performance off of someone's subjective notion of who's hot and who's not doesn't work, some people will resort to emotional claims that THEY can. despite all evidence to the contrary.

human nature i guess.

great analysis. thanks. swk
12:30 PM Sep 1st

78sman
Bill, this is great information.

MarisFan, your point is good too. Data do not always tell us why a pitcher performed well or poorly in recent starts, so Bill's analysis did not account for reasons why a pitcher had done well or poorly in recent starts. If Bill had been able to separate out pitchers who had an important nagging injury or a dead arm, then one would expect different results for that sub-group.

I love Bill's analysis, and I think that MarisFan has added an important caveat.
11:18 AM Sep 1st

MarisFan61
P.S. Interestingly, while in general it's no problem for such a study to ignore pitchers who haven't been around for a full season and to eliminate the first 30 starts of a pitcher's career from consideration, if we're looking most particularly at the coming post-season -- which I do think was the main thrust of the question -- there is indeed at least one such pitcher who may be a prominent part in such a choice: Luis Severino of the Yankees.
11:14 AM Sep 1st

MarisFan61
Yes, but..... :-)
I think this way of doing the study might be sort drowning the specific thing we're looking for. I don't know that it makes a difference but it's not hard to imagine that it might.

It depends on what we're really looking for, and that depends on how we see the original question:

If you were choosing a pitcher to start a critical game, say a one-game playoff or game 7 of a series, would you be more likely to choose the pitcher on your team who has the highest pitcher score or the pitcher who has pitched best over the past four or five starts? Or would you use other criteria or a combination of criteria?

Bill, it seems you took the question broadly: emphasizing the first phrase in the question, and taking the next part just as a fr'instance. I'd guess his emphasis was the other way around: that he was really talking mainly about the post-season and that the first phrase was just a lead-in, since it's a question that 'in the air' a lot right now, because of the time of year, and what people almost always mean is the post-season.

What you looked at does answer the broad question. But if the emphasis was the other thing, I think it might well make a difference that we're talking about the end part of the season.

As I said, I don't know that it makes a difference but I can imagine it might: Pitchers are more likely to have tired arms toward the end of the season, and some pitchers do and some don't; obviously the ones who don't have tired arms have an advantage; and it may well lead to different correlations than looking at performance at all times of the season.

If one agrees with this and wanted to do a similar study looking at the question in this narrower way, I think there would be traps. It might seem like the most direct way would be to look at post-season performances by starting pitchers and seeing how they correlate to prior groups of their games. But, that would be fraught, because the way pitchers are and aren't used in the post-season takes into account how their arms are. Pitchers who have tired arms or sore arms would tend either not to have been used in that post-season or to have been given extra rest. Those things would tilt the data away from answering the specific thing that I think we're looking at.

I guess the point in what I'm saying is that the answer depends on why a pitcher with a good longer-term record has done worse lately, and that when such a thing happens late in the season, it may be more likely than usual (for any pitcher, good or bad long-term record) that it's related to his arm being compromised. For pitchers whose arms aren't particularly compromised, I'd say the answer is covered very well by this study. Otherwise, it's a different story. And actually in a way this is just a "d'oh" thing, because probably anybody would say "Of course you don't start a pitcher with a bad arm."

OK, now I better run and hide before being trampled.... :-)
10:59 AM Sep 1st

mrkwst22
....and that ladies and gentlemen is why Bill James is a National Treasure.
8:33 AM Sep 1st

©2016 Be Jolly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|Web site design and development by Americaneagle.com|Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy

Bottom of Form

Discontinuing Continuation

By Bill James

August 7, 2015

Discontinuing Continuation

(This article is one section of a longer article, "Back to School Notes", which is available to members only.) 

           The first thing I should point out here is that a half a second is a relatively good amount of time in a competitive sport.    A pitch travels from the pitcher’s hand to the catcher’s mitt in less than half a second, even if the pitch is a changeup.  A fast runner can run as much as 16 feet in a half a second; athletes doing complex things like rounding the bases and playing defense do not run 16 feet in a half a second, but they can easily run 10 feet in that time.  An athlete takes several steps in half a second, and a tennis ball changes directions due to contact with the racquet or the ground several times in a half a second.   A half a second live may well be 10 to 15 seconds in slow motion.  

           The concept of "continuation" is spreading like wildfire in sports.   It started, I think, in the NBA, and in particular with two rulings in the NBA.   Up until some point about 1973. . .I am sure a basketball historian could pinpoint the year better than I can. . .up until some point when I was a young adult, if a player was fouled before he shot, the shot did not count.  The argument was made that disallowing a shot if a player was fouled before he could get the shot off created (in some situations) an incentive to foul the player hard while he was shooting, thus giving a benefit to the defensive player for violating the rules.   I don’t disagree with that argument; it’s a good argument as far as it goes.  

           So the NBA developed a continuation rule or a continuation interpretation of the rule, which says that if a player is fouled in the act of shooting and makes the shot, the shot counts as long as the shooter completes the shot using a continuous motion begun before the foul.  There is a problem hiding in that sentence, which is in the open-ended nature of the concept of "continuous".  Originally this was interpreted to allow shots going off a tenth of a second after the foul, then two-tenths, three-tenths, etc.  What’s a continuous motion?  Originally that meant that your arms had to be in motion to take the shot before you were fouled, but then that was stretched so that now. . .well, I’m not trying to mock the NBA or exaggerate for rhetorical purposes, but you know what happens.  A guy is fouled outside the free throw line, takes three steps and shoots a layup, and he gets the shot based on the theory that he didn’t have a dentist appointment between the foul and the shot, so he was in continuous motion. 

           I don’t think that’s a really good rule, frankly, and I don’t think it has made the NBA game a better game.  But at some point the NBA became so fond of the continuation rule that they decided to eliminate travelling calls, as well.  I think the rule originally was that you were supposed to dribble once with each step; not sure, one of you basketball guys can clean that up.  Anyway, nobody dribbles once with each step anymore, but then you had to dribble continuously, and then (in the NBA) they decided you didn’t REALLY need to dribble anymore, as long as you were continuing an action which had once involved a dribble, or as long as the referees were still able to remember the last time you dribbled, or something.  

           OK, now I am mocking the NBA, but the NBA lost a lot of fans because of the way the rule was enforced or not enforced.  Anyway, at some point within the last ten years, the NFL decided to get in on the continuation good times, and adopted some sort of stupid continuation policy having to do with completing a catch.  It is no longer enough for a receiver to merely catch the ball, as has been the rule for the last 120 years or so.  Now, because of some continuation rule, he has to complete the catch by making. . .what is it they say?  A football move.  

           In a sense this is the opposite of the continuation travesty in basketball.  In basketball they allow the offensive player to get by with things he could never get by with before as long as there is some sort of nebulous connection between the final act and the good old days.  Football’s asinine continuation rule is kind of the opposite; it says that the offensive player DOESN’T get credit for what he has done unless he continues to do it until Grandma has baked her cookies.  I’ve seen guys—and you have, too—I’ve seen receivers stick out an arm, grab a pass, pull it into their body, tuck the other arm over it, run five yards, get hit by a defender and fumble the ball, and the referee rules the ball was never caught.  

           The hell it wasn’t.  Again, I don’t think this interpretation of the rule, this "continuation" nonsense, has made football a better game or more fun to watch.  

           But now it is spreading to baseball; now a baseball player is supposed to "complete" the catch as well.  It is no longer enough for the outfielder to merely catch the baseball; now he has to "complete" the catch.  

           In Boston in the last week of July Mookie Betts caught a long fly ball, ran two steps, and jumped into the fence, as outfielders frequently do, so that when he hit the fence his cleats would not be planted in the ground and he wouldn’t tear up an ankle.   Only, being the rather unusual athlete that he is, he didn’t jump into the fence, he accidentally jumped over the fence.  As he realized that he was rolling over the fence he held up his glove to show everybody that he still had control of the ball, but when he came down he landed on his noggin, creating a concussion, and that causes your muscles to involuntarily release your grip, so the ball fell out when he hit the ground—10 feet from where he had caught the ball, and with a fence in between.  

           So they ruled that that wasn’t a catch, it was a home run, which. . ..you know; I’m not allowed to bitch about calls going against the Red Sox, for good reasons.  I didn’t like the call because it was against the Red Sox, but setting that aside, it seems like a rather fantastic extension of the "continuous action" policy.   An infielder can drop the ball a twentieth of a second after he catches it in the middle of a double play attempt, and he has still recorded the out, but an outfielder who carries the ball for three or four seconds hasn’t completed the catch?  That’s ridiculous, frankly.

           That’s ridiculous, but in terms of damaging, that’s nothing compared to the Carter Capps ruling.  I’m sure that 99% of you know what this is about, but just to be on the safe side, Carter Capps has developed a unique pitching motion in which he takes a crow hop forward in the middle of his delivery and throws the pitch from several feet in front of the pitcher’s mound.  And the commissioner’s office has ruled, inexplicably, that he is allowed to do this, based on some stupid "continuous action" theory.  

           First of all, the people who debate this keep saying that Capps is throwing the pitch from 58 feet.  58 feet, my ass.  It’s more like 55 feet.  Half the league is throwing pitches from 58 feet anymore; Capps has just taken it to a new level.    But if the Carter Capps ruling is allowed to stand, it will profoundly change the game of baseball—much in the way that the "continuation" rules changed the NBA in the 1970s.   What it will do is, it will add to major league baseball somewhere between 100 and 200 strikeouts per team per season.   There were 37,000 strikeouts in the major leagues last year.  If the Carter Capps ruling is allowed to stand, that number is going to go way up—and the league batting average is going to go way down.  

           Capps is throwing a clearly and absolutely illegal pitch—but he is deriving a tremendous advantage from it, and striking out a very large number of hitters.  If he gets by with that, why won’t the next guy start doing the same thing—and the next guy, and the next guy, and the next guy?  They will.   In five years everybody in the league is going to be pitching from 55 feet.  

           Continuation rules have not been thought through in a serious way.  

           Here’s what I suggest.  I suggest that "continuation policies" in all sports should be limited by three other concerns.  

           First, "continuation policies" should never link together actions separated by as much as a half a second.  I actually think that a half a second is way too long; I think a quarter of a second is more appropriate, but. . ..at least put some limit on it.    Stop using this magic word, "continuation", to link together actions which are separated by quite significant amounts of athletic-world time. 

           Second, any action which could have been controlled and eliminated after the first action is not a part of the first action.  

           Suppose that a race car driver bounces off the fence and then rams into another driver.  If he bounced off the fence and slammed into another car and could not have avoided doing so after the collision with the fence, that’s one thing.  But if he could have avoided slamming into the second car but did not, then the second collision is NOT a continuation of the first collision; it is a separate action.  Suppose that the second driver slams into the first.  If the second driver could have avoided the second collision, then, again, the second collision is a separate event, the same as if it could have been avoided by the first driver.  Make sense?

           Any action which COULD have been controlled and eliminated by a conscious decision is not a part of the first action, and thus marks an end point of the first action.    Therefore:

           1) If the shooter could have decided not to the take the shot, then the shot is not part of the first action.  

           2) If a receiver is hit by a defender who could have controlled his action so as not to hit the receiver, then the collision between the receiver and the defender cannot be a part of the first action.   Therefore, the last instant at which the defensive team can benefit from the ruling that the catch must be completed is the last instant before he is hit by a defender. 

           3) If Mookie Betts could have decided not to hold his glove in the air to show that he had completed the catch, then anything that happens after that (separate) decision cannot be a part of the first action.  

           4) If a pitcher COULD HAVE decided not to throw a pitch after he hopped forward off the mound, then the pitch is NOT a part of the continuous action which preceded it—for the same reason that the second collision by a race car driver is not a part of the first collision, if the second collision could have been avoided. 

           Third, no player should be allowed to benefit from systematic adaptation of his playing style so as to exploit confusion as to when an action was continuous.    Like Carter Capps, and all of the pitchers who are going to imitate Carter Capps. 

           The ordinary rule is that a pitcher is supposed to be in contact with the pitching rubber when he throws the pitch.  Carter Capps is being allowed an exception to the ordinary rule on the theory that there’s a continuous action.   But If he is doing it on purpose to gain an advantage, then it is not a NECESSARY continuation, but an EXPLOITIVE continuation.  A player should never be granted an exception to the rule which is ordinarily controlling for the purpose of exploiting the rule to gain a competitive advantage.  He should be granted an exception to the rule only when it is necessary for some good reason to grant him the exception.  

COMMENTS (2 Comments, most recent shown first)

PederD
I'm a White Sox fan and I was shocked at the home run call. I agree completely about how absurd the continuation rules have become. I'm not sure how the tackling rules in the NFL would be affected by your second rule though. Would there be a blanket expectation that once the tackle starts, the action is on? Or would there be a large subjective area where it's decided that the tackler should have given up? I'm thinking mostly of sideline hits but it would probably be an even bigger deal with the incredibly complicated rules for hitting a quarterback.
8:54 AM Aug 16th

DaveFleming
First one to comment? Amen.

The crucial marker is the 'conscious decision' detail. Carter Capps' delivery is a conscious effort to challenge the rules to gain a competitive advantage . I applaud his effort (atheletes should try to exploit any and every competitive advantage), but baseball made a big mistake in deciding that it was a legal pitch.
5:10 PM Aug 13th

©2016 Be Jolly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|Web site design and development by Americaneagle.com|Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy

Bottom of Form

By Bill James

July 31, 2015

 Murder on the Bookshelf

           Reading a crime book last week, I was startled to discover a reference to my church—a positive reference, fortunately, but still a bit of a shock:

           The man behind Hope’s transformation was Calvin A. Vander Werf, who became president of the college in 1963.  He had been an organic chemistry professor and chairman of the chemistry department at the University of Kansas in Lawrence for more than twenty years.  Even though he was a Hope graduate, the valedictorian and commencement orator of the class of 1937, and the son of a Reformed Church minister from Wisconsin, Vander Werf and his wife, Rachel, had belonged to a liberal Congregationalist church in Lawrence.  She had been raised as a Quaker. They were deeply committed to the cause of civil rights and improving the lives of black people. 

From Murder in the Stacks (David DeKok, 2014)

           That’s my church there.  I didn’t know Vander Werf, who would have left town in ’63; we joined the church in ’91.  

           Anyway, after that I went to a family reunion, where a relative told me that he had been trying to find out whether I was working on a new crime book, but had visited this web site and had been unable to learn anything.  Well. . .yes, I am still working on a crime book; it should be sent to New York within the next three months, perhaps less.  I published a chapter or two from the book here three or four years ago; I should publish a newer version of one of those chapters because I made some mistakes in the first version of it, and I should correct the record.   

           But this is not about my crime book, but about a couple of other crime books, one good and one not so great.  I should warn you, at the outside, that I stopped writing book reviews, about 30 years ago, because I decided I was just too mean to be doing that. Very often, a year or so after reviewing a book, I would think "I was too hard on that book I reviewed.  That book was better than I gave it credit for being"—very often, in fact almost always.  Even when I wrote what I thought was a positive review, I would include some descriptive commentary of a less positive nature, and so other people would not think of it so much as a positive review.   I was just too negative.  I wouldn’t want somebody like me reviewing MY books—seriously, I wouldn’t—so I decided that other people were entitled to the same courtesy.  

           Keep that in mind. The two books here are Jeff Guinn’s Manson: the Life and Times of Charles Manson and David DeKok’s Murder in the Stacks; Penn State, Betsy Aardsma, and the Killer Who Got Away.  Both books are very thoroughly researched, exhaustively researched.  Both authors did hundreds of interviews to gather material, pored over court transcripts, etc.  Very professional effort in both cases.  

           I can’t speak highly enough about Manson, except that I might say that to really get much out of the book, you have to be interested in Charles Manson.   I am interested in Charles Manson; I am interested enough in Charles Manson that I will sit and watch a parole hearing for Leslie Van Houten, who was one of Manson’s minions.  I am interested in Charles Manson because he leaves—or has left, up until now—a good many question marks hanging in the air.  How did he get all of those people to follow him? Why, exactly, did he decide to start killing people?  He had a tribe of about 30 young women who would do whatever he wanted them to do, which many young men would think of as a good thing.  Why did he want them to kill people? What the hell was the point in that?  

           There are many, many stories about Charles Manson that have permeated our culture—myths, fragments of narrative, whatever you want to call them.   Almost free-floating stories.   There are stories about Creepy-Crawly Missions, about the Spahn ranch, about the Hole in the Desert, about some connection between Charles Manson and the Beach Boys, about Manson having an obsession with the Beatles, about the murder of a farmhand named Shorty Shea, about Alvin (Creepy) Karpis teaching Manson to play the guitar, etc.  Vincent Bugliosi’s Helter-Skelter—the best-selling crime book of all time—tells these stories, but tells them after the fact, through the lens of the Tate-LaBianca murders.  Manson goes back to the beginning with Charles Manson, back to when Manson was born and before he was born, explains things in the order that they happened, and makes sense of them.   He explains who Shorty Shea was, how he alienated the Manson family, why he was killed, when he was killed, who killed him, how he was killed, where he was killed, how the police figured out that he had been murdered, how his body was found, when his body was found, etc.  

           Not in every case; one of the Manson family’s lawyers disappeared (and was probably murdered) in the middle of the Tate-LaBianca trial, but Manson doesn’t really follow through on that, I suppose because all of the facts are still not known.  He explains why Lynette (Squeaky) Fromme was called "Squeaky".   He explains what the Spahn Ranch was, where it was, when the Manson family moved there, when they moved out, when they moved back in, who else was there, etc.  He explains who Manson’s first recruit was, how she was recruited, when she was recruited, where she was recruited, and the same with the second, and the third, and the fourth; not every single member, but enough that you build up an understanding of how the group came together. 

           That is small scale, but Guinn explains what seems like the central mystery of Manson, which is how such a gross and annoying little rodent-like man was able to do what he did.  Manson spent many years in prison.  He used his time in prison preparing to do these things. He developed tactics for gaining influence over other people.  He took Dale Carnegie classes, and took them seriously, learning practical lessons like how to make the other person think that your idea was his idea or her idea.  He cozied up to the Scientologists in prison, not really interested in Scientology but extremely interested in how Scientology was able to get people to buy in, and then take control of their lives.  He hung around with pimps as much as he could, peppering them with questions about how to spot vulnerable women, how to gain control of them, how to manipulate them.  He used con men as a resource, getting them to explain how to fracture reality so as to confuse others and get them to accept a reconstructed understanding of what was happening.

           Manson was also a brilliant man, certainly much smarter than the average bear. And then, when he got out of prison, Charlie found himself in Berkeley and San Francisco in the Summer of Love, not by design but simply by pure dumb luck; Manson got out of prison not having any idea what was happening in the world or San Francisco, but just happened to go there to hook up with an old friend.  The skill set he had developed in prison was planted in the exact place and time where it could flourish the most.  Charlie’s mission was to get others to trust him; he happened to go to the place where categorical trust was the dominant social imperative. Guinn explains all of this, not as bits and pieces but as concrete reality: when Manson studied Dale Carnegie, and how he studied Dale Carnegie, what prison he was in at that time and how there happened to be a Dale Carnegie class in that prison, what year it was and what month and which prison block.  He knows the day on which something happened, or if not the day at least the month or the time of the month.  People drifted into and out of the Manson family; you couldn’t really "drift out" of the Manson family but people bolted and escaped. Manson’s family members could generally be described as drug-addled dropouts; they didn’t really KNOW when things happened or what else was going on in the world right then.  Charlie worked by confusing people, keeping them in a permanent dissociative state. But by talking to these people, years after the fact, figuring out when exactly each person knew Manson and associated with him, he is able to reconstruct the series of events in a way that was beyond any previous understanding of them.  

           He de-mystifies Charles Manson by tying him to a calendar, to a locale, to his birth family, to a personal history, to habits and tactics and to outside events.  Along the way, he tells a certain number of more-or-less related stories, like the story of Augustus Owsley Stanley III, who manufactured almost all of the LSD that was available in San Francisco at that time—a large share of the LSD available anywhere in the country—and controlled the distribution of it so as to maximize its usage.  Since Manson lived as a young person in the Kentucky-Ohio-West Virginia border triangle, Guinn knows that he has to give the reader some understanding of that time and that place; when Manson is sent to some particular prison, Guinn tries to explain the prison, since one prison as different from another as one school or one city is different from another. 

           David DeKok does this as well, in Murder in the Stacks; not "as well", I should have said that David DeKok does this, as well.  The murder victim was Betsy Aardsma.  Since Betsy Aardsma had attended Hope College in 1965-66, DeKok gives us a chapter or most of a chapter about Hope College, and since Dr. Vander Werf is a key figure in the history of Hope College, there are several pages about Dr. Vander Werf, and since Dr. Vander Werf had been a longtime member of my church, there is a half a paragraph or so about my church.   It’s off topic.  It’s too far off topic; there is a line there that you don’t cross. 

           I am not saying that this is a bad book or that you should not read it.  Many crime books are genuinely awful, sensationalized and cheap and badly written and badly researched.  This book is not any of those things.   I fault Mr. DeKok for three things.  First, his stories are not that interesting. He wanders too far from the point, and he’s just not that good of a story teller; his sentences are fine, and his paragraphs are fine, and his research is excellent, but his stories are just not that interesting. 

           Second, I fault him for a lack of depth of understanding. I will hit him pretty hard for that one later in the review.  And third, I don’t know that I have read any crime book that makes a worse argument for the guilt of the person (now dead) that the book accuses of the murder.

           Well, that’s probably not true; I spaced out for a moment there on Jack the Ripper books and Zodiac books.  People who write books about Jack the Ripper and the Zodiac often seem to have picked some citizen at random and decided to claim that he was Jack the Ripper or the Zodiac or that he murdered the Black Dahlia.  But setting aside those How-the-hell-did-you-get-this-crap-published mistakes, I don’t know that I have ever seen a worse argument about what might be called an "ordinary" crime, an isolated crime which is not particularly well known. 

           Betsy Aardsma was murdered in the stacks of the main library at Penn State on November 28, 1969.  Miss Aardsma’s murder happened very suddenly and without warning; she was just in the library, going about her own business, when she was stabbed under the breast into the heart.  No angry confrontation was noticed by others in the library, and she did not scream; the only thing that others heard was a "thud" like a person being punched, and then the sound of her falling to the ground and the sound of some books being knocked off a shelf.  A well-dressed young man was seen walking away from the scene of the crime, and he said over his shoulder that "somebody had better help that girl."  

           Betsy Aardsma had not been stalked or threatened as far as the police could determine, was not involved in any abusive relationship, and her boyfriend did not commit the crime.  There would appear to be three possible explanations for the crime: that she was murdered by someone she knew for some unknown reason, that she was the victim of a completely random attack, or that she happened across someone (perhaps someone she knew) doing something inappropriate in the library, and that person panicked and stabbed her to avoid having his behavior reported.   The area where the crime occurred included a collection of rather extreme pornography, some of it open on the shelves, and scientific tests showed the area of the library, although a public place, to be dotted with numerous semen stains.  (In 1969 hard core pornography was not widely available in the United States.)

           The crime was never solved, but Mr. DeKok believes that the crime was committed by Dr. Richard Haefner, then a Penn State graduate student.  His argument against Dr. Haefner, who died in 2002, can be reduced to six statements of fact:

           1) That Haefner was acquainted with Ms. Aardsma, and is alleged to have taken a strong interest in her.

           2) That Haefner often carried a knife that could plausibly have been the murder weapon.

           3) That Haefner showed up at the house of a mentor, an hour after the crime, disheveled and overheated, and asking questions that revealed knowledge of the crime.

           4) That Haefner’s mother, in a heated argument with him witnessed by a third person, frankly accused him of committing the murder, a charge which Dr. Haefner did not deny during the course of that argument.

           5) That Haefner was a very bad person who did harm to dozens or hundreds of other persons.

           6) That Haefner assaulted a woman in Wilmington, Delaware on January 6, 1998, which shows him to have been capable of the assault on Ms. Aardsma.  

           In Popular Crime I suggested a way of evaluating evidence such that 100 points worth of evidence should be sufficient to establish guilt.   I would score the evidence against Dr. Haefner at six points, assuming that 100 points would convince me that he was guilty.  I would credit 4 evidence points for point (3) above and 1 evidence point each for points (5) and (6), but nothing at all for points (1), (2) and (4).  

           1) That Haefner was acquainted with Ms. Aardsma, and is alleged to have taken a strong interest in her.   Haefner was casually acquainted with Ms. Aardsma, but there is no actual evidence that he was infatuated with her or had taken any particular interest in her.   DeKok simply says that this is true, repeatedly, and apparently expects us to believe that it is true because he says that it is true.  There is one source that says that they had once been out on a quasi-date, but that source is unreliable.  All we actually know is that they should have been acquainted through one of Haefner’s ex-roommates.  No points.   

           2) That Haefner often carried a knife that could plausibly have been the murder weapon.   No photos of such a knife, no actual testimony about it, no actual proof even that it was of such a shape and size that it could have been the murder weapon.  No evidence that he had such a knife with him on the Penn State campus.  No points.  A lot of people carried knives in 1969; a knife is a very useful thing to have. I’d probably still carry one today if airport security wouldn’t take it away from me.  

           3) That Haefner showed up at the house of a mentor, an hour after the crime, disheveled and overheated, and asking questions that revealed knowledge of the crime.  Reportedly, he asked the older man (Dr. Lauren Wright) whether he had heard anything about Betsy Aardsma being murdered, when knowledge of the murder had not yet circulated around the campus, and certainly he should not have known who the victim was.

           If true, this would be a damning piece of evidence against Haefner; if true and verified, I would score this at 25 to 30 points.   But here are the problems with the story.  

           First, Dr. Wright never reported this to any police authority—not in 1969, and not later. The police became aware of the alleged conversation many years later through second-hand sources.

           Second, Dr. Wright did report this to a Penn State official, and claimed that he had done so on the morning after the incident—but the official to whom he reported the event insisted that the report was made not the next morning, but seven years later; not seven days later, seven years. .  

           Third, the precise timing of the story is crucial.  If Haefner came to Dr. Wright’s house an hour after the crime, that’s one thing; if it was two hours later, that’s very different, and if it was the next day, that’s entirely different.   One hour later, it seems unlikely that Richard Haefner could have heard about the incident second-hand or third-hand; two hours later, it is less unlikely, and the following day, not unlikely at all.  Given that there is a discrepancy of several years in one part of Dr. Wright’s account, it would seem to be difficult to have any confidence in the precise timing of another element of the account.   

           And fourth, even if the encounter happened exactly as Dr. Wright later claimed that it did, it still falls well short of being clear proof of Haefner’s involvement in the crime.  There were many witnesses to the fact that something terrible had happened in the library; there were many people who may have seen the body before it was moved. News spreads like wildfire after an event of this nature.  After the fact, it is impossible to document who knew what at every minute of the sequence.  It is entirely possible and entirely plausible that Haefner could have heard a rumor that Betsy Aardsma had been murdered, could have been emotionally upset by the rumor, could have wandered across the campus in a near-hysterical state, and could have stopped in at Dr. Wright’s house (where he had been many times before) to ask if Dr. Wright had heard anything about the crime.   The claim that this is damning evidence against Haefner rests on the assertion that Haefner could not have known about the crime unless he was involved in it, which simply is not a true statement.  He could have known about the crime, even if he was not involved, because the police do not and cannot control the flow of information, even though they may try to do so and even though they may claim that they have done so.

           Dr. Wright continued to work with Haefner and continued to serve as a mentor for him for many years after the murder.  

           Dr. Wright’s story is the most damaging piece of evidence against Haefner, but it’s really not very much. It would take many stories of this nature to convince me that Haefner was the murderer, as opposed to being an odd duck who became the target of gossip.   Let’s say that it would take 25 stories of this highly unreliable nature to convince a rational skeptic that Haefner was guilty; then the value of the allegation is about 4 points.  

           4) That Haefner’s mother, in a heated argument with him witnessed by a third person, frankly accused him of committing the murder, a charge which Dr. Haefner did not deny during the course of that argument.    Again, this sounds quite a bit worse than it is.  The argument was overheard by a cousin of Dr. Haefner’s who worked for him, reportedly in the fall of 1975.  The cousin was fifteen years old at that time, and continued to work for Dr. Haefner periodically and continued to associate with him for the rest of Dr. Haefner’s life.  The cousin did not report this argument to the police or to anyone else, including his parents, at that time or for many years later.  He came forward with the story about the argument thirty years later, after Dr. Haefner and his mother were both dead, and specifically stated at that time that he had come forward after he saw an advertisement offering a reward for information about the death of Betsy Aardsma.

           In a court of law, neither the Dr. Wright story nor the cousin’s story would be admissible evidence, I don’t think, because they are hearsay.  I am not a lawyer, I don’t work for the lawyers, and I don’t really care what the lawyers’ rules are; they have their rules, and I have mine—but.  The intent of the hearsay rule is to ban gossip from the courtroom.  This is just gossip.  

           Mr. DeKok states repeatedly as if it were fact that Dr. Haefner’s mother believed him to have committed the crime, and he wants us to treat that as a known fact, but it isn’t.  Only Dr. Haefner’s mother can speak for Dr. Haefner’s mother, and she never did. If Dr. Haefner’s mother had in fact stepped forward and stated that she believed that he was guilty of the crime, that certainly would be evidence, to me. He had only one mother; what she thought about the issue would be of interest—but there are hundreds and hundreds of people who could make an allegation like this one.   The fact that one of those people would make such a statement, decades after the crime, is not really anything, because that person could have entirely misunderstood the argument that he overheard, could have confused the facts, could have embellished the facts, or could have invented the whole thing; we just have no way of knowing. 

           5) That Haefner was a very bad person who did harm to dozens or hundreds of other persons.   Haefner was a pedophile who was sexually attracted to young boys. There had been incidents, when he was a teenager and a young man, which had been reported to police and to various other authorities, although none of the incidents had yet resulted in a prosecution.  In 1969 Haefner could be described as a bright young man with a bright future, but a dark secret.  Haefner was an excellent student, and he was propelled forward by a deep and genuine interest in his area of study (geology), as opposed to those who were studying something because they had to study something.  He also was well-organized, industrious, and he had already by that time started private businesses which earned income for him, which he would continue to do for the rest of his life. He was, however, hiding his secret; he had already been accused on multiple occasions of fondling children or of going further than fondling. 

           Haefner earned his PhD in 1972, but his career disintegrated after a 1975 arrest for molesting young boys. Haefner started and conducted many different business ventures which were at least moderately successful and which enabled him to earn an income; the businesses were often also designed to bring him into contact with young boys.  But from a financial standpoint he was, from the mid-1970s on, just scrambling to earn a living; his dream of securing an academic or museum position was gone.   Haefner degenerated into a bitter, hateful man.  He filed certainly several dozen and possibly hundreds of lawsuits against those he believed had done him wrong, hiring lawyers when he could and representing himself pro se when he had to.  His court cases often dragged on for years, and blighted the lives of innocent people trapped in the web of a malicious lawsuit. 

           Haefner had, over the years after 1977, increasingly frequent angry confrontations with others, which sometimes resulted in his arrest. He was arrested again in 1992 for taking a young boy on a trip without the consent of the boy’s family. Haefner’s business practices became less ethical.  It might not be accurate to say that he was a con man, but he became less interested in whether his business transactions were satisfactory from the standpoint of the others involved. Some of these transactions also resulted in lawsuits, and when you sued Richard Haefner, you could be absolutely certain that he would sue you back. 

           When a man is accused of murder, certainly the fact that he is a man of bad character is relevant to the allegation.  It is relevant to the question of whether the accused is entitled to a break in how you interpret the evidence.  When there is no evidence, it’s not relevant.  There’s no evidence here. 

           The courts have essentially thrown the notion of "character" out of the evidence locker, and I think it was a mistake to do so.  It is relevant, but it doesn’t go very far (one point out of a hundred) toward convincing me that Haefner had something to do with the murder.  There are thousands of people of horrendously bad character in every state.  It is general, as opposed to specific.  To show that a person committed a murder requires specific facts.  

           6) That Haefner assaulted a woman in Wilmington, Delaware on January 6, 1998, which shows him to have been capable of the assault on Ms. Aardsma.   Haefner had left his aging, nearly deaf and nearly blind cocker spaniel—who he loved dearly—in a shopping cart while he ran into a pharmacy. The shopping cart rolled out into the parking lot due to a gust of wind or something, and a couple of ladies, thinking the dog had been abandoned, came to its rescue. Haefner, who was off of his medicines, thought they were stealing his dog.  The misunderstanding escalated until Haefner dragged the woman out of her car, punched her or slapped her several times in the face, and placed his hands around her throat.  

           To DeKok, the assault on this woman is the final and clear proof that Haefner is the sort of man who could have murdered a woman in a blind rage, and therefore is proof that he did.   My opinion is that that’s just silly.  

           I fault DeKok for a lack of depth of understanding, and to me, this shallowness of understanding—while it touches everything in the book—is most costly in three areas.  First, he is determined to see Haefner in the 1960s as being the same as Haefner in the 1990s.  This is shallow.  Haefner by the late 1990s had lived through a quarter century of failure, humiliation, disappointment and confrontation, and his mental health had deteriorated to an alarming extent.  Nothing that he did in the 1990s is in any way instructive about what he might have done in the 1960s, except that he was a lifelong pedophile.  Since Haefner is, really, the main subject of his book, this lack of perceptivity, this portraying the Haefner of the 1960s based on the Haefner of the 1990s, reveals a stunning lack of insight.

           Second, DeKok has no real understanding of the nature of a police investigation.  He keeps coming back to the question of why did the investigation fail, and of course he blames Penn State for this failure, and he blames this police investigator and that Penn State administrator. This assumes that solution to a mystery is simply there unless you lose it; if the solution is not found, somebody screwed up. That’s not the real world. The solution to a mystery must be created by someone, often times in the face of great difficulties.  When the solution is not found, that doesn’t mean that someone screwed up; what it means is that no one succeeded.  He is looking at the problem backward.  

           The 1998 attack and the 1969 attack have basically nothing in common.  One attack unfolded gradually, escalating over a period of several minutes from a misunderstanding to an angry assault. The other attack occurred suddenly, without any known context.  One attack involved the use of a weapon; the other did not.  One assault resulted in a woman being killed and intentionally killed; the other did not result in death and was never intended to result in death.  One was inside and in a place where the view of witnesses was cut off; the other was outside and in full view of God and everybody.  The attacker in 1969 appeared to be composed, and fled the scene in an organized manner.  Haefner in 1998 was shaking with rage.  These attacks are not parallel in any way.          

           And third, DeKok has absolutely no concept of what constitutes evidence.   He thinks he has got a case against Richard Haefner; he’s got nothing.  It is not enough to say that the case is unproven; the case is false.  Haefner did not commit the crime.  DeKok has written a book accusing an innocent man of a terrible murder.  

           This is not to say that it is a bad book, entirely.  The book intersects briefly with Ted Bundy and Charles Manson.  Ted Bundy was in Pennsylvania at the time that Aardsma was murdered, and Bundy does fit the description of the well-dressed young man seen walking away from the murder. The lead investigator in the case did believe that Bundy might have committed the murder.  Bundy didn’t become known to the police until years after the Aardsma murder, and the fact that he was in Pennsylvania at that time did not become known to investigators until shortly before Bundy was executed.  

           DeKok, who will chase a rabbit trail for 15 or 20 pages without a thought, disposes of the Ted Bundy connection in five.  

"To go up to a girl and just stab her, that is so non-Bundyish," psychologist Art Norman told reporter Ted Anthony of the Penn State Daily Collegian for a story about the twentieth anniversary of Betsy’s murder.  "None of his needs would be fulfilled." (Page 319)

           Well, yes, that is true, and I will also point out that Bundy is not known to have begun killing coeds until early 1974, more than four years after Aardsma’s murder.  It is unlikely that Bundy killed Aardsma, although it is more likely that Bundy committed the crime than that Haefner did. 

           In the fall of 1968, both Richard Haefner and Charles Manson were living in the same thinly-populated, almost-uninhabitable region of Death Valley.    Manson was looking for a hole in the floor of the desert where he could take his followers to hide out during Helter Skelter, and Haefner was studying the volcanic rock formations of the area for his PhD research.  Charlie was half crazy by then, but Haefner at that time was still mostly sane.   DeKok wonders whether the two could have met, and tries to trace some of the nonsensical ideas espoused by Haefner in his declining years to, perhaps, a chance encounter with Charles Manson?  Right.  

           I like to imagine chance encounters between famous people who we would not ordinarily connect to one another. O. J. Simpson once shared a lecture podium with Byron "Whizzer" White.  Adolph Hitler and Sigmund Freud were both in Vienna from 1908 to 1913 (as were numerous other famous people); I like to imagine them running into one another and talking about music or something that neither one of them knew anything about.  Manson is an extremely good book, and Murder in the Stacks is not really a bad book; it is merely not the book that it should be.  

​

COMMENTS (25 Comments, most recent shown first)

bjames
Ted Bundy was in Pennsylvania at the time of the Aardsma murder.
3:39 PM Aug 4th

OldBackstop
Correction...I quoted you as saying Zodiac had more chance of having killed Aardsma than Haefner, you actually said Ted Bundy. At the time of the murders Bundy was enrolled in college in Washington state, he wouldn't have a murder until 1974 and even his "confessions" don't predate 1972. So...using your crime linking formula...wha? I know about the Atlantic City rumors in the summer of 1969, but, again, wasn't Bundy attending 2000 miles away in November 1969?
10:57 PM Aug 3rd

bjames
My point is, the same standards you find missing in DeKok's conviction should be present in any statement clearing him.

NO, it isn't, and this is an extraordinarily ignorant thing to say. A person is ASSUMED innocent; he is not assumed guilty. The standards are not remotely comparable.
12:38 PM Aug 3rd

Jpenglish
Bill,
I'm new to the website in January of this year. Didn't know you were such a true crime fan like myself. I'm finishing up a kind of a whopper right now that I'd love to see your point system review. The book is titled "Edward Wayne Edwards, the serial killer you never heard of". The writer, John Cameron, is a retired homicide detective. He alleges to have solved the Zodiac Code and not only solved the Zodiac murders but many more cold cases involved with the killer, Edwards. I'm also a police officer who has recently been "boning up" and studying a lot of statement analysis. My new mentor in this venture is Mark McClish. He has a website statementanalysis.com which I will be emailing him about the book by Cameron. That being said, Cameron makes a good case in his book and it's really worth the read. Would love to hear what you think.
1:35 AM Aug 3rd

OldBackstop
HeyBill,

It occurs to me that this discussion settles out to a question of whether poo-flinging is nature or nurture.

My point is, the same standards you find missing in DeKok's conviction should be present in any statement clearing him or saying that the Zodiac is a better suspect (if that was not tongue in cheek.)

I get it, there is a cottage industry of unscrupulous authors convicting someone of the Ripper crimes, or the Borden murders, and publishers somehow fund it, oddly. I haven't finished DeKok's book yet, but I agree that the points he attempts with the cousin's story (actually, Chris Haefner was sort of a cousin/nephew) story are absurd. And DeKok's author resume seems to show a taste for sensationalism around tragedies.

But the information I cited here is from court records. You say that Haefner punched or slapped her and put her hands around her neck. I don't doubt that DeKok beat the drum of that incident too loudly, but the official court records I referenced show that she had stitches, loosened teeth, a dislocated jaw, and required dental reconstruction. Haefner was convicted in court of assault due to testimony from multiple eyewitnesses.

And a seething Haefner continued pretty much harassing this woman with pretty much frivolous court actions for years, all the way up to District Court, who said:

"Dr. Haefner should be aware that his filing in this case borders on frivolous and that his intent to harass Ms. Schuyler is clear. He should be on notice that future filings by him regarding this matter, in this court or other courts, that are patently frivolous or brought expressly for the purpose of harassment will not be tolerated. Link to case previously provided.

As I read this back it seems like putting weight on one incident, but it is more exemplary of his adult life than a cherry-picked aberration. The guy was more than half a bubble off, to use a carpentry term.

In the same vein, you say Haefner was only "casually" acquainted with Aardsma, the Sherwood book spells out the details of a number of dates and a break off phone call in the month before the murder, all related in detail by Haefner directly to the police in a formal interview. If someone has attacked the veracity of Sherwood's book, I was not able to find it. But I think if you were to say where is tyhe jilted love interest suspect, always at the top f the list, Haefner is it. The med student/boyfriend was in a study group a hundred miles away.

Also, I understand that Professor Wright's story is weak to the point of dismissing it entirely, in particular because it was unclear to the timeline of whether it was an hour or five hours after the murder. You say one hour would be compelling. The Sherwood book relates that Haefner was said to arrive as the family was sitting down to dinner -- habitually at 6:00 pm. The murder was @5:00 pm.

While the case made by DeKok may be idiotic, I have not heard of any "black ink" evidence absolving Haefner, like he was seen elsewhere at the time.

The fact that DeKok is an ass in his prosecutorial book does not clear Haefner of suspicion though it certainly would "acquit" him.

I know you read exhaustively on these cases, I remember you saying you read seven ponderous books on the Rosenbergs. Did you look at "Who Killed Betsy?" I'd be interested to hear your take.

12:17 AM Aug 3rd

bjames
You say the personality conclusions reached by Dekok are overblown given the passage of time. I'm only just reading the book now, but I'll take you at your point. However, I think that an important fact here is that Haefner was clearly vindictive and obsessed when "a man scorned," seemingly mostly against women. . .


This is all nonsense. This is just words; there's nothing of any meaning there at all. DeKok SAYS this is true 25 times and expects you to believe it because he says it so often. It has no evidentiary value, even if true, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that it is true.

This entire industry has grown up, this Nancy Grace industry of artfully painting people as guilty because they are the TYPE of people who do things like this. It's despicable. You can direct this kind of bullshit at anybody.
9:17 PM Aug 2nd

bjames
The Man FROM the Train. Shouldn't give you an absolute delivery date until it is absolutely delivered.
8:41 PM Aug 2nd

tkoegel
Bill, is the book that is three months from the publishers, The Man on the Train? Many of us eagerly await that.
5:03 PM Aug 2nd

bjames
Well, responding to OB. . .if you choose to be taken in by nonsensical drivel, I can't stop you.
4:33 PM Aug 2nd

OldBackstop
HeyBill, just looking at some of the fact trail with Haefner.....the 1998 assault.

I think you may be playing down the violence shown by the evidence in court. The 49-year-old woman was pulled out of her car by the neck by Haefner and wound up with a dislocated jaw, stitches to her mouth, several loosened teeth, and contusions. Based on witness testimony of him punching her (not slapping) Haefner was charged and convicted after a trial of third degree assault. The facts are laid out here in a decision when he attempted to sue the woman and the case was thrown out: http://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Chambers/OtherOpinions/RRM/Opinions/Oct2001/00-393.pdf

You say the personality conclusions reached by Dekok are overblown given the passage of time. I'm only just reading the book now, but I'll take you at your point. However, I think that an important fact here is that Haefner was clearly vindictive and obsessed when "a man scorned," seemingly mostly against women, and extending to actual poo-flinging and literal poo-flinging as well, dragging out vindictive court battles for years replete with art least one jail sentence for contempt on his behavior in the courtroom and another incidence where he reportedly dove across a deposition table to assault a witness. (or it may have been a lawyer, if so disregard).

If this pattern didn't trigger the Aardsma murder, could it be the other way around? Could her dumping him have lit the fire that led to the confrontation in the library....then a lifetime of his sexual attentions being aimed at less formidable children rather than strong women? All these court battles and bullying...any against men?

Also, re their relationship....it certainly seems from the other material I read that he and Aardsma had multiple dates and he described the scenario to police as she broke up with him, just some weeks before the murder. When the police asked her roommate if there was anyone they should look at, Haefner was the only person she gave them.

Some other interesting facts:

-- blood matching Aardsma's type was found on the specific staircase where the sketch suspect fled, further leading one to believe that was the killer.

-- Immediately before the murder, Aardsma had met with her doctoral advisor in his offices in the downstairs of the library. He was an enormous bullying man, known for having hardcore pornography lying openly around his office and also for his habits of showing it to young coeds. Now, from this guy's build and prominence on campus, he clearly wasn't the killer, but maybe there is a link there, like she was fetching porn for him? She told people she was fetching a library book for a professor, although it is believed to have been a different one.

Thanks again for the topic. Great stuff.


1:50 PM Aug 2nd

OldBackstop
HeyBill, I just purchased the kindle version of "Who Killed Betsy?" by David Sherwood on Amazon. If you haven't read it, it is worth a look. At a quick perusal (misspellings) a number of things jump out -- for one, Sherwood said that Haefner related to the police in an interview the specific dates he had been on with Aardsma -- bowling, ice cream, dinner -- and recounted her breaking it off with him in a phone call. Other interesting data was that an electronic door monitor noted the entries and exits to the library in the forty five minutes surrounding the murder -- one. Kidding, 440, which was more than I pictured on a holiday weekend. Also, two hours after the murder the cops busted up a couple having sex in the stacks right above the murder scene. So.....uh....man, Go Nittany!
4:32 PM Aug 1st

bjames
The "illicit activity in the library" theory is very probably the explanation for the murder, but this is no more evidence against Haefner than it is evidence against any other person. It has nothing at all to do with Haefner. It is general, rather than specific.
10:20 AM Aug 1st

bjames
1) The bias toward "mind controlling" is based on the undeniable fact that he controlled the minds of other people--and continued to control them for up to 15 years after he had been locked away.

2) The DeKok book makes no reference to the Zodiac, and I don't know anything about that.

3) Based on the DeKok book, there not only is not enough to CONVICT Haefner; there is not enough to SUSPECT him. There is not enough to open an investigation. There's nothing.
10:04 AM Aug 1st

MattGoodrich
The book "Manson in His Own Words" paints a somewhat different picture of Manson. He appears to be more two bit thief, drug using loser than manipulative evil genius.

I don't know what the real picture is, but the crazed mind-controlling mad man makes a better story so I think there will always be some bias towards that view.
12:41 AM Aug 1st

OldBackstop
Sorry for the length of this.

Very interesting stuff, Bill! I really like your crime work. I finally found the Rogers book you recommended and it is a great read. Thanks for that.

Some points:

-- I know your despication of police sketches. But the clerk leaving supplied a sketch of the suspect (here on this Zodiac site with Haefner photo) : zodiackillersite.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t;=451.

-- David Aardsma pitched for Penn State. Rare name. First in the major league alpha list (sorry, Hank)

-- Did you read the book referenced below "Who Killed Betsy?" by Derek Sherwood? Curious if it is better in your opinion. I saw an interview with the author, and there is a website of the same name with images, etc.

sez Sherwood:

-- On the above. Haefner wore glasses, and according to Sherwood the flip up to the right 'do required some gel and perhaps was worth a few evidence points.

-- according to Sherwood, Haefner himself told the police that he had been seeing Aardsma up to a month before the murder, and she stopped seeing him "because she was becoming serious" with a medical student. "Seeing" is, as you say, unknown, but the fact that she felt she couldn't see him anymore, if that is the gist, is of some weight. It was 1969 and he was a 25-year-old college student, hard to believe there wasn't sex, but...he was a weird guy, maybe he couldn't put the ball through the hoop. If he actually told the "seeing/stop seeing" story to police I find it compelling, certainly enough to immediately put him to the front of the usual "love and money" suspect list.

-- the area of the library as you say, was filled with porn but Sherwood said also infamous for sexual liaisons of a funky nature.

-- David Aardsma's sister is a pretty hot actress named Amanda who googles well. (idle unrelated info)

-- later in life, a neighbor of Haefner reported that in a fight over his dogs habits, Aardsma flung poo at her. Poo.

Etc. At any rate, I'm aware of your takes on standards of innocence and respect them. I agree that there isn't enough to convict him. Also agree the cousin's story is BS (read it firsthand) and the professor's story is useless for the reasons you cite.

But was the Zodiac really more likely to have killed Betsy Aardsma than Haefner? I'm not sure your point system would bear that out, would it?

I can see the following scenario, all suggested by evidence:

Weirdo rock hound is dumped by cute coed for dashing doctor. No doubt a library rat, he is mending his broken heart, enjoying some Amanda Aardsma-style material at the place you do that. Aggressively. Maybe he is with someone...not important.

Dumper coed stumbles upon him. Dang! She looks like she is going to raise the alarm, or at least it is the most embarrassing moment of this volatile guy's life. Police thought she was attacked from behind...perhaps he did indeed think she was going out to raise the alarm. His geology career kaput, never mind a sexual creep reputation throughout the Penn State campus before it was fashionable. He whips out his trademark always-with-him knife and shivs her.

He books (get it?) blurting out damning knowledge and a clerk provides a description that nails him, right down to trademark always-on-him khakis and sneakers. Weird dude goes on to a career of molesting arrests, assaults, and poo-flinging.

I think everything there is indicated by evidence and nothing is counter-indicated. I was not able to find any alibi...was there one in the book?

If the evidence put out in the Sherwood book and website held weight in your eyes, where would the point system put Haefner?

Immediate former paramour
Fits sketch
Carries knife
Extraordinarily violent/creepy subsequent history

Rip-off all the flabby evidence, and he is still a compelling suspect at least.


12:19 AM Aug 1st

bjames
No, not Bloch; Block was early in Hitler's life. This man was much later. . .I forget the name. It's in Rosenbaum's book, but I'm in Boston and the book is in Kansas.

The Pedophile becoming obsessed with a young woman was an obstacle to me as well. I left the book convinced not merely that DeKok had failed to make the case against Haefner, but that Haefner was not guilty. There DOES seem to be a more damaging set of facts against another man, but the other man is still alive, and DeKok dismisses the case against him.
8:27 PM Jul 31st

CharlesSaeger
Bill, are you talking about Eduard Bloch?
4:04 PM Jul 31st

Hal10000
Wait, so Haefner was a pedophile but was also obsessed with Aardsma? That doesn't make much sense.

There was a lot of interest in this allegation here at PSU, obviously. There's a second book (by Sherwood) making the same claim and I'm curious if it does a better job of making the case.​
3:27 PM Jul 31st

bjames
Ron Rosenbaum's book "Explaining Hitler" contains a very long discussion (as I recall several hundred pages) about the origins of Hitler's anti-Semitism. While it is a very good book, my ultimate take on that discussion is that Anti-Semitism is commonplace; Hitler's Anti-Semitism is no different from anyone else's anti-Semitism or racism, and consequently does not warrant any special explanation. What makes Hitler's anti-Semitism significant is Hitler's power. The amount of power that he obtained--the combined power of a political leader and cult leader--the power was quite unusual, and that needs to be discussed and understood, but the bigotry was just like anybody else's bigotry, and is thus uninteresting in itself. x x x x x x Also, that book is like DeKok's, in a sense, in that someone connected to me suddenly and unexpectedly pops up in the middle of the book. Hitler's personal physician up until about 1936 was Jewish; Hitler apparently liked the man, treated him well, and helped him to leave the country with his family intact. The man moved to Manhattan, Kansas, where my wife grew up. My wife's family knew the man and his family well--but had no idea that the father/grandfather had once been personal physician to Adolph Hitler.
2:54 PM Jul 31st

Edward
The history Thunder at Twilight: Vienna 1913-1914 by Frederic Morton has a good summary of who was hanging out in Vienna in those days. Hitler, Stalin, Tito, Trotsky. Freud and Jung were in the middle of a grand power struggle. Joyce and Kafka were in Trieste and Prague, as well.

The book was given a paperback re-release last year for the centennial of the Archduke's assassination.​
2:03 PM Jul 31st

rpmcsweeney
Also, re: the coincidental intersection of famous people in Vienna--Hitler and Ludwig Wittgenstein apparently attended the same grammar school for a time. That much is confirmed, but the extent to which they did (or did not) interact is debated. Some people argue (sensationally and weakly, I think) that a schoolyard spat between Hitler and Wittgenstein (who was a member of an extremely prominent and wealthy Jewish Viennese family) sparked Hitler's antisemitism. Others think it unlikely that the two--who were six days apart in age, but two school years apart, due to Hitler being held back and Wittgenstein skipping ahead--ever crossed paths.
11:14 AM Jul 31st

rpmcsweeney
It strikes me that what DeKok presents as the argument against Haefner is really the basis for beginning an investigation, not for concluding one. It's a hunch, not a conviction. There may be sufficient weird facts and rumors about Haefner that, had they been known to the police at the time, may have warranted a closer look, but not locking him up. Of course, that possibility is out the window nearly 50 years after the fact. Anyways, thanks for the reviews.

11:06 AM Jul 31st

bjames
I think I did read The Family, but I read that and Helter Skelter at the same time, so over the years they have run together in my head, and I no longer have any clear memory of what was in one book and what was in the other.
11:03 AM Jul 31st

masoo
I read the Guinn book on your recommendation, and it is indeed a good one. Long ago (like 40+ years or so), I read Ed Sanders' The Family, which I liked more than I liked Helter Skelter. Have you ever read that book, and if so, what did you think of it?
11:01 AM Jul 31st

pob14
I share your interest in Charles Manson, and you've made me very eager to read the Guinn book. I like Helter Skelter - I like many of Bugliosi's books, really, but the point of all of Buglosi's books is always what a superstar Bugliosi is.
8:25 AM Jul 31st

©2016 Be Jolly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|Web site design and development by Americaneagle.com|Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy

Bottom of Form

July 16, 2015

 The Well Chosen All Star Team

           This research started as a result of an offhand tweet that I made last week.  Some announcer advocated that, as a result of the balloting issue with the Kansas City Royals, the fans should not be selecting the All Star teams; it should go back to the players.  This is an idea that I very intensely dislike, and, acting out of annoyance rather than reason, I tweeted that this was the worst idea I had heard all year, and "doesn’t anybody remember how horrible they were at that?"

           In response to my tweet other people tweeted that the players were terrible at that, but then so were the fans, and so were the people who voted for the Hall of Fame, the MVP Awards, etc.; they all did a terrible job of it.  Well. . .not really; some of those systems are messed up, but some of them are pretty good.  Some of them usually get it right; some of them get it wrong pretty often.  Condemning all of them with a broad brush doesn’t really help. 

           I realized that, by speaking on impulse rather than speaking thoughtfully, I had contributed to the general miasma that colors the discussion: All of these people suck, it’s hopeless, and there is no good way to do it.  We pick at one another, we find fault with one another, and it creates an impression that none of us know what we’re doing, a perception of chaos and hopelessness where reason and understanding can create progress.  

           OK, let us find the question that can contribute to understanding.   Were the All-Star teams chosen by the players (1958-1969) actually worse than the All-Star teams chosen by the fans?  Were they better?  Were they actually different?   How do we study that?

           My first effort to study this involved looking at the entire All Star roster, rather than the starting lineups; it seemed to me, intuitively, that this was more about choosing All Star teams than about choosing starting lineups.  I spent two days studying All Star rosters, and concluded that I was burrowing my way down a blind alley.   Why?  It’s hard to explain; it has to do with roster size, and expansion.   I was comparing the "value" of the players chosen for the All Star team to the value of the best players NOT chosen, but this changes enormously with the size of the All Star roster, and changes very significantly when there is an expansion.    Since the All Star rosters started at 18 players per league and are now 34 and have been changed many, many times, there is massive instability in the data, having nothing to do with the players who are selected, but with the selection procedure.  This made the whole-roster approach unworkable; I’m not sure that makes sense, but it would take me two pages to explain it any better than that.    The standards from the 1950s don’t work at all in the 1960s. 

           I then switched to studying All Star starting lineups.  There are also many, many problems with studying the issue in THAT way, and we’ll deal with those as we go; it is far from a perfect approach, but the alternative is—or seems to me—totally unworkable.  

           Let me jump ahead to a sort-of conclusion, and then I’ll explain how I got there; it will make more sense once you understand where we’re heading.  

           One of the worst-selected All Star teams of all time was the National League team in 1985.   Gary Carter in 1985 hit .281 with 32 homers, 100 RBI, and threw out 34% of opposing base stealers, which was better than league at that time—but Carter did not start the All Star game; the position went to Terry Kennedy, who hit .261 with 10 homers.   According to Baseball Reference Carter had 6.9 WAR that year; Kennedy had 2.6.  Keith Hernandez, also of the Mets, hit .309 that year with 91 RBI and brilliant defense at first base, 5.0 WAR, but Hernandez didn’t start, either; the start went to 36-year-old Steve Garvey, also of San Diego, who had 1.7 WAR.   Mike Schmidt hit .277 that year with 33 homers, 93 RBI at third base, 6.0 WAR, but Schmidt wasn’t part of the team, either; the third baseman was 39-year-old Graig Nettles, who hit .228 and registered at 3.3 WAR.   The three best outfielders in the National League in 1985 were Tim Raines (7.6 WAR), Willie McGee (8.1) and Pedro Guerrero (7.9), but none of the three started the All Star game; instead the starters were Tony Gwynn (5.2), Dale Murphy (7.2) and Darryl Strawberry (4.8).  

           Capping it all off and putting a cherry on top, the starting pitcher for the National League in 1985 was not Dwight Gooden, who was 24-4 that season with a 1.53 ERA, but Lamarr Hoyt, who struck out 83 batters in 210 innings, going 16-8 with a 3.47 ERA.  I should stress that I am not (at this point) blaming the voters for this or blaming the players who opted out due to injury or anything like that; I am simply making what seems like an indisputable point:  when you have Doc Gooden in your league, having the greatest pitchers’ season of the 1980s, but you don’t start Doc Gooden, you start Lamarr Hoyt, you are not putting your best foot forward.   I am not saying that it was anyone’s fault, but the National League All Star team in 1985 was exceptionally badly selected.  They got the wrong man, so to speak, at 7 out of 9 positions, getting it right only at second base (Tommie Herr) and shortstop (Ozzie Smith).   

           Despite putting one of the worst-selected All Star teams of all time on the field, the National League won the All Star game that year, 6 to 1.   The team the American League put on the field that year was well selected (Carlton Fisk, Eddie Murray, Lou Whitaker, George Brett, Cal Ripken, Jim Rice, Rickey Henderson, Dave Winfield and Jack Morris), and was a much better team than the National League team.  The American League had seven Hall of Famers in their lineup, all seven of them having good years; the National League had only two Hall of Famers.   The National League COULD have put a better team on the field than the American League, if they had sent Schmidt, Carter, Raines, Gooden, etc., but they didn’t.   But they won anyway.

           OK, if you read that through, you can see that I have made about fifteen assertions of fact there—that the National League team was poorly selected, that the American League team was a better team, that the National League COULD have sent a better team than the American League, etc.  How do we know that any of these things is true? 

           I studied the issue not by WAR but by Win Shares; let’s say it is six of one, half a dozen of the other.  I have the Win Shares data organized so that I can get to it for a study like this; I don’t have WAR stored in a spreadsheet in a way I can get to it.   Using Win Shares, I created four teams for each league that I studied:

A1, which is the actual starting lineup (in the All Star Game) for the American League,

A2, which is the best players in the league at each position who were NOT in the starting lineup for the American League,

N1, which is the actual lineup for the National League, and

N2, which is the best players in the National League who were not in the starting lineup.  

           In 1985, the Win Shares for the National League All Star Starters (P-Hoyt, C-Kennedy, 1B-Garvey, 2B-Herr, 3B-Nettles, SS-Ozzie, OF—Gwynn, Murphy and Strawberry) total up to 190.  The Win Shares for an All Star team of those NOT selected to start the game (P-Gooden, 1B-Hernandez, 2B-Sandberg, 3B-Schmidt, SS-Templeton, OF-Raines, McGee and Guerrero) totals up to 275.  The team NOT selected is 85 points better than the team that took the field.   (N1, 190; N2, 275)

           In the American League, the Win Shares for the starting All Star team total up to 230.  The best players NOT selected that year (P-Bret Saberhagen, C—Lance Parrish, 1B—Mattingly, 2B-Willie Randolph, 3B--Boggs, SS—Tony Fernandez, OF—Harold Baines, Phil Bradley and Jesse Barfield) totals up to 225 Win Shares.   The team actually selected was better than the team left out, so it’s a well-selected All-Star team.  (A1, 230; A2, 225).  

           Usually, most leagues, the team of players NOT selected is better than the team of players who start the All Star Game, but we’ll get back to that point.   By now, most of you have noticed that we are using full-season stats to evaluate a team chosen in the middle of the season.   Does this cause a problem for the study?

           Of course it does, but what are you going to do?   It’s an All STAR team; it’s not an All-guys-who-have-had-an-early-season-hot-streak team.  In 1982 Toby Harrah, playing third base for an American League team, was hitting .332 at the All Start break, with a .548 slugging percentage.  George Brett was hitting .301, .493 slugging percentage.   That doesn’t make Toby Harrah a better player than George Brett; it just means that the stats haven’t evened out yet.  

           Going back to the issue, which is "who should choose the All Star teams?", what we are talking about is who is really the best player—not who has the best numbers so far, early in the season, but who is really the best player.  If you think about it, the season can be divided into "what has happened so far" and "what will happen the rest of the year."  When you are choosing the All Star team, the All Star GAME is not part of the "what has happened so far package", it is part of the "what will happen the rest of the year" package.

           You can argue that issue one way or the other, but I don’t really have any problem with it; I am comfortable evaluating the All Star team by the full season stats.  But there are many similar issues.  What if a player plays well the first half, then gets hurt just shortly after the All Star break, or in the All Star game like Dizzy Dean and Ray Fosse?  That’s not something that can be known; the All Star selection shows up as a bad selection based on things that could not have been known at the time.  Sure; no study is perfect.   What if one player is NAMED to the All Star team, but decides not to play and is replaced by another player?   

           Sure—but that’s not a problem if you take it one step at a time.  Step One is not "evaluating how well the voters did"; Step One is "evaluating the strength of the All Star team."  When you get past Step One, then you can worry about evaluating the various factors that CAUSED the team to put a good lineup on the field or not to put a good lineup on the field.   This is just Step One.  

           A similar problem, an old admonition. .. ..statistical analysis is not a perfect guide to the truth, and we must not be arrogant in assuming that OUR answer is necessarily the RIGHT answer. Sometimes maybe our system shows the Win Shares as Joe 22, Jack 16, but the voters or the manager who makes the selection knows something that the numbers don’t know.   

           In the early history of the All Star game, the rosters and starting lineups were entirely selected by the manager, without any input from fans OR players.  It was a one-man operation.  

           My analysis shows that many of those teams were very poorly selected.  Very often, the managers just chose three or four superstars, and otherwise chose players that they liked and ignored players that they didn’t like, seemingly with little regard for talent.  In 1936, for example, our stats show that the American League All Star team, chosen by Joe McCarthy because of a serious injury to Mickey Cochrane. . .the American League All-Star team was very well selected, while the National League All Star team, chosen by Charlie Grimm, was very poorly selected, and the American League team was a far better team.  It’s like 1985; the National League COULD have put a stronger team on the field than the American League could have, but they just didn’t do it; they chose the wrong players.  (A1, 229; A2, 211. N1, 194; N2, 257).    Nonetheless, the National League won the game, 4-3, the National League’s first All Star victory.  

           That’s the way my system sees it, and that’s the way I see it—BUT.  We have to remember that we do not have perfect knowledge of the players involved.  Charlie Grimm was on field with the players he chose; he played against them, he talked to them, he spent time with them off the field. He knew vastly more about these players, in the sense of having a truck load of information, than I could ever possibly know about them.  What I have is a different PERSPECTIVE on their accomplishments, that’s all.  Charlie thought about it one way; I think about it a different way—and he did win the game.  

           This is particularly an issue with regard to the early catchers.   In the first 15 years of the All Star game, the All Star managers almost always chose a different catcher than we would choose—and very often chose some catcher who appears, in my analysis, to be not remotely qualified.   In 1933 the American League catcher was Rick Ferrell (17 Win Shares) rather than Mickey Cochrane (26 Win Shares).  The National League catcher was Jimmie Wilson (8 Win Shares), rather than Gabby Hartnett (21).   In 1935 Gabby Hartnett had 26 Win Shares, Jimmie Wilson had 7—but Wilson started the All Star game again.   Do I believe that Jimmie Wilson might actually have been a better player than Gabby Hartnett? No, of course not—but we can’t be arrogant in assuming that our view of the facts is the only way to look at it; it isn’t.  

           But our way of looking at the facts enables us to get answers to these questions.  Charlie Grimm can’t answer these questions for us; he’s dead.  Our way of looking at these questions creates answers.  Score one for sabermetrics. 

           OK, now to the issues we are trying to get to, for example:

           What was/were the strongest All Star team(s) ever?

           What was/were the weakest team(s) ever?

           What was the best-selected All Star team?

           What was the worst-selected team?

           Does the better team usually win?

           How do the fans do selecting the starting lineups, as opposed to the players?

           I will get to those questions later—I won’t give you completely satisfactory answers to any of them, but I will get to them—but first I wanted to discuss with you the four things I actually came to understand while doing this study, the four things I didn’t understand before but I do now.

           1) The All Star rosters started small, and just gradually grew.    The Wikipedia page about the baseball All Star game contains this rather gross passage:

============================================================

Selection of players

Until 2009, each league's All-Star team consisted of 32 players. On July 1, 2009, the MLB added a 33rd player to each league's team roster.

On April 28, 2010, MLB announced several rules changes for future All-Star games, effective with the 2010 edi[3]

• Rosters were expanded by one extra position player, to a total of 34.

======================================================================

           This is kind of starting the alphabet at "X".  In reality, the first All Star rosters (1933) were 18 players each.  In 1934 they changed it to 20. In 1935 to 21, etc; one year the American League had 22 players and the National League 21.  

           The All Star roster has expanded, and expanded, and expanded, generally one slot at a time, from 1933 to the present, and this practice continues to the present time.    I’m not denouncing this or decrying it or anything; in 1933 there were 8 teams in each league and 18 players on the All Star team, now there are 15 teams in each league and 34 players on the All Star team, so it’s about the same ratio. …it’s fine with me.   My point is that I never understood this, before doing this study.  And neither does Wikipedia, apparently.  

           2) The story line about the National League domination of the All Star game as a result of the National League having black players and the American League not having them doesn’t actually hold up when you look at the timeline.  

           There are two things here

           a) there is a general point that the National League got to be a stronger league than the American League because the American League was slow to integrate, which I believe to be true, and

           b) there is a specific story that you hear sometimes now, that the National League dominated the American League in the All Star games because the black stars from the National League regarded the American League as a racist league, and took a particular pleasure in beating the crap out of them in the All Star games.   

           (a) is true, but (b) is not true and cannot be true.  You realize that it cannot be true if you look at the time line.  The National League broke the color line in 1947; the period when there were a good many black stars in the National League but the American League was dragging its feet was 1950-1959, more or less.  The American League was winning half the All Star games in that era; the American League held its own in All Star competition until 1962.    By the mid-1960s the "integration disparity" was melting away. 

           You hear a lot of stupid shit about race, frankly; people pour "race" over every issue like some people pour catsup or salt over whatever they’re eating.   Henry Aaron once explained the fact that he won only one Most Valuable Player Award by racism in the BBWAA voters—completely ignoring the fact that, in Aaron’s first nine years in the National League, the Most Valuable Player was black eight years in nine (Willie Mays, Roy Campanella, Don Newcombe, Aaron, Ernie Banks, Ernie Banks, Frank Robinson, Maury Wills.)  Billy Williams once said that when he came into the league, each team could have two black players, the star and his roommate.  It is complete and total nonsense; there never was any such pattern.  

           I never heard this story about the black players being motivated to beat up on that bad, racist American League until the 1990s, and it is just bullcrap, frankly.   It IS true that the National League became the better league, in terms of talent, because the Yankees, the Red Sox and several other American League teams were slow to catch up to the times in regard to black players, and it is probably true in a general way that the National League dominated the All Star games because it became a stronger league.   But the specific narrative. . ..it’s just a story.  

           3) The "player rights" era, beginning in the mid-1970, profoundly changed the All Star game, in ways that were definitely not for the better, and in ways that I don’t think anyone understands.  I certainly never understood what had happened, until I did this study.

           Founded in 19th century labor practices, baseball players until the 1970s were basically expected to put up with whatever they had to put up with.  The manager is a gigantic jackass who says insulting things about you in the newspaper?  Get used to it; that’s just the way it is in baseball.  You are suddenly re-assigned to play for some other team in some city that you don’t like, taking your kids away from all of their friends and your wife away from the home she has spent four years re-decorating?  Get used to it; that’s just what happens in baseball.   

           Until about 1980, it was common for a baseball player to be named to the All Star game, but to not actually appear in the game.   There was no general idea that every player had a "right" to get into the game; there was no idea that if a player made the effort to go to Cincinnati, he should get into the game.  If you were named to the team but you didn’t play, that was just the way it was; get used to it. 

           In 1974 there were 14 players who were named to the All Star team and who were there at the game in uniform, but who did not play.  In 1978 there were 11 such players.  In 1983 there were 8 such players. By 1987 there were only 2. 

           Although 1987 was atypical (there were usually 5 or 6 such players, mostly pitchers).. ..although 1987 was atypical, somewhere in that time period, 1974-1987, the idea took root that a player who was named to the All Star TEAM should actually get to play in the All Star GAME.  The effect that this had on the All Star game, frankly, was absolutely horrible.  The game, rather than being any kind of an effort to win, became just a show, an exhibition, players strolling up to the plate to get their face on National television.   John Kruk, a left-handed batter, batted right-handed to dramatize his fear of Randy Johnson, and it was supposed to be a big joke, nyuk, nyuk nyuk.  They were making a farce of the game. That understates it; they HAD made a farce of the game.  They had taken this great tradition, beginning from a desire to have the greatest players in the world all gathered together, and reduced it to a stupid, interminable parade of pinch hitters making no apparent effort to win the game.   

           Look, I hope nobody thinks I am against the players having rights; hell, Marvin Miller was a friend of mine, and I’ve got witnesses to the fact.   I’m all in favor of players having rights.

           But you have to balance things.  You have to be careful.  Actors who are making a movie have rights, too—but in making the movie, you don’t do what makes the actors happy; you do what makes a good movie.  You have to.  Letting each player get one at bat in an All Star game is exactly like making a movie and making sure that every actor has at least 10 lines.  An actor shows up to make a movie, he has a right to have some lines to speak, don’t you think?  Makes sense to me. It’s better for the actors that way, but it would make a dreadful movie.   The 1980s, 1990s All Star games were just dreadful.  

           There was a second effect of the Player Rights era on the All Star game.   When players began to get bonus clauses added to their contracts, you could not—and still cannot—write a bonus clause saying that the player gets extra money if he hits .300, or that he gets extra money if he drives in 100 runs, or he gets extra money if he hits 30 home runs; nothing like that.    Those clauses are prohibited, have long been prohibited, and should be prohibited because they create distorted incentives on the field.  

           However, you COULD write a provision giving the player a bonus if he made the All Star team; initially you would see $5,000 All Star bonuses, and then $10,000. . .eventually players would make a $100,000 bonus or more if they made the All Star team.  

           Well, by 1990 a very large number of players had contracts that had an all star bonus clause in them.  Almost EVERY player had All Star bonuses of some kind or another, except for the young (pre-arbitration) players on the teams that didn’t like the practice. 

           The thing was, you didn’t really have to GO to the All Star game to collect the bonus; you merely had to be named to the team.   So the point wasn’t to be IN the All Star game anymore; it was merely to be named to the team.   Once you had been named to the team, you had earned your bonus, and you were done.  

           So, by 1990 and accelerating after 1990, more and more players were named to the All Star team but were "injured" and replaced due to injury.  The union—and, more importantly, the player’s community—fully and heartily approved of this tradition.   The more players who were named to the team but were replaced due to injury, the more bonuses were paid.  Everybody wins.   The veteran star who gave up his position on the All Star team to enable some young player to have the honor of being on the team was not only not criticized for cutting out on the fans, he was applauded for it.  He was being generous, allowing the younger player to have his moment.  But as to actually playing in the game. . .well, who needs that?  It’s a hassle, you have travel Monday, put up with 10,000 reporters asking mindless questions to justify their All Star travel budget, hang around to get your at bat, fly back on Wednesday—and it’s just a dumb exhibition game anyway.  Who needs it?  I need the break.  I’d rather spend the time with my family.

           Of course, this further weakened the quality of the All Star games—along with the parade of pinch hitters effect, which was going on at the same time.  By the late 1990s, the All Star game had become 35% less fun than spending some quality time with your dentist.

           This culminated, of course, with the disaster in Milwaukee, when the game was called off after 9 innings because the parade of pinch hitters had run through all of the available players. The crowd booed angrily, and people were shocked, shocked to discover that the fans actually wanted to see a baseball game, and not a stupid exhibition in which the main purpose was for as many young players as possible to be able to claim they had once played in an All Star game.  The commissioner stepped in and fixed that, and God bless Bud Selig for doing that, and it’s a lot better now.   But until researching this article, I had never understood how the degeneration of the All Star game in the 1980s and the 1990s had resulted in part from the player rights movement of the 1970s.  

4)  The Cincinnati/KC vote stuffing phenomenon.

           One little thing that I didn’t know, and most of you probably don’t know, either, was that until 1946 the manager for the league picked the players that he wanted with no input from anybody else, or with only such input as he chose to accept.   From 1947 to 1957 the fans voted on the All Star teams, but in 1957 a Cincinnati newspaper printed "ballots" in the paper that fans could just cut out and mail in, and the team as elected by the fans was seven Cincinnati Reds players and Stan Musial.  

           Baseball’s commissioner at that time was the regrettable Ford Frick.   Somebody should write a biography of this man, called "The Man Who Almost Killed Baseball".  Mishandling this crisis as he mishandled every other challenge of his tenure, Ford Frick took the vote away from the fans, because of what had happened in Cincinnati, and gave the vote to the players.  

           Look, I am all in favor of the players having rights, but. . .we don’t play the game for the benefit of the players, OK?  Ford Frick should have been a school principal.   That’s how almost every school principal would have handled this situation, isn’t it?  No, not every school principal; half of school principals are sensible people who have some idea what they are doing.  The other half are nitwits like Ford Frick whose first instinct is to punish the whole class because somebody misbehaves.  That’s the way that people in power think, half of them.  

           Well, of course you can’t have an All Star team with seven Cincinnati Reds and Stan Musial, and, modern version, you can’t have an All Star team with seven Kansas City Royals and Mike Trout.  Of course you have to do something to prevent that from happening.  

           As to what you can do, let me propose a rule, actually two rules:

           1) An All Star team may have no more than five players from any one team, including those who are named to the team but replaced due to injury, and

           2) No more than two players from any one team may be in the starting lineup.   

           If a city goes overboard and "wins’ the vote at seven positions, only the top two count.  That makes sense, doesn’t it?  We now have fifteen teams in each league.   Two starters from one team is enough, I think.  I don’t believe there is any team in baseball now or any time in the last ten years which has had three players who ought to be starting the All Star game.   

           There is a simple solution to the problem; there is that one, and then, if you don’t like that one, there are 87 other very simple ways to solve the problem, rather than fulminating about it and talking recklessly about turning the vote over to the players so they can make it a popularity contest among the players.

           What happened in Kansas City this year is more analogous to what happened in San Diego in 1985 than to Cincinnati in 1957.  The Padres were a down-and-out organization for years.  In 1984 they had a good year, made the World Series, and the city got really excited about baseball. That’s a good thing.   Only, in their excitement, they got kind of carried away, and they elected entirely too many San Diego Padres to the 1985 All Star game—exactly the same thing that happened in Kansas City this year. The commissioner, in commenting on the Royals’ ballot-box "stuffing" phenomenon, should begin by saying that this is a good thing, when a city gets really excited about their team, and we don’t in any way want to condemn that or denounce it. 

           Anyway, this is what I realized when I was doing this study, that I had never understood before.   Cities like Cincinnati, San Diego and Kansas City are not the predators in this story; they’re actually the prey.   

           If you look at undeserving players who get elected to the Hall of Fame, what you see is that it is mostly a big-city phenomenon.  Players from New York, LA and Chicago being elected to the All Star game when they really shouldn’t be there. . .heck, that happens all the time.  Those teams, over a period of years, have WAY more undeserving All Stars than Cincinnati, San Diego or Kansas City. 

           The only thing is, when it happens in Cincinnati, San Diego or Kansas City, they all get elected in the same year.  It happens in big cities simply as a result of the ordinary operation of events; it happens in a small city only when the small city gets all fired up and MAKES it happen.   Which, again, it shouldn’t happen, but it shouldn’t happen on either side.  

           OK, let me get now to the type of questions that I was trying to study.   

           I had hoped to do a comprehensive study of All Star lineups, all 172 lineups from 86 games.  I had also hoped to publish it last Monday, the first day of the All Star break.  Unfortunately, it takes TIME to do these studies, so

           a) I am three days late, and

           b) I only completed a little over half of the teams.  

           So this is a selective study or a "sampling" study, rather than a comprehensive study.  

           Of the 90 All Star teams that I studied (45 seasons, two teams each season. . .actually 4 teams each season included in the study). . ..but of the 90 All Star teams that I studied, the best teams were the National League teams in 1951, 1953, 1959, 1965, 1969 and 1996, and the American League teams in 1946, 1969, and 2005.  

           The 1946 American League team, chosen by Steven O’Neill of the defending champion Detroit Tigers, had at its core the four Red Sox from the iconic photograph—Ted Williams, Bobby Doerr, Johnny Pesky and Dominic DiMaggio.   They all had great years in 1946, and there is a statue of the four of them out behind center field at Fenway Park.  

           Joe DiMaggio had a poor year in 1946, and was not named to start the 1946 All Star game.   Three of the four Red Sox teammates were in the top four in the 1946 MVP voting; Dominic was 9th, and the other three were 1-3-4.   Bob Feller struck out 348 batters that year and won 26 games for a bad team; he was the starting pitcher.  Mickey Vernon hit .353 and won the batting title; he was the starting first baseman.   Charlie Keller was the third outfielder; he had his usual 30 homers, 100 walks, 100 RBI.  The team walloped the National League, 12-0, in a game most remembered for Ted Williams hitting a home run off of Rip Sewell’s blooper pitch. 

           The 1951 National League team was P—Robin Roberts; C—Roy Campanella, 1B—Gil Hodges, 2B—Jackie Robinson, 3B—Bob Elliott, SS-Alvin Dark, OF—Del Ennis, Richie Ashburn and Stan Musial   They beat the American league, 8-3.  

           The 1953 team carried over only three starters (Musial, Campanella and Robin Roberts), but again was very strong, with Hall of Famers Red Schoendienst, Pee Wee Reese, Eddie Mathews and Enos Slaughter added along with Ted Kluszewski and Gus Bell, who were great players but didn’t stay great long enough to make the Hall of Fame.  That team beat the American League 5-1.  

           The 1958 and 1959 NL All Star teams stand out as exceptionally Well Selected teams, but the thing is, when you have Willie Mays and Henry Aaron in your league, it is pretty obvious who should be on the All Star team.  The 1958 team was very well selected, but not unusually good. The 1959 team was both.  From 1959 to 1962 they played two All Star games a year, in another effort to kill the All Star Game by doing whatever was best for the players.  The 1959 (Game One) team was P—Drysdale, C—Del Crandall, 1B—Orlando Cepeda, 2B—Johnny Temple, 3B—Eddie Mathews, SS—Ernie Banks, OF—Wally Moon, Willie Mays and Henry Aaron; six Hall of Famers.  They beat the American League, 5-4. 

           That team ranks as the best-selected All Star team in my data, the games I have done, and it ranks that way because they chose the best available player at five positions.  The four best players in the National League—Aaron, Mays, Banks and Mathews—were all selected to start the All Star Game.  Del Crandall was in fact the best catcher in the league.   My system disagrees with the selections at the other four positions, but they are all close calls, just a point or two off in each case. The 1959 NL (Game 2) team had two substitutions to the starting lineup, which weakened the team.

           There has never been a perfectly-selected All Star team, at least that I found, and MOST teams have at least one or two real klunkers, choices that just seem inexplicable in retrospect, or, if you prefer, in retrosheet.  

           The 1965 All Star game—although the National League merely edged out a 6-5 victory—is the greatest mismatch in terms of talent in All Star history.  The National League featured Juan Marichal, Joe Torre, Banks, Pete Rose, Dick Allen, Maury Wills, and an outfield of Stargell, Mays and Aaron.  The American League a) just did not have anything remotely approaching the same level of talent, and b) did a very poor of selecting from the players they had. Starting pitchers, Juan Marichal and Milt Pappas.  Second base, Pete Rose and Felix Mantilla.  Center Field, Willie Mays and Vic Davalillo.

           That was a poorly-selected All Star team, not the worst ever, but one of the worst.  The worst NL All Star team ever, and the most poorly selected, was the Padre-laden outfit that I described earlier, the 1985 team.  But the worst selected All Star team of all time, and also the worst All Star team of all time, was the 1943 American League team.   

           Your first thought now is "war time", but that’s not EXACTLY it.  The Win Shares system awards as many Win Shares in a War Time Season as in any other season; it just figures that a win is a win is a win.   By that standard, there were as many good players in the American League in 1943 as in any other year; they just didn’t play in the All Star team. 

           The best players in the American League in 1943 were, in order, Luke Appling, Charlie Keller, Lou Boudreau, Spud Chandler, Stan Spence, Joe Gordon, Roy Cullenbine and Rudy York.   Unfortunately, none of those men—none of them—started the All Star game.  George Case, Chet Laabs and Dick Wakefield started in the outfield in place of Keller, Spence and Cullenbine.  Dutch Leonard (11-13 with a 3.27 ERA) started on the mound in place of the eventual MVP, Spud Chandler (20-4 with a 1.64 ERA). 

           When you get past those things, the team STILL was not well-selected.  Jake Early, a .258 hitter, started at catcher in place of Bill Dickey, who hit .351; Dickey was old and a half-time player, but he was still clearly more valuable than Jake Early.  The best third baseman in the league was a rookie, Billy Johnson of the Yankees, but he didn’t start, either; the start went to Ken Keltner, who struggled through an injury-plagued season with a .260 average and 4 home runs.

           You may have picked up on the key factor there: The Yankees didn’t start.  The Yankees, although they were missing DiMaggio and Ruffing and some other guys, were still the best team in the league, and had the legitimate All Stars at several positions—pitcher Spud Chandler, catcher Bill Dickey, second baseman Joe Gordon, third baseman Billy Johnson, and outfielder Charlie Keller—but none of them started, and no Yankee started.  No Yankee even made an appearance in the game.  

           But here’s the thing: that team was selected by Yankees manager Joe McCarthy!  Huh?  What happened here?  

           Probably somebody somewhere knows, but it’s a mystery to me.   I thought of war-time travel restrictions, but the game was played in Philadelphia.  I think the New York players could probably get over the Philadelphia.  I thought that maybe McCarthy was trying to give his key guys a little midsummer break, but several Yankees were on the team; they just didn’t play.  Was McCarthy angry at his team for some reason?  Was he trying to send a message to his team?   

           Or had McCarthy been criticized around the league for carrying too many Yankees in other years, and was he trying to accommodate the league by playing players from other teams?   I just don’t know.  But Bobby Doerr hit a three-run homer in the second inning, and the American League won the game, 5-3, despite putting a historically weak team on the field.   

           The 1948 American League team, selected by the fans, is another curious one—and they won, too, 5-2.  The 1948 AL team had Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio—on the bench.  Pat Mullin and Hoot Evers started the game in the outfield, Williams and DiMaggio on the bench. The starting pitcher was Walt Masterson (8-15, 3.48 ERA); Bob Feller, Bob Lemon and Hal Newhouser—all Hall of Famers, and all 20-game winners that season—were on the bench.   But, you know, they won the game, because you just can’t beat guys like Pat Mullin, Hoot Evers and Walt Masterson.  The manager was nice enough to let Joe DiMaggio and Ted Williams pinch hit, gave them one at bat apiece, out of kindness I suppose.  

           Now, does the team that has the better All Star team usually win the game?  I asked three questions:

           1) Did the team which was better on paper actually win the game?

           2) Did the better SELECTED team win the game? And

           3) Did the league which had more high-quality talent to choose from win the game? 

           All three questions got answers over 50%.  The first question—did the better team win—the better team on paper won the game 52% of the time, 23.5 wins in 45 tries (one game in the study ended in a tie.)  

           The better SELECTED team won the game 57% of the time.

           But the league which had more front-line talent to choose from won the game 67% of the time.  

           Which makes sense when you think about it.  They key isn’t who starts, because the starters don’t usually play the whole game, anyway.   I added together the "chosen" team and the "not chosen" team to represent the quality of the stars in the league.   What matters is the combined quality of the starters and the non-starters. 

           Look at 1955.  The American League in 1955 did a much better job of choosing the right guys to START the game than the National League did.  Willie Mays, Henry Aaron, Stan Musial and Roy Campanella were in the National League in 1955—but they didn’t start the All Star game.  All four of them SHOULD have started, but they didn’t; the starts at those positions went to Del Crandall, Kluszewski, Duke Snider and Don Mueller.   

           BUT those players were still there.  Del Ennis got one at bat; Stan Musial came off the bench and got four at bats, and hit a home run.   Duke Snider got a couple of at bats, Willie Mays came off the bench, went 2-for-3 and scored 2 runs.  Don Mueller got a couple of at bats; Hank Aaron came off the bench, went 2-for-2 and drove in a run.  

           The starting lineup matters, but what REALLY matters in an All Star game is the depth of the talent.  The fact that Musial, Aaron and Mays didn’t start was less important than the fact that they were on the team.  

           Finally, the question "Who should pick the All Star starters?"  The FANS should pick the All Star starters, and frankly the people who want to give the vote to the players should all be dangled out of 18th-story windows by their toes until they start to get their minds right, just my opinion.  But as to this STUDY. . .there is no actual evidence, in the study, that one method is better than the other, other than it is clear that the "early" method, in which the managers picked the teams, did not work well.   

           Look, I’m just joking about the 18th-story windows; a 17th story window will do just fine, and you’re entitled to your own stupid opinion.  But one of things that REALLY irritated me about the 1980s All Star games was in 1987, when John McNamara, paying off an old personal debt of some kind, picked Jay Howell to the American League All Star team.   Jay Howell had a 5.89 ERA in 1987, and he had been blown up in two of his last three appearances before the All Star break. 

           McNamara obviously never intended to actually USE Howell in the All Star game, but the game stretched into extra innings and Howell had to pitch.  And he lost the game for the American League.  I was rooting for the American League. I was pissed. What in the hell was Jay Howell doing on the All Star roster, anyway?  Why should John McNamara have the right to ignore the facts and pick whoever the hell he wants, when there were much better relievers available to him?

           And McNamara’s attitude was, Oh, well, it’s just an exhibition game anyway, what difference does it make?  Jesus Christ, Man, if you don’t care who wins, STAY HOME.  Let somebody manage who DOES care. 

           It irritates me when people complain about the FANS picking the All Star team, when in reality, the fans only pick one-fourth of the All Star team; three-fourths of the team is actually picked by the managers and coaches.  And (b) the fans, in all of their years of voting including 1957 and 2015, have never done anything as egregiously arbitrary as putting Jay Howell on the All Star team with a 5.89 ERA.  

           In the early years the managers chose the All Star teams, and their performance at optimizing the starting lineup was clearly not very good.   On average, an All Star starting lineup in those years was 12 Win Shares weaker than a team made up of the best players at each position who were NOT chosen to start.

           Then the fans chose the All Star teams from 1947 to 1957, and they were distinctly better.  An average starting lineup in that era (in my data, which includes 14 of the 22 All Star teams of those years). . . an average starting lineup was one to two Win Shares BETTER than the best players who were not chosen.  

           Then the players took over the vote, from 1958 to 1969.  In that era, the starting lineups in the All Star games were, on average, 5 Win Shares WORSE than a team of the best players who were not chosen. 

           Then the fans took the starting lineups back in 1970, and, since 1970 the average starting lineup has been 14 Win Shares WORSE than a team of the best players who were not chosen. 

           So the fans, since 1970, have not done great at picking the best players (in comparison to earlier years) but it is not a level playing field, either, because of expansion.  When there are more players in the league, it is mathematically more difficult to identify the very best player at each position.  

           Putting that issue aside, the differences in my study are too small to be statistically significant, and, putting that issue aside, there are all kinds of methodological issues or methodological flaws in this study.   I was trying to figure out how to study the issue, and this is what I came up with, and I understand the history of the All Star game better now than I did before I did the study.   Thanks for reading, and I hope you got something out of the study, as well.

COMMENTS (25 Comments, most recent shown first)

ChitownRon
Thank you! Well done !!

One of the best articles on this subject that I have seen.


2:14 PM Jul 17th

MarisFan61
I don't think anyone said anything about making it a rule.
All I was talking about was what I thought would be a more apt way of doing a study like this, IF:

-- if we're looking for a way to identify "well-chosen" all stars, and
-- if we want to base it on current and recent performance, and
-- if we want an objective way of doing it.

That was all. And it didn't seem like Brewer09 meant it as a rule either.
2:09 PM Jul 17th

Riceman1974
If voters personally wish to base their All Star voting on 1.5 years of data, fine with me. To make it an official "rule" or an official part of the voting, I think that is ridiculous. I have no qualms about just using 1st half numbers. The selection process for the game is the least of its problems. The main problem, as Bill so eloquently put it, is how the damn game is played. I suggest rosters of 21: Fans vote 8 starters. Let's say cutoff for starters vote is 1 week beforehand (the Sunday before the Sunday before the game - hope that makes sense), Then fans choose 2 more catchers, 2 more infielders, and 1 more outfielder (5-man bench). Then the Manager chooses 5 starters and 3 relievers. The manager will decide pitcher innings (likely 2,2,1,1,1,1,1, etc.)

Not every team needs a player. Not everybody may play. 2 of the starting outfielders and 2 of the starting infielders play the whole game. All changes done between innings. Game must finish in 2.5 hours. No crap about Game 7 either.
12:57 PM Jul 17th

MarisFan61
Poincare: Nice first post!
I remember the Kruk at-bat very well and knew he wasn't hitting righty -- but was fuzzy on who and what was the righty hitting thing; I thought maybe there had been another all star at-bat by Kruk against Randy where he hit righty -- but yes, you're absolutely right; that was Larry Walker.
I remember on the Kruk at-bat, after the first pitch he was doing more than just bailing out; he was making a little bit of a purposeful circus of it. He visibly and exaggeratedly huffed-and-puffed his face, and then stood way back in the box, in addition to bailing out. Shortly after the at-bat, they did one of those "sounds of the game" things (or whatever they called it) of Lasorda in the dugout. We heard Lasorda saying, after that first pitch that went over Kruk's head, "He did it on purpose! He did it on purpose!" -- in a way that it wasn't possible to tell if Lasorda really thought so or was just saying it to keep the team from thinking that RJ's control was really that poor and they had to be afraid for their lives. Or maybe to assure himself.







12:44 PM Jul 17th

mskarpelos
Bill's objections to the Wikipedia entry were corrected soon after he posted this article. That's the wonderful thing about Wikipedia, at least with respect to topics from popular culture including sports. Fans insist that Wikipedia entries about their popular culture interests are accurate and will swoop in to correct even the smallest errors.
12:09 PM Jul 17th

Poincare
Hello Bill. Great work as always sir. I have been reading your work religiously since 1983 but this will the first correspondence I have ever had with you. Just wanted to point out a couple of minor errors in your article. It was Larry Walker, not John Kruk, who batted right-handed against Randy Johnson in the All Star game. I remember both at bats very clearly. When Kruk faced Johnson the first pitch went flying right over Kruk's head. While I acknowledge that it could have been deliberate I remember when I was watching the game that it did not look deliberate. It just looked as if a pitch got away from Johnson. Anyways, Kruk took the next pitch for a strike and then swung and missed badly at the next two pitches as he was bailing out big time to avoid the possibility of an inside pitch drilling him. After he struck out he bowed to the American League dugout. Walker's at bat against Johnson started the exact same way as the first pitch went flying over Walker's head. The key difference for me though was that it was obvious to me and everybody else watching that this pitch was deliberate. Johnson was definitely NOT trying to hit Walker, but he clearly was trying to add some color to the game by throwing this pitch behind him. It was a big news story leading up to the game that Larry Walker did not like facing Randy Johnson; he had taken a rare day off in a recent series on the day Johnson pitched and taken some flak for it. I clearly remember Walker being interviewed after he had been elected a starter and him saying,"...so this means I have to face Randy Johnson, huh?" So anyways after that first pitch, Walker flipped his helmet backwards on his head and went into the right-handed batters box. I believe he took only one pitch right-handed before switching back to hitting left-handed for the rest of the at bat. I remember both at-bats fondly, but as a hard-core baseball fan I liked Kruk's at bat more than Walker's because the action looked spontaneous while Walker's at bat looked very staged. Secondly, I believe Bob Feller was 19-15 in 1948--not a 20 game winner like Lemon and Newhowser. I have a degree in English Literature but I can say without hesitation that you are my favorite writer, and not just because you write about baseball--although that is part of it. I hope you take the time to respond. I have wanted to talk baseball with you for over 30 years now and hope I get the chance. Keep up the great work. You will always have a reader in me.
3:46 AM Jul 17th

MarisFan61
(P.S. Just to be clear: Those are "stray" comments -- not related to one another except where noted.)​
11:29 PM Jul 16th

MarisFan61
Stray comments:

-- A nice touch that we see here, which Bill does a fair amount but (as far as I've ever seen) which not enough other people in any field do, is mention of approaches that he tried but which he saw to be problematic and therefore didn't use, and why they didn't work.

-- I find it especially interesting that in those early years, when the managers were picking the teams, they "almost always chose a different catcher than we would choose—and very often chose some catcher who appears, in my analysis, to be not remotely qualified." (Emphasis added.) Bill acknowledges that the managers had stuff to go on that we don't and (I think) that there might well have been something to it. I take it as another large indication that our methods of evaluating catching defense are very far from reliable, and maybe especially that our consensus impressions of importance of catching defense may be way too low. And if you're like me, which I know most of you aren't, it may even make you wonder if Rick Ferrell might not be a ridiculous Hall of Famer.

-- Picking up on what 78sman raised in his comment, I think the approach doesn't give enough recognition to the idea (fact??) that the all star team and all star game aren't solely for the players who are playing best at that moment. We all know (and I think that to at least some extent most of us would agree) that it is also somewhat for the biggest stars, and also for established stars over up-and-comings. Obviously, evaluating the picks according to the current year ignores this.

-- Even to the extent that we're looking at current and recent performance rather than whole career, I agree with Brewer09 (and others) that the view should go further back than just the current year. His idea of the past 1.5 seasons seems pretty good.

-- I agree with Johnvgps that Joe D's 1946 wasn't by any means a "poor" year -- but I thought it was clear that Bill meant it only by Joe's usual standards. As for which brother had the better year, for what it's worth Dom beat Joe on Win Shares, 26-24.

-- I agree with Steinsaltz that the difference between the leagues on integration was a larger factor in the N.L. domination in the '60's than the article suggests.
10:50 PM Jul 16th

MarisFan61
About the 1943 non-Yankee all star game, from the New York Times report of the game:

NO YANKEES USED IN DREAM CONTEST

PHILADELPHIA, July 13 -- The amazing thing to onlookers in Shibe Park tonight [as the NL lost again to the AL]........was not that the trick was done without mirrors -- but that it was done without Yankees.
The bewildering thing....was that Manager Joe McCarthy....forswore the use of his own stars.....
But McCarthy had the answer for it.
"We didn't need them," said McCarthy. "We got out there in front early enough. Besides, these other boys deserved a chance to shine. The Yankees have had enough of the limelight. Let some of the others get some of it.
I couldn't take Doerr out, could I? Bonham's knee was bothering him and there was no necessity for him. Leonard, Newhouser and Hughson were doing all right and the outfield was taking care of things nicely, so why break up a winning combination?

[....and, assuming this next observation was so, it's not like he didn't much care about what happened in the game....]

All this came from McCarthy on the run. He was hopping, skipping and jumping about the restricted quarters of the American Leaguers all the time.....he was elated at the result.

[HOWEVER.....]

He, like the other Yankees around him, was rushing for the 11:39 P.M. train for New York....
The club was a confusing jumble of players. Everybody was rushing hither and yon. Everybody seemed eager to get going.....
10:17 PM Jul 16th

tangotiger
Here's the 1st half of the 1987 season, AL relievers:

https://shar.es/1s2EnC


7:30 PM Jul 16th

tangotiger
Here's the Schmidt Game Logs data:

www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=schmimi01&t;=b&year;=1985

His position is on the far right.
7:26 PM Jul 16th

bjames
The All Star ballots were printed based on the opening day lineups. There was one case in there where a player was injured on the like the third day of the season, out for the season, and the team wanted to change who was listed on the ballot at that position, but they said they couldn't do it; the ballots had already been printed.
6:30 PM Jul 16th

brewer09
Bill,

I messed up on the Schmidt/first base thing. I should have known you were on top of it.

My apologies.
6:06 PM Jul 16th

steinsaltz
It may be true that the entire AL had integrated by 1959, but the NL certainly had an advantage in the number of stars of color. As a quick measure, I looked at the starting All-Star lineup of position players for each league for 10 years starting in 1963 (when NL dominance started). The NL had more starters of color every year, and at least 2 more every year except 1969 and 1972.

Over those 10 years the NL averaged 4.6 starters of color, the AL 2.3. As late as 1970 the NL had 5 (Mays, Allen, Aaron, Perez, Carty) and the AL had 1 (Robinson).

I also looked at every position player who played in those 10 All-Star games. The NL averaged 9.1 players of color per year, while the AL averaged 4.8.

I am not claiming cause and effect, but there can be no question that 1) the NL dominated, and 2) the NL had more stars of color. Whether this was a legacy of the AL's foot-dragging in the 50s is debatable, but the data is not.
4:08 PM Jul 16th

OldBackstop
HeyBill! Great article. Two comments about Schmidt and fielding. In 1984 he had won the 3B Gold Glove despite the lowest fielding percentage among third baseman and the second highest error total with 26 (behind only one year experiment Joel Youngblood.) He had a hard stop on May 29, 1985, with 11 errors in 42 games, when he was moved with publicity to 1B and only started a handful of games at third the rest of the season. I don't know when the All Star ballots came out back then, but I would think those two things factored in. Ya think?
3:59 PM Jul 16th

bjames
Schmidt played first base IN THE SECOND HALF in 1985. The first half of the season, the first 53 games or something like that, he played third base. He certainly would have been listed on the All Star ballot at third base, and he obviously could have played third for the All Star team, which is all that I suggested.
12:27 PM Jul 16th

chuck
I'm probably going to get reamed out for this, seeing as how you're still upset over McNamara/Howell, Bill. But, just trying to see WHY he may have picked Howell that year...

Selected relievers were Henke, Righetti, Howell, and Plesac, and starters Hurst, Langston, Morris, and Mike Witt.

Howell was lit up in 4 of his 1st 5 games of the season, having an 11.37 E.R.A. on April 18th. Then he settled down. From April 20th through July 6th he had 15 saves with only 1 blown, and a 2.73 E.R.A. That’s pretty good, in a year with skyrocket offense.
I don't know when selections for the staff were made- let's say it was around July 9th. At that point, his E.R.A. was 4.41, but his team was 3 games back of 1st, and he had pitched very well for the previous 2 & 1/2 months. Howell got hit hard on the last game before the break, but I would presume that he'd been named previous to that outing.

Righetti, also chosen, was arguably a worse choice than Howell. He had a 3.86 E.R.A. to Howell's 4.41, and 17 saves, but had 9 blown saves at around the time selections would have been made.

McNamara could have chosen Jeff Reardon, but he also had 8 blown saves and a 5.32 E.R.A. at the break. Hardly better.

Dale Mohorcic had 12 saves and a 2.55 E.R.A. for Texas, and could have been picked, I suppose. Mark Eichhorn, coming off a stellar 1986 could have been chosen. At the break he was 8-4 with a 3.48 E.R.A. But Henke was already representing the Jays in the pen. Howell's teammate Eckersley might have been chosen, but he was not the high-profile guy in the pen yet for Oakland (6 saves, 2.75 E.R.A. at the break) despite being the better pitcher.
Quisenberry at the break had 7 saves, 3 blown, and a 2.36.
Bobby Thigpen was great after the break (15 saves), but had just 1 save and a 3.51 E.R.A. before it, and was injured for awhile in June.
Mike Henneman for the Tigers was 4-0 with a 2.38, but not a saves guy yet. Same for Juan Berenguer of the Twins, who was 5-0 with a 3.68 and 3 saves.

Considering the options, and how Howell had pitched from late April through early July, I don't see it as an unreasonable pick. I suppose he could have found starters that were better qualified and gone with just 3 normal relievers in the pen.

Also, Boston was about to play Oakland after the break, so perhaps McNamara was also thinking to not allow Howell to go have his 3-day vacation, but rather travel and have the hassles that come with going to the game. A Trojan Horse kind of pick. Howell proceeded to blow 2 saves in that Boston series, though vultured a win in one.
11:57 AM Jul 16th

tangotiger
Ok, finished reading, and I see Bill addressed the 1987 EI game, and the Padres/World Series.
11:05 AM Jul 16th

tangotiger
1987 was the Raines/collusion/AllstarMVP year, where the game was very exciting and went into Extra Innings. That'd explain the usage there.

1985 looks like Padres, based on 1984 World Series excitement?

And SP have never been selected by fans when I was growing up... or if this has changed, it would have changed rather recently.
10:44 AM Jul 16th

78sman
Bill, this is an interesting history. I have a few thoughts that are not closely related to one another.

I like the method of voting by precincts that you suggested many years ago. Your method took away the incentive for fans to vote only for their hometown players.

When I first started watching the All-Star game, in the early 1960's, a few players were selected based on their lifetime achievements (if my memory is correct). I remember Stan Musial making the team, even though he was no longer a great player, and I think that was a good decision.

There are different philosophies on criteria for selecting players. (1) Should it be based on performance in the first few months of the season, (2) should it be based on performance since the last All-Star game, or (3) should it be based on lifetime achievement? There are valid reasons to use any of these criteria. I usually vote based on a combination of all three.

It seems to me that having HR derbies, and similar events, is an indication that MLB views the All-Star game as a spectacle rather than a game. I think that the fans would prefer to see a game.


9:43 AM Jul 16th

Jack
Thanks, Bill, fascinating piece of work.

Also: not that I needed one, but another reason to despise John McNamara.
9:13 AM Jul 16th

bearbyz
I remember reading somewhere when I was a kid (long ago) of Joe McCarthy not playing any Yankees in an all star game because the press said the only reason he won the all star games was he had his Yankee players. If the story is true 1943 was the year.
7:07 AM Jul 16th

johnvgps
There's a reference to Joe DiMaggio having a bad year and not making the all-star team in 1946. He did make the team (he made the all star team all 13 years of his career) but he did not play in the game.

And I'd say Joe's "bad" year is still better than Dom's (I'm not a Yankee or DiMaggio fan) and it's one of the cases where the obviously better player sits behind the guy who looked better that month.

And the game was played at Fenway Park.
6:55 AM Jul 16th

brewer09
The worst part of All-Star selections -- starters, reserves, made by whomever -- is they are made on the basis of half-seasons.

No one cares who the best first baseman in the league is over 81 games. That's not an accomplishment. It's a fluke.

All-Star selections should be based on the previous 1.5 seasons. That would put more accomplished players in the game, more consistent players, just better players.
3:45 AM Jul 16th

brewer09
Mike Schmidt played first base in 1985, not third base. 106 games at first, 54 games at third.

Schmidt was 35, and the Phillies wanted to make room for Rick Schu for some reason. Schu hit .252 with 7 home runs and 24 RBIs in 112 games. Schmidt was Schmidt, slugged .532 and was back at third by the end of the season.

Graig Nettles was a poor choice by the fans. Tim Wallach was the right one.
3:39 AM Jul 16th

©2016 Be Jolly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|Web site design and development by Americaneagle.com|Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy

Bottom of Form

East Bound and Backward

By Bill James

October 7, 2013

I.

               I had a thought about the Texas/Tampa Bay playoff/play-in/play-to-survive game, the 163rd game of the season that preceded the one-game playoff with Cleveland.  Texas and Tampa Bay each entered the 2013 season, April 1st, with a 1-in-30 chance to win the World Series, a 1-in-15 chance to win their league, based on the fact that there are 30 teams, 15 in each league.  But each team entered that game with a 1-in-32 chance to win the World Series, a 1-in-16 chance to win their league.    Each team had a 1-in-2 chance of winning that game, a 1-in-4 chance of winning that game AND beating Cleveland, and each team would then have to win two more series to advance to the World Series, three more series to win the World Series.

               Thus, those teams, despite winning 91 games each, had actually gone backward since opening day.  Each team had less chance of winning, entering this "playoff" game, than they did entering the season.

               By the way, I think that’s what it should be called, a playoff game. That’s what those games were called before the playoff system we have now, playoff games.  That seems like the natural thing to call them.  I don’t know that the leagues have the right to seize control of the word "playoff" and tell us that a playoff game shouldn’t be called a playoff game, and, if they’re going to do that, the least they can do is give us some other word for it.  

               Anyway, my point was that this is the first time in history that this has happened, and I would think that it might be the first time it has ever happened in any sport—that a team entered a playoff game with LESS chance to win the championship than they had when the season started.   Going back to the last playoff game before the division split, the 1962 San Francisco/Los Angeles games, each team had a 10% chance of being league champion before the season, but a 50% chance before the playoff games.  Thus, each team had improved their position by 400% by reaching the playoff.  But in 2013, reaching the playoff game represented a step backward.  

II.

               My two writing interests, as you know, are baseball and crime.   HBO has restarted the series Eastbound & Down, about the life of the washed-up baseball pitcher Kenny Powers.  It strikes me that Kenny Powers is

               a) not a realistic representation of an athlete, but

               b) actually a brilliant representation of a criminal, of how a criminal thinks.

               Kenny Powers has a world-class entitlement mentality, very low ethics, and a remarkable ability to rationalize whatever he wants to do, no matter how childish or irresponsible.   I will tell you honestly that I have never known any athlete, and certainly not any major league athlete, who was even remotely like Kenny Powers.  Athletes do have an entitlement mentality, but it’s not an entitlement mentality anything like that of Kenny Powers.   In some way that is hard to explain, the entitlement mentality of athletes is the exact opposite of Kenny Powers.  Athletes uniquely understand—much more than non-athletes, as a rule—that success comes from hard work, success involves suffering and not whining about it, and that the payoff comes through following the rules and respecting the team concept.   Very, very few athletes—basically none—don’t get that message.  Kenny Powers doesn’t have any concept of any of that.   

               The entitlement mentality of athletes has to do with the rewards of athletic success, with what benefits should flow to the person who is able to cut it in the extremely challenging world in which they live.  

               Kenny Powers is not an athlete; he’s a criminal.   What the show illustrates very well—ironically, much better than crime shows do—is how the criminal thinks, how the criminal convinces himself that he is justified in doing whatever he wants to do.  Give Kenny Powers any rule, and he will figure out—and he will explain to you—why that rule should not apply to him.   Show Kenny Powers any possession, and he will explain to you why he should have that possession.   Kenny Powers can express, in words that make perfect sense to him, why he is better than others, why he owes no respect to anyone, why he should be able to treat people as objects.

               In shows like The Godfather and The Sopranos—and obviously, The Sopranos was a vastly better show than Eastbound & Down—but in shows like The Sopranos, the criminals are generally presented as the winners of life’s competitions.  They have troubles, yes, and those troubles often end in death, but while they are alive they get whatever they want and don’t worry about explaining why or how.   Kenny Powers is a loser.  This is what makes the show a comedy, rather than a drama; it is not about a fatally flawed winner, but about a petty, envious, whining loser, endlessly rationalizing his failures as a sort of cosmic conspiracy to deny him what is rightfully his.

               Reading that over, I wonder whether I should have said "baseball player" rather than "athlete"?   The NFL, after all, seems to have a more significant number of criminals in their population.

               But even in the NFL, it seems to me, the criminals are not really very much like Kenny Powers.   The NFL criminals are, for the most part, thugs, a "thug" being a criminal who takes what he wants by the use of force.   Kenny Powers, for all of his failings, is not a thug, either.  He is sneaky, devious and cowardly, but he doesn’t overpower people physically or pull guns on them.   So that leads us back where we were.   Kenny Powers is just really not very much like a real athlete.  

III.

               Football’s equivalent of the Balk rule is the False Start rule.  The Balk rule in baseball is a silly rule.  There is no reason to have such a rule, to begin with, and, if we’re determined to have such a rule, we’re going about it in the wrong way.

               Rules designed to prevent one team from deceiving the other, in general, are foolish and unworkable.   Deceiving the other team is integral to sports.   We don’t have a rule saying the base runner can’t fake a start like he is going to steal a base, do we?  We don’t have a rule saying that a player can’t fake a bunt, do we?   The Balk rule is like having a rule in basketball that a player can’t fake a shot and then pass.   Let him fake.  If one side can fake, the other side can fake.   

               Look, I’m not saying you can’t put in any limitations on what the pitcher can do to control the running game.  What I’m saying is:

               a) Nobody actually knows what is a balk and what isn’t, including the umpires, and

               b) This is an inevitable consequence of a poorly-thought-through rule.  

               A much better rule would be, the pitcher can only throw to first base once during any plate appearance.  One throw to first (or one fake throw to first); you can do anything you want on that throw (or fake).  After that throw, if you throw to first again and don’t get the runner, the runner goes to second.  

               The parallel rule in football is the rule penalizing the offense five yards if an offensive lineman flinches after the line comes set.  Look, I’m not saying you can’t have any rule requiring an offense to come to a set position.  I’m saying a rule that penalizes the offense five yards for an almost-imperceptible shift of position is silly.  The game isn’t supposed about the officials; it is supposed to be about the players.  Any time the official throws a flag when nothing really has happened, that’s a bad thing.

               I think rules designed to prevent fakes are in general counter-productive, but there is a more specific flaw in the way these two rules are written.   The way the balk rule is written is, in essence, that the pitcher has to make it clear that he is NOT deceiving the runner.   He has to come to a full stop.  That puts the onus on the pitcher NOT to violate the rule. The same thing with the false start rule: the onus is on the lineman to be absolutely still after he comes set.   The rule, if you insist on having it, should be written the other way: the pitcher is only guilty of verboten deception if he affirmatively does something deceptive.   The same in football: the lineman is only guilty of the forbidden deception if he actually does something deceptive.

IV. On the Practical Advantages of BS

               Did you ever think about this:  that Bullshit has a huge advantage over actual knowledge, in that bullshit can be created and deployed wherever it is needed, whereas actual knowledge has very limited ability to travel?

               At this time of year I get a lot of questions from people who want to know who I think is going to win the World Series, and whether it is better to win your division and have a 7-day cooling off period before you go into the playoffs or whether it is better to have to compete right up to the end of the season, and whether it is meaningful that a team ends the season playing well as opposed to limping into the playoffs after a two-week slump, and whether a team whose best pitcher has two different-colored eyes has an advantage in post-season play.

               The only honest answer to these kind of questions is "I have no idea."  This is not a satisfying answer to those who ask the questions, nor is it particularly gratifying to me to have to answer so many questions by saying "I’m sorry; I really have no idea."   Some of these questions I can’t answer because there is no answer; the only way to answer the question would be just to make something up and go with it.  Others I could answer if I had done the right research, but the right research very often would be a two-week project, and I can’t really find space in my life to undertake an awful lot of two-week projects, and anyway, if I could, it would still be two weeks before I could answer the question.

               From my perspective, then, it often seems that what people want from me is that I should be a bullshitter like the guys on TV.   "The guys on ESPN,". . ..this is what I hear, when people ask me questions about which there is no relevant research. . .."The guys on ESPN are able to give expert opinions on every question under the sun.  Why can’t you?  Why can’t you just make something up and go with it, like everybody else does?"

               Generally, we decry and denounce bullshit.  My point here is that actually there is a huge advantage to bullshit.  It fits everywhere.  You never run out of it.   It’s always in stock.  Once you decide that you are happy answering questions with bullshit. . .you’re set.  The cupboard is always full.

               I was watching a football game today.  Kansas University got ahead of a much better team 10-0, then settled in to lose the game 54-16.  The announcer had a ready explanation for the surprising start (paraphrasing).   "Texas Tech had to travel in here yesterday.   They spent most of the day getting to the airport, taking the flight, getting on the bus to Lawrence, getting off the bus, getting into the hotel, sleeping in a strange room.  Sometimes, particularly to a young team, it takes you a few minutes to get your feet on the ground and to get your head back into the game."

               Bullshit?  Of course its bullshit—but he got paid to say that.  That’s the wonderful thing about bullshit: you can never run out of it.  No matter what happens, you can make up an explanation for it on the spot.  Every effect can always be traced back to some readily apparent cause.  Whenever you have a condition (a) and an outcome (b), you can always assert that a caused b. Since conditions and outcomes exist in almost limitless supply, any number of supposed causal links can be established.  

               That sounds pejorative, but I don’t mean it that way. We all do that. His assignment was to say something that might be true, and. . .that might be true.  Nobody can prove that it isn’t.  We all use bullshit, including myself, because we are all "asked questions" or confronted by issues for which there is no obvious answer except bullshit.  

               But research isn’t like that; research runs out.  Research is always in limited supply.  Research is never around when you need it most.   That’s why knowledge can never take the place of good, old-fashioned, time-tested bullshit.

V.

               So I did some research, and the previous bit is relevant to what I have to say here, because the research falls so far short of what we would like to know right now.  We would like to know who the odds favor in the championship series now unfolding.   What I have for you only goes about 1% of the way toward answering that question.  The rest of it. . .you’ll just have to trust the experts on TV.

               Almost 40 years ago, I developed a way to predict who would win a post-season series based on their superiority in each area of play.  Hitting home runs was a huge positive, for example (I think it was +16) because teams which had hit home runs had (at the time I did the research) won many more post-season series than they had lost.   Hitting for a high average, on the other hand, was negative 7, because teams which hit for the higher average had, at that time, most often LOST the post-season series.  I developed this system in late September, 1975, and published it in Inside Sports in 1983. 

               Whether that system has worked since 1983, I have no idea.   60% of all post-season series ever played have been played since 1983.   That research has been buried by an avalanche of history.  I could have kept that research up to date if

               1) I was really well organized, or

               2) I was a sophisticated computer programmer who could pull data out of all kind of sources, or

               3) I had a couple of days to research the subject old style.

               O-for-3.   And also, in my own defense, I just don’t operate that way, and I don’t believe in it.  I do something, I give it to the world, I move on.  Some of my ideas stick; other people pick them up, do something with them.  Most of them don’t.  Either way, I move on to something else.  I believe that in the battle of ideas, your ideas, if they are good ones, will defend themselves.  

               Anyway, I did a little bit of research here, a one-day project; wish I had more time to follow up.   Suppose that Team A has a won-lost record of 94-68, and Team B has a won-lost record of 75-87.   When two teams meet, the chance that Team A will win is:

94 * 87

--------------------------------------------

(94 * 87) + (68 * 75)

               Which is 61.6%.  When a 94-68 team plays a 75-87 team, the 94-68 team will win 61.6% of the time.

               Well, if we know how often each team should win in one game, we can calculate by ordinary methods of statistical analysis how often each team should win the series.   In 1927, for example, the New York Yankees (110-44) faced the Pittsburgh Pirates (94-60).   A 110-44 team will beat a 94-60 team in a single game 61.5% of the time.   If you have a 61.5% chance of winning one game and you are playing a 7-game series, you have a 73.8% chance of winning the series.   So the chance that the 1927 Yankees would beat the Pirates in the World Series appears to be 73.8%. 

               This calculation, of course, relies on a series of assumptions, many of which ain’t necessarily so.  The calculation ignores the home field advantage.    It assumes that the quality of play in the two leagues (the 1927 American League and the 1927 National League, in this case) is the same.  It assumes that the won-lost record is a true indicator of the quality of each team.   All of these assumptions can be improved.  

               The question, then, is "does the method work, despite these limitations?"

               Well. .yes, up to a point.  In baseball history there have been 18 post-season series in which one team had a 70% chance to win the series, or better.  Of those 18 series, 15 have in fact been won by the team which would have been expected to win.   This chart summarizes those 18 series: 

               You get a 70% chance of a win by one team, basically, when you have a 15-win difference between the teams in a 7-game series, or when you have a difference of 20 wins between the teams in a 5-game series.  All but three of these series, historically, have been won by the team which should have won.

               There are another 33 series in history in which one team had at least a 65% chance to win.   Well, heck, I’ll summarize those 33 series as well: 

               There are 33 series in this range, of which 23 were won by the team which "should" have won.  Above 65%, then, the teams with the better regular-season record have won not merely as often as could have been expected, but more often than could have been expected.   In these 51 series, we would have expected the teams with the better won-lost records to go 36-15.  They actually went 38-13.   

               Below 65%, though, the method doesn’t seem to work. . .the method can’t prove that it works.   There have been 43 series in history (not counting 2013) in which one team had a 60 to 64.9% chance of winning.  The record of the better teams in those series is just 20-23.  There have been another 49 series in which the win expectation of the team with the better record was 57 to 59.9%.   The record of the better teams in those series is just 25-24.   

               There have been 51 series in which the win expectation of the better team is 54 to 56.9%.  The record of the better teams in those 51 series is just 25-26.

               There have been 71 series in which one team had a win expectation greater than 50%, but less than 54%.  The won-lost record of the "better" teams in those series is just 34-37. 

               Altogether, that accounts for 265 series.   There have been 272 post-season series entering this season.  In the other seven, the two teams had the same regular-season won-lost record; thus, each team had a 50/50 shot to win the series.

               Anyway, taken as a whole. . .we would have expected the teams with the better records to win 156 of the 265 series, 156-109.  They actually went just 142-123.   The method performs well above 65%, but has historically been non-instructive under 65%.

               I started this research, about ten days ago, with the intention of "throwing out" the imbalanced series, focusing on those series which appear to be most even, and studying those to determine what factors seem to be predictive in those series.   How often does the team with the better #1 starter win?  How often does the team with the home field advantage win?  How often does the team which ended the season playing well win?  Etc.,etc. 

               But I just never had time to do that research.  Which gets us back to Section IV.   Research takes too long.  We’ll have to rely on bullshit. 

​

COMMENTS (21 Comments, most recent shown first)

casejud
On point 1, they may have gone backward from the first game of the season but, if Tampa or Texas had won 90 games after 162, their chances would be ZERO.

Thanks for all of these pieces, are excellent reads, even though I love Eastbound and Down. There is something loveable to some about the criminal eh?
12:20 PM Oct 11th

therevverend
Another good comp for Powers is the late 80's Padres' bullpen. That's one thing I love about baseball. Relief pitchers can be fat and surly and loved for it. Comparing Powers to real life athletes is like comparing Leslie Nielsen's doctor in Airplane to real doctors.
8:48 AM Oct 11th

therevverend
I thought Pete Rose's mind worked in a similar fashion to Kenny Powers.
8:26 AM Oct 11th

David Kowalski
Back in the 1970s I must have had a lot of time to spare because I looked at all the pennant winners up to the start of divisional play. One thing that shone out from the data was that the full season records of teams that were markedly different did not matter. The 1959 Braves 'should" have beaten the full-season Dodgers but substituting Maury Wills for Don Zimmer at shortstop meant that the teams were not comparable. (Yes, the change was that ridiculous).

The rest of it was pretty common sense. Teams that outscored their opponents by the largest margin were likely to win. Homers and walks counted more than batting average and stolen bases. Runs scored was a slightly better predictor than ERA and stolen bases were IIRC a negative correlator.

Since then, the Marlins with their rent-a-teams pulled a similar feat.

Looking at runs scored and head-to-head, all I could do was eliminate the Rays against the Red Sox, despite Will Myers) and surmise that the Dodgers would have an edge over the Braves.

For me, the hardest series to predict was the Tigers vs. the A's. Then again, maybe that was all BS.
6:46 PM Oct 9th

OldBackstop
Freakonomics had an interesting piece about pundits' comments and predictions (and how they aren't paid if they don't have an opinion) Excellent site btw: freakonomics.com/2011/09/14/new-freakonomics-radio-podcast-the-folly-of-prediction/

The balk rule is ridiculous. Always thought a throw to first should simply count as a ball.

The season records are interesting, but that April team often has little resemblance to the September team. Maybe post-All Star? Run the numbers please, Bill :-)


10:06 PM Oct 8th

RangeFactor
An implication of the first section is: If a genie appeared in the Texas Rangers front office just before the tie-breaker game and offered to go back in time to March 31st and replay the entire regular season over again, the Texas Rangers should say "Yes". Their odds would be better of winning W.S.; they'd have a new chance to win their division, or win a Wild Card spot outright, both better paths to the World Series than the Texas/Tampa Bay tie-breaker game.
4:49 PM Oct 8th

tangotiger
1/11 actually, once you start game 163 for this season.
1:35 PM Oct 8th

tangotiger
bobb: no, you are doing it wrong.

The Rays/Rangers have 1/32 chance once Game 163 starts. The six division winners have 1/8 chance.

A RANDOM team that plays 163 has a 1/10 chance. But, if you are the Rays/Rangers, you are in a worse spot.
1:34 PM Oct 8th

bobburpee
in the first paragraph, you wrote: "I had a thought about the Texas/Tampa Bay playoff/play-in/play-to-survive game, the 163rd game of the season that preceded the one-game playoff with Cleveland. Texas and Tampa Bay each entered the 2013 season, April 1st, with a 1-in-30 chance to win the World Series, a 1-in-15 chance to win their league, based on the fact that there are 30 teams, 15 in each league. But each team entered that game with a 1-in-32 chance to win the World Series, a 1-in-16 chance to win their league. Each team had a 1-in-2 chance of winning that game, a 1-in-4 chance of winning that game AND beating Cleveland, and each team would then have to win two more series to advance to the World Series, three more series to win the World Series."

I think you are comparing an apple to an orange by calculating the odds in two different ways. Talent aside, teams have a 1-in-30 chance to win the World Series at the beginning of the year -- because there are 30 teams and one of them will win. Applying that same logic means that the ten playoff teams have a 1-in-10 chance to win the World Series.



10:01 AM Oct 8th

KaiserD2
Regarding post-season predictions, Bill, you are referring to the initial system that you published in Inside Sports (with disastrous 1982 results as I remember) and then in a subsequent Baseball Abstract. At some point in the mid-1980s you redid it in a much more sophisticated form in one of your newsletters and got even stronger results. I didn't keep the newsletter but I don't think you actually published the whole system, just a summary of how it differed.

Essentially both systems assumed that post-season games were generally low-scoring (because the pitchers were always good), that long-sequence offenses wouldn't do well while high-homer offenses would, that pitchers who could throw shutouts were a big advantage, and that--one of the biggest single findings--baserunners were precious and any team that threw a few away on the bases was very likely to lose. I have noticed that principle play out in many post-season games since.

DK
7:49 AM Oct 8th

hotstatrat
Bravo to your balk rule suggestion, because that would probably speed up the game. Multiple throws to first base are boring.

Counting a fake throw as a throw is the only problem. That almost brings the balk rule back to a judgement about the pitcher's movements. The idea is a step in the right direction (pun accidental), but, of course, needs to be tested to see if it is as great an idea as we think it is.
11:36 PM Oct 7th

CharlesSaeger
Bill: Have you read Harry Frankfort's "On Bullshit"? It isn't completely relevant to how you used the word, but seems vaguely connected to part IV.
8:31 PM Oct 7th

shthar
I think you've re-discovered 'male answer syndrome'.
4:05 PM Oct 7th

tangotiger
In 1942 NHL, and a few years before that, there were 7 teams, with six making the post-season. With one round of byes, that means there were three rounds for a few teams, or a 1 in 8 chance of winning the Cup.

What was interesting is that #1 played #2, and they waited for the winner of the other 4 for the championship round! That's quite inventive, so that there wasn't such a huge advantage to finishing top 2.

What was VERY weird was that #3 played #4, while #5 played #6. That didn't make any sense.
4:03 PM Oct 7th

metsfan17
I liked that 1st paragraph. That was interesting. Of course, the teams that didn't make that Play In game had even longer odds to win the World Series. 0 in infinity.
2:42 PM Oct 7th

MarisFan61
I think I laughed through the "BS" thing more than I ever have through a sports article.

I got an extra laugh about how we never run out of it, because it echoed what the wonderful crazy guy said in the movie Network right before he started letting it all hang out: "I ran out of bullshit; I just ran out of it." And one of the reasons that was funny was that of course you never really run out of it.
11:40 AM Oct 7th

tangotiger
Fascinating tidbit about the odds for the Rays (or Rangers).

In the NHL in 1979, they had 17 teams, of which 12 went to the post-season, with 4 teams getting a bye, and the other 8 having to qualify for the other 4 spots. That means, those teams had 4 rounds to go through (qualifying round, then Elite 8, Final 4, then the Championship). That's 1 in 16, compared to 1 in 17 to start the season. So, pretty close.

The Rays/Rangers had TWO bye rounds to go through, which is why their odds came out as they did.
11:18 AM Oct 7th

tangotiger
Regression Toward The Mean (RTTM) would suggest that the expected .589 matchup is more like a .550 matchup. So, unadjusted, the 156-109 (.589) would really mean we'd expect 146-119.

Bill observes 142-123, which is 0.5 standard deviations, and so, nothing at all.

However, the split based on extreme points is very interesting.
11:10 AM Oct 7th

tangotiger
This appears on every page of my blog:

imgs.xkcd.com/comics/sports.png
11:03 AM Oct 7th

enamee
(that was from Matthew Namee)
10:37 AM Oct 7th

enamee
Bill, your discussion of bullshit reminds me of a passage from The Black Swan by Taleb (page 120 in the 2nd edition):

"My biggest problem with the educational system lies precisely in that it forces students to squeeze explanations out of subject matters and shames them for withholding judgment, for uttering the "I don't know." Why did the Cold War end? Why did the Persians lose the battle of Salamis? Why did Hannibal get his behind kicked? Why did Casanova bounce back from hardship? In each of these examples, we are taking a condition, survival, and looking for explanations, instead of flipping the argument on its head and stating that conditional on such survival, one cannot read that much into the process, and should learn instead to invoke some measure of randomness (randomness, in practice, is what we don't know; to invoke randomness is to plead ignorance). ... But have the integrity to deliver your "because" very sparingly; try to limit it to situations where the "because" is derived from experiments, not backward-looking history."
10:37 AM Oct 7th

©2016 Be Jolly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|Web site design and development by Americaneagle.com|Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy

Bottom of Form

Wit

By Bill James

November 25, 2012

Some old, dead writer defined "Wit" as "discovering likeness in things unlike".  This article is about finding likenesses in things unlike—hence, the title.  It’s not "witty" in the modern sense of the word.

Immigration and Steroids

                Punishment and enforcement are linked by their nature to such an extent that many among us fail to distinguish between punishment and enforcement of the rules.  When a murder is committed, we punish the murderer whenever we can catch him.  If it’s 20 years later, we don’t care; 50 years later, he’s still liable to punishment.   That is enforcement; punishment is enforcement in that case. 

               When a football player jumps off-side, we punish his team with a few yards.  Punishment is used to enforce the rule.  This causes people to think that punishment and enforcement of the rules are synonymous.  In some cases they are.  In some cases a walk is the same as a hit; in some cases it is not.  In some cases punishment and enforcement are synonymous; in some cases they are not.

               In many cases punishment must be linked immediately to the offense, or it has no effect as enforcement.  If your dog makes a mess on the rug and you punish him 24 hours later, when you find the mess, this has no effect; thus it is, in fact, NOT enforcement of the rules.  If a small child does wrong and you put him in time out two hours later, this has no value as enforcement of the rules, because the child makes no connection.  

               Suppose that there was a backfield-in-motion violation that was not called at the time, and the offending team then scored a touchdown.   Suppose then, at halftime, the officials were reviewing the play, saw incontrovertible evidence of the transgression, and decided to take the touchdown off the scoreboard.  Would that work?

               It’s not like murder.  The rule can only be enforced, as a practical matter, at the time the violation occurs. 

               The Illegal Immigration problem and the Steroid/Hall of Fame Issue are alike in this way: That both of these are cases in which people want to enforce after the fact rules which can only effectively be enforced at the time of the transgression.  In 1985, in 1988, in 1991 players were using steroids, and there was absolutely no enforcement of any rule against this (if, indeed, there was a rule against this, which we can debate another time.)  Now people want to penalize those players, take their accomplishments off the boards.   

               Illegal immigration is the same thing.  If you don’t want people coming into this country without papers, the time and place to enforce that is the border.   Trying to enforce this policy. . ..or let us call it a law.  Trying to enforce this law after the fact by punishing the people against whom no flag was thrown at the time is unraveling the thread of their lives, going backward in time.    It is more-than-just punishment because, by unraveling the thread of their lives, in exacts a life-altering penalty for an offense that does not justify such a punishment.   

Post-Election and Sportscasters

               In a basketball game, if one team jumps off to a 20-11 lead and holds the lead until late in the game, the broadcast color man in most cases—19 times out of 20—will spend most of the game browbeating everything that the trailing team does.   They can be trailing 83-78 with two minutes to play, and the announcer will still be dogging them:  They have no energy, their offense is out of sync, they’re not taking care of the ball, they’re not blocking out on rebounds, etc., etc.  If it’s 41-38 at halftime, the halftime analysis will score about 70-15—an endless series of criticisms of the team which has, in truth, merely missed one three-pointer or failed to defend one. 

                What the Republicans are going through now is the same thing: an endless loop of greatly exaggerated criticisms of everything they have done—they’ve disrespected women, they’ve forgotten the middle class, they’ve sold out to Wall Street, they’ve alienated Latinos, they have presented no vision for the future, etc., etc.  Guys, it was 64-60.  Knock it off.   

90 Feet and 50-50

               64 million votes to 60 million.

               People will tell you that the man who designed the baseball field had to be a genius because after 150 years, infielders are still throwing out runners by a single step.   90 feet is the perfect distance.  87 feet, all those runners would be safe; 93 feet, there would be no close plays.  90 feet is a directive from God.

               What this misses, of course, is the internal forces of the game.  Infielders are still throwing out runners by a single step not because 90 feet is a perfect distance, but because infielders position themselves in such a way that they maximize their coverage. The place where an infielder can make the most plays is the place where the plays are closest and most difficult.   If the bases were 80 feet apart the infielders would move in a couple of steps, the outfielders would move in one step, and there would still be just as many close plays at first base.  Not EVERYTHING would be exactly the same, but the number of close plays doesn’t depend on the distance.  It depends on the fielders positioning themselves so as to maximize the number of plays that they can make.

               In modern American politics, the two parties split most elections almost 50-50—so much so that a 64-60 vote is considered a rout.   Political commentators will talk about how remarkably evenly split the American electorate is.

               This has nothing whatsoever to do with the electorate being evenly split.  It results from political parties adopting positions that maximize their coverage.  The Republicans may want to ban abortion entirely (certainly some of them do), but they also want to win elections. The Democrats may wish to legalize infanticide (certainly some of them do), but they also want to win elections. If either side adopts a radical position, they lose elections, lose power, and have to adapt their position.  

               The Republicans may wish to devote 70% of the federal budget to military spending; the Democrats may wish to cut it to 5%.  If either side pushes too hard, they lose elections, and have to adapt.  The positions taken by each side on every issue are constantly adjusted and adapted to form a compromise between the extreme positions and the center of the country—hence, elections in a two-party system are always pushed near to the 50-50 balance point. 

               One would think this was obvious, but believe me, I watch a LOT of political analysis, and 90% of the political analysts don’t have a clue that this is what is happening. 

The Airport Game

               One time in the 1980s I missed a flight because I just wasn’t paying enough attention.  I was kind of dawdling on the way to the airport, stopped to get coffee and a donut, got to the airport too late.  Flying to Europe in 2002 with my family we got to the airport on time, but it was this close.  We got to the station in the parking lot where the bus takes you to the terminal, and another family came right behind us and got in line behind us; they were supposed to be on the same flight we were.  When the bus came it was too full to take us all, so that family had to wait for the next bus—and they missed the flight.  That would have been a real nightmare, to have missed that flight.

               Every time I go to the airport, then, I play a game in my head designed to ensure that I don’t dawdle.  I figure that it is 70 miles to the airport, and I figure it will take me two minutes per mile.  Then I figure it will take me another 10 minutes to get through traffic in Lawrence, 10 minutes to get on the toll road, 10 minutes to get off, 10 minutes to switch highways in Kansas City, 10 minutes to go from Kansas into Missouri, 10 minutes to park, and 90 minutes to get to the gate after I park.  Altogether, I figure it will take me 290 minutes to get to the airport (70 times 2, plus 6 times 10, plus 90). If I leave my house at 10 AM for a noon flight, I calculate that I am two hours and 50 minutes late.

               Except, of course, that it doesn’t actually take two minutes to drive a mile; it just takes one, actually a little less than one while you are on the highway.  It doesn’t take an additional 10 minutes to clear traffic in Lawrence; it takes about six.  It doesn’t take ten minutes to get on the turnpike or get off; it takes about 30 seconds, and it doesn’t take more than maybe one additional minute to switch highways in Kansas City. It doesn’t take any time at all to cross the state line into Missouri. It doesn’t take 90 minutes to get from the parking lot to the gate; it’s usually around 20, although it can go longer sometimes.   Also, it isn’t actually 70 miles to the airport; it is about 55 miles, and also, both the clock in my car and the one on my wrist are about 10 minutes fast.   

               Every time I go to the airport I recalculate constantly how far behind schedule I am. .. .now I can get there at 2:34; now I can get there at 2:17, etc.  In reality, of course, if I leave for the airport at 10 AM for a noon flight, I should be OK. I am, in essence, trying to deceive myself into taking seriously the possibility that I may be late, by exaggerating the risks and compounding the miscalculations. 

               Modern politics is a war of Airport Games.  The Republicans and Libertarians exaggerate every small encroachment on personal liberty to make it sound as if the Thought Police were at the door.  The Military-Industrial Complex exaggerates the importance of every faraway nitwit to make it seem as though he was ten minutes away from getting a nuke.  The health professionals exaggerate the number of people who are obese and flat-out lie about the rate at which this is increasing.   Various groups exaggerate the problems with our educational system.  

               The champions of the Airport Game, though, are the environmentalists.    It doesn’t matter how much cleaner the air gets, how much cleaner the water gets, how much cleaner the beaches get, how much environmental risk we are able to eliminate; in their world view we are always 20 minutes away from environmental catastrophe—and the problem is getting dramatically worse all the time.  In the area where I live in my memory the population of deer, fox, beaver and many other types of wildlife have increased a thousand fold.  The number of hawks you see resting on telephone polls. . .up by a factor of dozens.  It means that whatever the hawks are feeding on, their population is up, too.  The only thing that has gone backward is the turtles, maybe the frogs.  Doesn’t matter; to hear the environmentalists talk, we are eradicating species and sliding backward into environmental catastrophe at a rate Jeff Gordon would envy.

               The environmentalists are neither bad people, nor wrong.  They are merely doing what I do when I go to the airport:  they are exaggerating risks in an effort to get people to take the problem seriously.    I am entirely with them, up to a point.  I am all in favor of setting aside large tracts of land for the benefit of non-human species (so long as this land is not taken by force from the people who own it.)  I am entirely in favor of doing something about wobal glarming before it is too late.  I am not in favor of ceding to the federal government powers that the government will quite certainly abuse in order to bring about such changes.  Maybe we can agree to disagree about that.  What the environmentalists don’t seem capable of processing is the damage that they have done to their own credibility and their own cause by constantly exaggerating risks.  The environmental foot-draggers are not bad people, either; they are merely reacting with great skepticism to the latest pronouncements of people who have lied to them repeatedly in the past.

Classical Sport

               My wife and I have season tickets to the Symphony.  I enjoy classical music, although, to be honest, this is my wife’s thing that I do because she enjoys it, as she enjoys baseball games but going to baseball games is still my thing on some level.

               Classical music has very, very serious problems as an industry.   The number of people who enjoy classical music is small compared to the market for other kinds of music (Rock, Country, Rap, Jazz), and the market is composed primarily of old people.  I’m 63; at classical concerts I am usually below the median age of the audience.  Classical music is generally very expensive to produce, compared to other forms of music.   We saw a Willie Nelson concert a few months ago; it’s Willie Nelson, one of his daughters and three or four other guys on a stage.  We saw a symphony in the same hall last week; there is an 80- or 90-piece orchestra of very highly trained musicians, backed up by a choral group of 150 singers.

               Classical music survives, or has survived so far, because it has advantages over the marketplace, rather than advantage in the marketplace.  Classical music is perceived by a very large cadre of musical professionals as the highest form of music, and these people have integrated themselves and their music into the society in ways that insulate it from extinction by economic forces.  High schools do not teach young musicians to play rock and roll, as a rule; they teach them to play "instruments", which are in truth the instruments of classical music.  College music programs are 90% devoted to classical music.  Music teachers teach small children to play simplified forms of Haydn and Chopin on the piano.  Millions of small children take violin lessons, which their parents get for them because this is how music is taught.  The perception that this form of music is "classy"—widely accepted in our culture—keeps the form alive by giving it these advantages, and many similar and related advantages. Governments fund classical music in dozens of ways that we would never consider funding rock and roll.  Cities built concert halls designed for the symphony—and many or most cities help to fund their symphony orchestras.  Government-sponsored radio plays hours a day of classical music, which is all but extinct on commercial radio. 

               At the Willie Nelson concert I am well above the median age and, I suspect, the median income.  At the symphony I am below the median age and, I suspect, well below the median income.   Those old people who go to the symphony have more-than-proportional power because they have more-than-proportional wealth.  This is reflected in how the government spends its money. 

               There is something much more than that going on here.  It has to do with the perception of rectitude, of value and of virtue.   People who become symphony musicians are trained to do so from a very early age, are very, very highly trained, and go through layers of selection and rejection to reach that level.   Rock musicians just pick up a guitar and start bangin’.  "Trained" is the word I want to focus on.

               On the spectrum of sport, baseball is toward the classical music end—and is becoming more so all the time.   The Frisbee was invented in 1948, and became popular in the late 1950s. (Before that, we sailed can lids.) By the late 1960s we were playing Frisbee football.  My son plays what he calls Ultimate Frisbee, which is just Frisbee football with a few wrinkles.   His friends would never think to organize a baseball game or softball game among themselves.  When they want to go out and run around a little, they play Frisbee football.  

               If we were to "train" very young boys to play Frisbee football, would that improve the sport?  Should we make them take Frisbee football lessons, when they are seven and eight?  Should we buy them expensive equipment for Frisbee football?  Should we put them on organized Frisbee football teams, when they are very young, and demand that they produce birth certificates so that we can be sure no nine-year-olds are sneaking into the eight-year-olds league, and give them trophies, and take team pictures of them, and have the city pay someone to referee their Frisbee football games?  Should we have parents who yell at their kids when the kids don’t play Frisbee football right?  Should we begin to pretend that Frisbee football is a test of character?

               Well, if these things would not improve Frisbee football, why is it that people think that they are necessary and appropriate for baseball?  

               Music, like sport, is instinctive to us, exists in all cultures, and will never disappear.   There are primal and sophisticated forms of music and of sport, which could also be called vibrant and calcified, or youthful and moribund.     There is a spectrum in these activities that runs from vibrant, primal and youthful to sophisticated, calcified and moribund.    All sports and all forms of music move across that spectrum, crawling toward obsolescence.   Rock and roll has moved significantly to the right on that spectrum in the last 40 years; the very term "classic rock" suggests this.  Football has lurched dramatically to the right.   

               But football and rock and roll are not as far advanced on this death march as is baseball. Baseball players, like symphony musicians, are fantastically highly trained, and go through many layers of selection and rejection before they reach the highest levels.   A baseball game is extremely expensive to stage.  Even a youth baseball game now is relatively expensive to stage.   Kids no longer perceive that they can play baseball in an empty lot with rocks and pieces of junk to mark the bases.  Baseball now can only be played on manicured fields, which cities pay to maintain because youth baseball is perceived as a social good.    The baseball audience is aging.

               This is not a jeremiad.  Baseball has massive resources, and is in little danger of passing away in the next generation through calcification and decay.  But neither does this represent a simple problem, that can be addressed by advertising targeted at young people.   Both baseball and classical music, for their own good, need to think deeply about how to re-energize themselves, how to make themselves younger, more vibrant, more accessible and less expensive.   It’s called hardening of the arteries.  It kills us all sooner or later.
 

Map People and Directions People

               There are two kinds of people.  There are people who, when they need to go somewhere that they have not gone before, want to look at a map and carry a map with them, and want to fix the key elements of the map in their minds before they get in the car, and then there are people who want directions, want to know where and when to turn left and how far it is and what landmarks to look for along the way.

               Most people, I suspect, are "directions" people.  My father was a "directions" person.  I am very much a "map" person.   I am, in truth, such a radical "map" person that I am puzzled by why anyone would be a "directions" person, although, as I said, I believe that most people are.   I remember this would drive me batty, even when I was twelve years old.  If you asked my father where anything was, he would say, "Well, go down to the corner there where you see the gas station, turn left and go about three, three and half miles until you get past the Kerns farm, etc., etc."  I wanted to know where it was; if I knew where it was, I could figure out how to get there.  

               A couple who is close to us—let’s call them Harry and Margaret--are directions people.  They get lost constantly.  One time when my son Isaac was about ten we were all going to beach, which was three miles from where we were staying, and Harry and Margaret’s kids wanted to ride with us, so I told Isaac to ride with them.   "Noooo," he said, almost whining, although Isaac was never a whiner. "I don’t want to go with Harry and Margaret.  They’ll get lost. They always get lost."  

               "Isaac," I said dismissively.  "It’s a five-minute drive. You can’t get lost between here and there."  Sure enough, they showed up 45 minutes late, with Isaac in a foul mood.   There was a roundabout between us and the beach, and they got off the roundabout going the wrong way.  

               Of course, map people get lost sometimes, too, but when we got lost, we can figure out another way to get there.  When directions people get lost, they’re up shit creek.   I remember one time I was talking to a group of old people in a small town in Kansas, like an Elks club or something.  Somehow this guy in the audience started talking about "directions" to get to Kaufman stadium, and how to avoid getting lost on the way there.   He was basically asking for the best set of directions.  I started to laugh at this idea, but then this other old fart gets up and starts offering the "right" directions to get to Kaufman Stadium without getting lost, and then this other guy joins in, and in two minutes I realize that I’m the only person in the room that doesn’t think that way.  

               Small town people who have never lived in a city or spent any time in a city tend to think of a city—even a relatively small city like Kansas City--as a vast and trackless maze through which one travels by moving from landmark to landmark like a series of bread crumbs.   People like me get lost on purpose as a way of supplementing our mental map.   "I know this way to get there," I think, "so I won’t go that way; I’ll go this other way, because I don’t know how to get there going this other way, so I need to figure that out."  For people like me (and my son Isaac) the smart phone era is the greatest thing ever, because you can carry a world map in your pocket, so you can never get truly lost; therefore your ability to go this way and the other way and try to find your way back home by instinct and gut feel is not limited by a fear of getting truly lost.   

               I was thinking about this, and. …well, first of all, sabermetrics is a "mapping" exercise; it’s not a "directions" exercise.   Sabermetrics is built out of statistics in the same sense that Maps are built out of combinations of directions.   Sabermetrics doesn’t tell you when you should bunt and when you should hit and run.   It gives you values associated with the bunt, and then it’s up to you to find your way.  Statistics are directions.  Sabermetrics is a map.  

               But thinking more broadly than that. . .isn’t it true in life in general that there are "directions" people, and there are "maps" people?  "Directions" people want an education that prepares them for a job.  "Maps" people just want to get an education, and then we’ll figure out how to put it to use.   "Directions" people want a religion that tells them in plain language what is right and what is wrong.  "Maps" people want a set of religious values that helps them navigate through a troubled world.  "Directions" people want to find the "right" woman to go through life with, Mr. Right or Mrs. Right.  "Map" people are just looking over the opposite sex, trying to find something they like.  We’ll find somebody we like and we’ll make it work.

               Part of our political mess is caused by the fact that the Republican Party is directions-oriented with regard to social policy, but map-oriented with regard to economic issues, whereas the Democratic Party is map-based with regard to social issues, but directions-dependent in the economic area.  This doesn’t make any sense, but it’s true.

               I suspect that it has to be true, because, as I was saying before, the nature of a two-party system is that each party picks up whatever it needs to pick up to survive.  When a political party is strong it becomes arrogant, intolerant and thus vulnerable; when it is out of power it becomes humble, open, and thus resourceful.  In this way political parties, over time, evolve into carefully-balanced but inherently irrational alliances between interest groups and political philosophies.  If either party became entirely map-oriented and the other entirely directions-oriented, one party would probably crush the other, and it is not in the nature of a two-party system that this can happen easily. When it does happen, the defeated party will merely spring up again under a different name and with a different collection of interest groups and political slogans, and the system will begin again, over time, evolving toward a 50-50 stalemate.

​

COMMENTS (43 Comments, most recent shown first)

Brock Hanke
Long article, hopefully short set of comments. The history of music, as I've studied it (mostly through theater) seems to be driven by new instruments with louder volumes. A violin makes more noise than a lute. A piano, more than a harpsichord. The big break of my lifetime occurred about 1962 or so, when rock and roll, which had been dominated by saxophones, embraced the solid body guitar running through an amplifier. So it still takes 80 classical musicians to fill a concert hall, but Pete Townsend can do that with his volume knob set to "3." There is also a correlation in theater between "realism" in acting and improved quality of lighting. That's why most movies older than 1970 seem stilted now. So, I don't know if the drift away from classical music is due to anything but that - the raw power of the volume, which has been going on since the days of John Dowling.

Politically, I think there have been, in my lifetime (I'm 65) 4 Big Deals that define the modern variety and that don't involve someone getting shot:

The takedown of Joe McCarthy, which prevented the U. S. and U. S. S. R. from completely polarizing the planet.

The Civil Right Act, in which LBJ, knowingly, gave away the Solid South to the Republicans - essentially, Strom Thurman's bigots became Richard Nixon's bigots. Now, not nearly everyone in the South is a bigot. I spent three years at Vanderbilt, and I know better, just as I know that not everyone in Nashville likes country music. But there are enough leftover bigots that they can still swing those states.

The maneuvering the Democrats had to do to get back to 50/50 after the above.

Modern micropolling, where your pollster tells your candidate to deliver this speech in Cedar Rapids, and he'll lose 3000 votes but gain 5000, but use this other speech when you cross the river to Omaha, and you'll pick up another 1500. The surprise of the last election was that the Republican pollsters had it so badly wrong. I was expecting a 51%/49% split; anything 53%/47% nowadays is a landslide. I don't know if you read any science fiction, but we are heading, slowly, in the direction of Hari Seldon in Asimov's Foundation Trilogy, where the results of the election are known years in advance because the polling is so good. - Brock Hanke


3:54 AM Dec 7th

bobfiore
Grover Norquist is a lobbyist. He's been a lobbyist for his entire political career.
10:07 PM Nov 28th

bjames
That's not economic policy; that's tax policy. Totally different. And God bless Grover Norquist; he's the only guy in Washington who is standing up for YOU and against the lobbyists.
1:26 PM Nov 28th

taosjohn
In re Republicans wanting aq map for economic policy-- seems to me Grover Norquist is giving directions more than offering a map. Or maybe I just don't understand the analogy?
11:35 AM Nov 28th

WinShrs
"When a political party is strong it becomes arrogant, intolerant and thus vulnerable; when it is out of power it becomes humble, open, and thus resourceful." I could not agree more.
11:00 PM Nov 27th

sprox
I think the infanticide comment is right on. And I must tell you I am absolutely PRO-Choice (no problem with day-after pills and general early pregnancy terminations)

But to pretend that a 6 pound humanoid with fingernails, a thinking brain, and a beating heart is not a person is intellectually dishonest.

And, to take the point further, take the case of a new-born infant breathing on its own outside the womb, but with a major birth defect. I would bet that 60% of students attending Brown or Smith would say it should be a mother's choice (and mother's alone - not father's or doctor's) whether to let the "very-recently-fetus-but-not-yet-baby" die. And there is probably a segment that would like to exercise this choice even later - possibly beyond the terrible twos?

Also, I agree completely about the R-D 50/50 conundrum. My prediction is that for the next election Republicans will significantly soften their stance on Rape, Contraceptives, Abortion, Immigration, Student Loan repayments, Health Care, and Military Spending and will win in 2016 with the same 64-60 margin.

This will be aided by empowered democrats thinking they are the party of "right" and going overboard on entitlement spending, environmental regulations, and more taxes on an ever-growing definition of people considered "wealthy" - maybe anyone earning over 80K a year?

Thanks for the thought-provoking series of articles - I enjoyed them very much.


8:11 PM Nov 27th

BringBackTriandos
Is abortion like the infield fly rule? The batter is out even if the fielder does not catch the ball.

Some time ago I read a study which showed that men are more map oriented and women more landmark oriented when they give directions. Men will name streets and intersections, women will name buildings or businesses or whatever...

The Democrats do have a mandate, and it's the same as the Republicans : To govern in the best interests of the entire country. Problem is, they can't agree on how to implement that. And it appears to me that they do not do sufficient research to determine what is best.
4:54 PM Nov 27th

BringBackTriandos
Is abortion like the infield fly rule? The batter is out even if the fielder does not catch the ball.

Some time ago I read a study which showed that men are more map oriented and women more landmark oriented when they give directions. Men will name streets and intersections, women will name buildings or businesses or whatever...

The Democrats do have a mandate, and it's the same as the Republicans : To govern in the best interests of the entire country. Problem is, they can't agree on how to implement that. And it appears to me that they do not do sufficient research to determine what is best.
4:53 PM Nov 27th

wovenstrap
(I meant Brian's #3 - sorry.)
1:48 PM Nov 27th

wovenstrap
I wanted to say something briefly about Bill's #3, which is an excellent point. The period 1945-1994 is a very strange period, because the South was pretty solidly Democratic, due to Civil War legacies and other things, and it meant that there was some big mismatches between region and ideology. THAT in turn meant that you could do cross-coalition bargaining and get majorities in Congress on various bills. Our recent politics are now "ideologically sorted," and that has led to polarization and an inability to offer a moderate from the other party some goodie that allows him or her to break the party ranks. I should stress this isn't limited to the Republicans -- the sorting has gotten much more efficient, and has led to "two different and distinct camps" more than was the case before. All sides are responsible for that. And that's the kind of thing that might lead to the results Bill was talking about in his point 3.
1:47 PM Nov 27th

wovenstrap
Look, all I'm saying is that there's some reason to wonder if the Republicans are on their way to becoming a regional party *insofar as that is even possible in our system.* It was noted after the 2008 election that the South was shut out of governance for the first time since the Depression, and the 2010 House results can be taken to reflect, in part, the freakout from the South at suddenly being shut out. I hope I'm not alone in thinking that the word freakout is not unfair -- see the Tea Party, the upset over the health care bill in 2009/10, Glenn Beck. I cited the odd poll results showing massive margins by Romney in the South to demonstrate that this 64/60 thing might be an unwitting sign of ... well, regionalism.

To chill, I agree to a point, but I could also turn it on its head to say that that was the best candidate the Republicans could come up with, a Mormon plutocrat with a dancing horse. If you look at the Republican landscape, the other contenders were far more ridiculous, it was not possible for the Republicans to square that circle, of appealing to their own base and the general electorate at the same time, given the candidates and policies they had. The Democrats are a lot better at that game right now. It'll be interesting to see how Christie or someone does. The interesting thing is that right now is the time when the desperation among the Republicans should be most felt (something very similar led to the nomination of beat-the-Dems-at-all-costs centrist Bush in 1999/2000), but as far as I can tell, the Republicans aren't there yet. They're saying (I don't mean you, Bill), hey it was 64 to 60.

I see all this is not very different from patterns that Bill himself has frequently mentioned, in reference to the overreach of the liberals in the 1960s. I think the Republicans are going through something very much like that right now, and I haven't heard much different to change my mind here.
1:31 PM Nov 27th

wovenstrap
Brian's comments are very useful and I take almost all of them in stride. I did want to say something about the House results. The House rebuke in 2010 was a magnified version of what often happens, which is that the out party does well one election into a new party taking power in the White House. That tendency is one of the best exhibits in Bill's 50-50 brief. It's very useful for the Dems to keep that stuff in mind.

But with the House specifically, it's also a fact that the Democratic House candidates got more votes nationwide than the Republican House candidates, taken as a total. So I don't quite buy the idea that the House remaining in Republican control signals this big corrective to the idea that the Democrats are the dominant party right now.
1:13 PM Nov 27th

chill
I'm as liberal as they come. Kill all the babies, I say.

But I think I'm with Bill in one sense. The Republicans ran a Mormon plutocrat with a dancing horse, no charisma, and a lying problem that was conspicuous even among fellow politicians. And they only lost 64-60. The talk of demographics is relevant, but it wasn't inevitable that Obama would win this election. One can pretty easily imagine a different outcome with a different candidate.

Chris Hill
1:05 PM Nov 27th

Brian
1)The idea of a mandate in this election is laughable and in general the idea of mandates is questionable . Don't forget, every house seat was up for graps and the Republicans won. If you are a Rebuplican elected from your district, chances are you won't feel you were sent to Washington to become a Democrat. Look, the only reasonable interpretations of the election of Scott Brown in 2009 and the huge gains by Republicans in 2010 were a clear mandate against President Obama's healthcare plan and the policies of the first two years of his term. Yet healthcare passed , and the President did not give one inch to the Rebublicans for 2 years. (Nor did they) He even moved to the left for the general election and won. So he ignored the supposed mandate and won.

The Republicans do have to work with the president not because of any mandate, but because of the expiration of the tax cuts. George Bush strikes again...

2) It also funny when Democrats tell Republicans they have to reform or vice-versa. What could the Republicans have done differently to get your vote? The answer, of course, is nothing- you were voting for Obama no matter what. Now, clearly the Republicans have to make changes. They need to hear from Republican voters and swing-voters. They have to evaluate their nomination process, campaign machinery and especially their relationship with the media. They also should have better candidates next time around. But don't get your advice from Democrats.

3) Why is it that while the national popular vote gets closer the individual state results are for the most part less competitive than they used to be?

4) One thing that is different between sports and politics. When a team loses, anyone on that team, coach or player, who throws another member of that under the bus does serious harm to their image and possibly their career. When a campaign is unsuccessful, the professionals consider it a necessity to blame it on the candidates or someone else on the campaign team. It is professional suicide to take any of the blame yourself.

5) Another topic - I always wondered why a candidate who felt the polls were hurting him or her wouldn't just announce that anyone who is planning to vote for them, nationwide, should say the other candidate if asked by a pollster. Then no valid polls could be taken. They could just say something along the lines of wanting the election decided by people rather than numbers, thereby grabbing the high road..


12:22 PM Nov 27th

wovenstrap
By the way, the effect of the "ruling" Democrats over-interpreting their mandate is somewhat blunted by the fickle hand of fate. I mentioned that the Dems took the popular vote 5 out of 6 times -- but of course the Republicans were nevertheless rewarded with the White House 2 terms pretty recently, and there's a feel of the Republicans just having had an extended crack at the bat. So the Dems are in the lucky position of having a truly better electoral map but not having reaped the benefits as much, which should make them slightly more cautious, and also give big parts of the electorate (for the time being) a chance to say "Well the Republicans were just in power and look what they did" etc. It's a bit like having a high BABIP for a pitcher. Their electoral successes recently have not resulted in the power (and thus the ego) that it should have, which will keep them relatively hungry for the (by rights) hegemonic party.
12:19 PM Nov 27th

wovenstrap
Yes, of course. Your use of NY and California was intended to mock my Southern thing. I didn't take that seriously, and neither should that reader have. At the same time I never mentioned any concept of mandate and I fully agree with you about that. The Democrats DO NOT HAVE a mandate. That's true.

Having said that, I think you are in danger of exaggerating the 50-50 dynamic beyond its natural limits. The 50-50 dynamic is A powerful force in politics, but it's not everything. The Democrats have won the popular vote 5 times out of the last 6. I didn't make that up. That 50-50 force did result in a close election (I'm not sure about "very close"), and the Republicans have some serious demographic problems the Democrats don't have. Moving forward to the future, the Republicans absolutely WILL adjust their message to attract different demographic groups, but it may not be enough. If you took the current population and magically added an extra 5% of the young and an extra 5% of Latinos and an extra 5% of college-educated professionals, the Republicans would quickly find themselves in electoral hell, and their adjustments might ring very hollow and alienate the constituencies they have tended up to this point. And something like that is very likely about to happen.

The Republican base and the Democratic base are structured differently. The Republican base is far larger as a percentage of the party, and much harder to placate, more intransigent.

Basically all I'm saying is that the adjustment from barely-a-minority party to something more competitive will be REAL interesting to watch, because the Republicans have an unusual amount of adjusting to do, given the demographics. In our system it's extremely hard for parties to hold the White House for more than 3 terms, and the Dems just secured term #2. It's not clear who the Dem candidate will be in 2016, and there'll probably be some slippage there from Obama.



12:05 PM Nov 27th

bjames
As to it being a distortion to represent the election this way. ...well, OF COURSE it is a distortion. That was the whole point of it. Somebody claimed that the election wasn't REALLY close; it merely LOOKED close because of the Old South, which is absurd distortion of the vote. My point was that you can distort the vote one way or the other.
11:41 AM Nov 27th

bjames
Well a) I am certainly not a Republican,
b) There absolutely is no mandate.
11:30 AM Nov 27th