PDA

View Full Version : Percentage Baseball: Smart Players

dabvu2498
06-21-2006, 10:22 AM
Are there any other metrics that anyone could think of that could be added to this to make it more realistic/accurate??? Any other thoughts?

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/printarticle/baseball-smarts-the-best-percentage-players-in-the-game/

Baseball Smarts: The Best Percentage Players in the Game
by John Walsh
June 21, 2006

Who do you think is the smartest player in baseball? That's kind of a difficult question to answer, because it depends on what you mean by "smartest." Miguel Batista writes poetry and reads books on Mahatma Gandhi and Josh Phelps is into calculus, but that's not the kind of intelligence I'm after. I'd like to identify the players who use their heads to win ballgames, guys that are in the right place at the right time, who throw to the right base, who know what to do when the ball is hit to them.
If you watch a lot of baseball, you may have an idea of who these players might be. And you also probably have thoughts about which players are not very heads-up. I have my own opinions on the subject. But can we measure baseball smarts from a player's statistics? Are there parts of a player's stastical record that might indicate he is a good percentage player?

Well, Bill James thinks there is, and who I am to disagree? In the New Historical Baseball Abstract, James suggests a method for measuring baseball intelligence. Actually, James is reluctant to use the word "intelligence" for what he is measuring, but prefers the term "percentage player." That makes sense to me, although I will use "intelligence" or "smarts" below, simply because "heads-up-ness" or "percentage-ness" don't work very well.

Before we look at James' method, take a minute and write down a couple of names of good percentage players (playing today), based on your own observations. And go ahead and write down a player or two who you think is not so "heads-up" on the field. We'll compare the stastical method with our observations at the end. Done? Okay, let's see how James would like to indentify his "percentage players."

The Method
James considers four different statistics to identify the best and worst percentage players:

stolen base percentage;
fielding percentage;
strikeout-to-walk ratio;
overall walk rate.
He gives the walk rate category only one-third the weight of the other three. It is legitimate to ask if these stats really have anything to do with a player's baseball smarts. I've thought about it a bit, and I think they probably do, at least to some extent. Stolen base and fielding percentage say something about a player's judgement, for example, when to steal or when to avoid the rushed, risky throw. The other two categories are about plate discipline, and one might consider the struggle for control of the strike zone one of the brainier parts of being a ballplayer.

In any case, James applies his method and comes up with the best percentage player in history, who happens to be Hall of Fame second baseman Joe Morgan. Pretty good result, if you ask me, and I'm sure many would agree that Little Joe was a smart ballplayer. Morgan rated excellent in stolen base percentage and the two plate discipline categories and above average in fielding percentage. I should note that James' method can't be applied to many players because "caught stealing" only became an official statistic in the National League in 1954.

Another Look at the Best Percentage Players
The New Historical Baseball Abstract came out five years ago and James was mostly interested in the best percentage players in history. I thought it might be interesting to update that analysis and look at the best (and worst) percentage players in today's game. In implementing James' method, I decided to compare each stat to league average over a player's career. So, essentially, I'm ranking players on normalized stats, like OPS+ or ERA+ (without park adjustments, though).

Here's how I selected the players to look at. First, I looked at all player seasons since 1954. Then I considered any player who had at least 4,000 plate appearances and 1,000 defensive games in his career. This gives me 555 players to which I give an overall "percentage" ranking based on the four statistical categories. Of those players, 100 were active through last season, meaning they had at least a handful of plate appearances in 2005. Note that the plate appearance and defensive games requirements amounts to requiring about seven full seasons played.

Ok, so who's the best percentage player in the game today? The answer is ... (drum roll, please) ... Barry Bonds. Ugh, there's just no getting away from Barry these days. But, hey, he earned the top spot, so let's see how he did it. Stolen base percentage? Barry has a career success rate of 78% compared to the league average of 69%, worth 91 points on a 100 point scale for stolen base percentage. Bonds scores 98 and 100 points, respectively, in K/BB and BB/AB, which shouldn't surprise anybody. He is also pretty good in fielding percentage, scoring 64 points. Applying the 3:3:1:3 weights mentioned earlier, Barry gets an overall intelligence score of 86 out of 100.

Here are the Top 10 percentage players in baseball today:

Top Ten Percentage Players in the Game Today
SBpct K/BB BB/AB Fpct | Total
------------------+-------+-------+--------+----------+----------
Bonds_Barry 91.0 98.0 100.0 64.3 | 86.0
Alfonzo_Edgardo 83.4 87.2 58.7 92.3 | 84.8
Vizquel_Omar 68.3 87.6 49.5 97.8 | 81.1
Damon_Johnny 91.2 79.5 45.4 73.8 | 77.9
Jones_Chipper 80.4 91.3 94.8 47.6 | 75.3
Rolen_Scott 71.7 53.3 80.0 98.6 | 75.1
Cabrera_Orlando 89.7 70.1 17.3 84.4 | 75.0
Walker_Larry 84.1 64.5 77.8 73.8 | 74.5
Rodriguez_Alex 93.2 42.2 65.4 86.6 | 73.1
Abreu_Bobby 82.3 79.3 97.7 44.4 | 71.6

These are some interesting names, some of the best players in the game and some, ummm, lesser players. I haven't personally seen enough of all these guys to judge from observation whether they are good percentage players or not, although I'm not surprised to see Vizquel, Damon, Jones, Rolen or Walker on the list. You might be curious about other players, I'll include results for everybody at the end of this article.

Ok, those are the heads-up players; what about the trailers, the guys who score worst on our baseball IQ test? Here are the bottom 10:

Bottom Ten Percentage Players in the Game Today
SBpct K/BB BB/AB Fpct | Total
------------------+-------+-------+--------+----------+----------
Burnitz_Jeromy 25.4 37.5 78.4 13.2 | 30.6
Rodriguez_Ivan 54.0 12.1 7.2 33.0 | 30.5
Sosa_Sammy 60.5 13.3 54.6 6.1 | 29.5
Cruz_Deivi 2.2 3.4 0.2 85.6 | 27.4
Clark_Tony 4.7 20.4 60.7 35.0 | 24.1
Matheny_Mike 2.0 5.8 16.4 64.3 | 23.3
Lopez_Javy 1.3 10.4 15.0 47.6 | 19.3
Alomar_Sandy 16.4 16.9 2.7 29.5 | 19.1
Santiago_Benito 28.1 4.1 9.7 20.8 | 16.9
Hernandez_Jose 17.3 0.9 30.8 24.1 | 15.8

There are five catchers on this list and I think this indicates a weakness in the method: it does not apply any positional adjustments, except for the fielding percentage category. This certainly penalizes catchers in the other three categories. Still, a method that identifies Jose Hernandez as a poor percentage player is doing something right.

All-Time Percentage Players
And where does Barry rank on the list of all-time percentage players? We can answer that question, although "all-time" in this case really means "since 1954." Here is the list of the top 20:

Top Twenty Percentage Players All-Time (since 1954)
SBpct K/BB BB/AB Fpct | Total
------------------+-------+-------+--------+----------+----------
Smith_Ozzie 95.7 98.7 65.9 95.4 | 93.5
Raines_Tim 98.9 96.0 89.0 85.3 | 93.0
Dykstra_Lenny 94.2 93.7 83.8 81.6 | 89.2
Morgan_Joe 99.3 98.4 98.9 66.2 | 89.0
Kaline_Al 84.7 91.5 75.0 87.7 | 86.7
Larkin_Barry 97.1 91.7 66.5 76.8 | 86.4
Bonds_Barry 91.0 98.0 100.0 64.3 | 86.0
Mantle_Mickey 99.8 84.3 99.6 67.5 | 85.5
White_Roy 72.3 93.3 85.4 90.0 | 85.2
Alfonzo_Edgardo 83.4 87.2 58.7 92.3 | 84.8
Herr_Tom 84.9 86.1 69.0 88.3 | 84.7
Lollar_Sherm 89.2 91.2 65.8 79.9 | 84.7
Aparicio_Luis 99.6 83.4 20.5 90.5 | 84.1
Butler_Brett 61.8 92.6 83.1 94.5 | 83.0
Landis_Jim 95.0 58.0 84.0 94.1 | 82.5
Gilliam_Jim 77.8 99.8 85.2 68.2 | 82.3
Vizquel_Omar 68.3 87.6 49.5 97.8 | 81.1
Robinson_Frank 93.9 76.4 86.7 70.0 | 80.8
Mathews_Eddie 78.4 78.9 96.4 79.0 | 80.5

Wow, several of my favorite players of all-time top this list, including Smith, Raines, Morgan, Kaline and Mantle. I'm not suprised to see Frank Robinson on this list, nor to see that he ranked very high in stolen base percentage. Earl Weaver, in his book Weaver on Strategy, praises Robinson for his smarts in 1) picking the right time to steal (late in close games) and 2) having a very good success rate.

The astute reader will notice that Ozzie Smith is not Joe Morgan; in other words, I did not get the same result as Bill James regarding the top all-time percentage player. That is because James didn't fully explain how he assigns points in the various categories, which left me to invent my own method for that. Seeing that I rank Morgan very high (fourth overall), I'm sure that what I'm doing is pretty close to what James actually did.

I must confess, I had to look up a couple of unfamiliar names on this list. Sherm Lollar and Jim Landis were teammates on the 1959 Go-Go White Sox, the only American League Champs not named the Yankees during the period 1955-1964. Lollar, the catcher on that team, was a seven-time All-Star who finished in the top 10 of MVP voting twice. Landis was a center fielder and a good one; he won five Gold Gloves and in 1959 finished seventh in the MVP voting. It's interesting that another Top 20 Percentage Player, Luis Aparacio, also played for that same White Sox team. And Nellie Fox was no dolt, either (top 20% in baseball intelligence). Hmm, the 1959 White Sox: smartest team ever?

I believe that many of the non-stars on the above list were considered good percentage players: Herr, Gilliam, Butler and White come to mind.

Here are the worst percentage players in history:

Top Twenty Percentage Players All-Time (since 1954)
SBpct K/BB BB/AB Fpct | Total
------------------+-------+-------+--------+----------+----------
Lopez_Javy 1.3 10.4 15.0 47.6 | 19.3
Alomar_Sandy 16.4 16.9 2.7 29.5 | 19.1
Maldonado_Candy 16.8 16.0 47.2 14.1 | 18.8
Heath_Mike 32.8 12.4 16.0 10.5 | 18.3
Armas_Tony 13.7 0.2 5.4 45.4 | 18.3
Lopez_Hector 11.0 30.3 40.4 3.5 | 17.5
Santiago_Benito 28.1 4.1 9.7 20.8 | 16.9
Parker_Dave 34.2 11.0 21.4 1.4 | 16.1
Hernandez_Jose 17.3 0.9 30.8 24.1 | 15.8
Ramirez_Rafael 38.6 10.3 4.0 1.8 | 15.6
Wilson_Glenn 18.6 5.4 10.4 17.7 | 13.5
Thomas_Frank 14.6 18.4 20.0 5.4 | 13.5
Horton_Willie 2.9 17.5 38.2 11.9 | 13.5
Kennedy_Terry 1.1 9.6 22.5 26.3 | 13.3
Alou_Jesus 8.3 29.9 0.4 4.3 | 12.8
Incaviglia_Pete 26.3 0.5 35.3 1.3 | 12.0
Brooks_Hubie 22.2 6.8 14.6 2.3 | 10.9
Sprague_Ed 1.4 15.5 34.1 5.0 | 10.0
Parrish_Larry 11.5 4.5 28.5 4.1 | 8.9
Stuart_Dick 0.5 2.2 26.7 5.8 | 5.2

Boy, was Dick Stuart a lousy percentage player, or what? Famous for his inept play at first base, Stuart had one of baseball's all-time great nicknames: Dr. Strangeglove. He stole two bases in nine attempts for his career, struck out a ton (especially for those days) and did not walk much. Stuart was a pretty good hitter, but he sure didn't do much else to help his team win.

I was surprised to see Dave Parker on this list. Despite the rifle arm, he had a very poor fielding percentage relative to the league. It would be interesting to see if a large fraction of his errors were due to ill-advised throws. By the way, that's not the Frank Thomas, it's the other Frank Thomas. The Big Hurt did not qualify for this study because he didn't play enough defensive games.

Interesting Things I Came Across While Doing This
I found it interesting to learn who were the best and worst players in the individual categories. So, here are the top three players and one worst player in each category. Remember, the stats are normalized to the league average during the player's career.

Stolen base percentage — Best: Mickey Mantle, Luis Aparicio, Davy Lopes. Worst: Jay Buhner.
Strikeout-to-walk ratio — Best: Nellie Fox, Jim Gilliam, Wade Boggs. Worst: Tony Armas.
Walk rate — Best: Barry Bonds, Eddie Yost, Mantle. Worst: Deivi Cruz.
Fielding percentage — Best: Brooks Robinson, Steve Buechele, Ken Reitz. Worst: Lou Brock.

Final Thoughts
Before doing this study, I wrote down two names of players who I think of as being good percentage players: Derek Jeter and Larry Walker. I didn't think about it long and hard; these two just popped into my head as guys that seemed to be heads-up players. As we've seen, Walker ranked eighth out of 100 active players (although he's actually retired now) and Jeter ranked 19th. Somehow I came up with reasonable picks. My choice for baseball dunce went to (unfortunately, for I am a fan) Manny Ramirez, who ranked 72/100 using the James method. If you feel like it, shoot me an e-mail with your own picks for best and worst percentage players.

I was very curious to see how Ozzie Guillen ranked based on the James method. It turns out he ranks 385 out of 555 players, in the bottom third. I actually expected him to rank lower, because on June 23, 1989, Ozzie fell for the ol' hidden-ball-trick, getting fooled by Brewers first baseman Greg Brock. It's hard to imagine a less heads-up play that you can make on a baseball diamond. That's alright, Oz, anybody can get surprised once. The amazing thing is, just a couple of months later, on August 5, Ozzie was caught napping on first base again (yep, hidden-ball-trick again), this time by the Tiger first-sacker Dave Bergman. Well, it appeared that Ozzie had finally learned the lesson, since he avoided being embarrassed for the next season and a half or so. But, no, in May 1991 he fell victim to the hidden ball trick a third time. So, yes, sometimes a player does contribute in a way that does not show up in the box score. Based on Ozzie's intangibles, I believe he deserves an honorary position alongside none other than Dr. Strangeglove as the worst percentage player of all time.

[Author ducks to avoid rotten tomatoes en route from the South Side.]

References and Resources

James' method for identifying percentage players is explained in the Joe Morgan comment of the New Historical Baseball Abstract.
Among the many amazing things that Retrosheet does is keep track of hidden ball tricks. Check out the full list here.
The complete list of percentage player rankings can be found here.

Benny-Distefano
06-21-2006, 12:46 PM

Wow! Benito Santiago is STILL playing? Wow. What is he, like 200 yrs old?

tripleaaaron
06-21-2006, 01:12 PM
some things that are missing, laying down a bunt when 3rd base is playing back, to get on, Hitting the ball to RF with a runner on third, etc. Some things can't be measured here, so the "smart player" may not always be on the top of that list, you may also have a great fielding percentage but fail to get the double play, etc. This is a very interesting read, but at the same time a somewhat unmeasurable science.

blumj
06-21-2006, 01:57 PM
Which players on the Reds do you guys think "play smart" and which ones do you think "play not-so-smart"?

Johnny Footstool
06-21-2006, 02:49 PM
Scott Hatteberg is probably the smartest baseball player on the team.

Lopez, Freel, and Encarnacion are smart hitters -- they take a lot of pitches and have good strike zone judgement. They're probably not the smartest fielders -- they take chances and try to force throws. Lopez is a smart baserunner, but Freel isn't.

Handofdeath
06-21-2006, 03:31 PM
Despite the fact I've got a Bill James quote as my signature (mostly to annoy Dunn fans;) ) I really think most of what Bill James spits out is hoohah. That one guy's opinions are treated like something from above is a little unnerving. I think he's a great writer but the formulas and equations are just a bit much at times. Too many variables involved to take what he says too seriously.

tripleaaaron
06-22-2006, 01:54 AM
Brandon Phillips could become one of the smartest players (not there yet, but smart for a young guy) Good Defensively, hasn't been caught stealing yet, and came through in the clutch tonight!
Ross has looked smart as well, in the game that featured a walk-off by valentine, Ross layed down a perfect bunt to get on base followed by Hat's homer to put us right back in it, both have also looked like very "smart" acquisitions as well

tripleaaaron
06-22-2006, 01:58 AM
Despite the fact I've got a Bill James quote as my signature (mostly to annoy Dunn fans;) ) I really think most of what Bill James spits out is hoohah. That one guy's opinions are treated like something from above is a little unnerving. I think he's a great writer but the formulas and equations are just a bit much at times. Too many variables involved to take what he says too seriously.

I agree with you completely, Moneyball is overated, as players drive for success and competitive nature are qualities unmeasureable by stats alone, certain players can "spark" the team, such as a Ryan Freel, or Scott Podsednik, both of which would be considered by James as players who are anti- moneyball, but what does freel do for us, flat out play hard every time, and the same can be said for Pods, and while James may have laughed when the ChiSox acquired Pods last season, it was one of the main reasons for there championship season.

terminator
06-22-2006, 08:45 AM

1. Benito Santiago is in the top ten worst players of all time. I regard him as a smart catcher.

2. Pete Rose isn't in the top twenty of all time. Given that he was one of the smartest players ever who did the little things to win, the list just can't be right without him on it.

You could also include/consider:

a. Number of times picked off

b. For catchers, maybe substitute percentage of baserunners thrown out (shows an awareness of when runners are trying to steal) in lieu of their own stolen base percentage

c. Likewise, for pitchers, include the number of runners they pick-off

d. How many times a batter reaches on errors (the more times they do this, the more it shows they are hustling)

e. Runners advanced while making an out

f. Some way to track baserunning prowess. Maybe just runs scored -- those guys who score more presumably aren't making as many bad decisions on the basepaths.

I'm sure there are more you could use, but those come to mind.

TeamBoone
06-22-2006, 09:56 AM
I think a whole lot of those categories are iffy and situational to truly assess player "smartness".

a. Number of times picked off: this one is really skewed, IMHO. Umps make a lot of wrong calls here. Take Felipe Lopez, for example. Just this year alone, I've seen him called out three times when he was actually safe (based on replay video).

b. For catchers, maybe substitute percentage of baserunners thrown out (shows an awareness of when runners are trying to steal) in lieu of their own stolen base percentage: Same arguement as b. Plus, even if a catcher is smart enough to know when to try to throw someone out, they don't always have the talent to do it. In addition, there are mitigating factors, e.g., batter not entirely out of the way, player receiving the ball is inept at catching the ball and/or not positioned in a way to make the tag even when the ball is caught in time.

c. Likewise, for pitchers, include the number of runners they pick-off: same as a. and b.

d. How many times a batter reaches on errors (the more times they do this, the more it shows they are hustling): this one is feasible... but then again, some guys just run faster than others even though the latter is hustling.

e. Runners advanced while making an out: this totally depends upon what kind of hit the batter gets. Runners rarely advance on a grounder, does that mean they are not smart?

f. Some way to track baserunning prowess. Maybe just runs scored -- those guys who score more presumably aren't making as many bad decisions on the basepaths: same as e... too often dependent upon what the batter does while said player is on base.

westofyou
06-22-2006, 10:14 AM
I agree with you completely, Moneyball is overated, as players drive for success and competitive nature are qualities unmeasureable by stats alone, certain players can "spark" the team, such as a Ryan Freel, or Scott Podsednik, both of which would be considered by James as players who are anti- moneyball, but what does freel do for us, flat out play hard every time, and the same can be said for Pods, and while James may have laughed when the ChiSox acquired Pods last season, it was one of the main reasons for there championship season.
Bill James has absolutley nothing to do with Moneyball, other than being mentioned and Bill James would love Ryan Freel the baseball player.. but you'd know that if you ever read any Bill James.

But please keep on creating falsehoods.

IslandRed
06-22-2006, 10:30 AM
I agree with you completely, Moneyball is overated, as players drive for success and competitive nature are qualities unmeasureable by stats alone, certain players can "spark" the team, such as a Ryan Freel, or Scott Podsednik, both of which would be considered by James as players who are anti- moneyball, but what does freel do for us, flat out play hard every time, and the same can be said for Pods, and while James may have laughed when the ChiSox acquired Pods last season, it was one of the main reasons for there championship season.

You're confusing a lot of things. Bill James has been around a lot longer than "Moneyball" and the two are not synonymous, so the notion of James pronouncing players "anti-Moneyball" is absurd. Furthermore, the "stat crowd" likes players like Freel or Podsednik as long as they're doing the things good sparkplugs do, like get on base and not get themselves thrown out too much. And no one minds good defense.

What the analytical community doesn't generally do is lionize a guy for being a sparkplug Just Because. People criticized the Sox' acquisition of Podsednik in 2005 because he couldn't find first base with a map in 2004 and they gave up a pretty good ballplayer for the privilege. That's all.

RichRed
06-22-2006, 10:34 AM
Bill James has absolutley nothing to do with Moneyball, other than being mentioned and Bill James would love Ryan Freel the baseball player.. but you'd know that if you ever read any Bill James.

But please keep on creating falsehoods.

Exactly. Ryan Freel gets on base. Pretty sure Bill James would approve.

terminator
06-22-2006, 02:21 PM
I think a whole lot of those categories are iffy and situational to truly assess player "smartness".

Yes, I'll grant you that, but my categories are a bit more related to the "smarts" of a player than the stats that were originally picked. It's pretty obvious the original system is flawed when the "bad players" list is populated with catchers just because they are slow.

What we really need are to track things that aren't currently widely tracked as stats. What percentage of the time do they make it while trying to stretch an extra base out of hit? How many times do they throw to home instead of hitting a cutoff man, thereby giving the runner an extra base? What percentage of the time can they end a pickle situation early to avoid allowing the trailing runner to make it to the next base? What percentage of the time do they throw out the lead runner on a sacrifice attempt?

Those are the types of stats that would really need to be tracked for a "percentage player" but those aren't ones that are easy to come by.

Johnny Footstool
06-22-2006, 04:05 PM
I agree with you completely, Moneyball is overated, as players drive for success and competitive nature are qualities unmeasureable by stats alone, certain players can "spark" the team, such as a Ryan Freel, or Scott Podsednik, both of which would be considered by James as players who are anti- moneyball, but what does freel do for us, flat out play hard every time, and the same can be said for Pods, and while James may have laughed when the ChiSox acquired Pods last season, it was one of the main reasons for there championship season.

The Sox championship was based almost entirely on excellent pitching, with some excellent defense thrown in.

Also, a player's "spark" and competitive nature are useless unless he does things that help a team win. Those things DO show up in the stats, if you know what to look for.

tripleaaaron
06-23-2006, 12:54 AM
Bill James has absolutley nothing to do with Moneyball, other than being mentioned and Bill James would love Ryan Freel the baseball player.. but you'd know that if you ever read any Bill James.

But please keep on creating falsehoods.

ok, ok, I was a little hazy on this as I apologize, I have read many things on him, and was under the impression that he was the brains behind moneyball, but he did have something to do with it, his sabremetrics theory was the basis of moneyball itself, I recognize the fact that he himself was not the man behind moneyball, but moneyball in effect was his launching point to wide spread acceptance. I was not trying to create any falsehoods, just attempting to state that many things can't be quantified in statistics and theorys, sorry for the confusion I was just off a 13 hour shift when I posted as well, and also didn't clearly work out my thoughts. These things do show up in the stats, but not completely, is there a stat for making a spectacular catch other than a PO? etc.

Steve4192
06-23-2006, 07:39 AM
I have read many things on him, and was under the impression that he was the brains behind moneyball
Nah.

It was all Billy Beane, all the way. He wrote, edited, printed and bound every copy of that self-serving book. He even delivered a copy of the book (along with a a flaming bag of dog poop) to Joe Morgan's doorstep. Joe stomped on the poop, but to this day he still refuses to read the book.

Damn you Billy Beane!!!

his sabremetrics theory was the basis of moneyball itself

Branch Rickey says 'hello'.

I recognize the fact that he himself was not the man behind moneyball, but moneyball in effect was his launching point to wide spread acceptance.
http://members.cox.net/sroneysabr/JamesIndex/1977_Baseball_Abstract.html

westofyou
06-23-2006, 09:45 AM
his sabremetrics theory was the basis of moneyball itselfNo, the Oakland A's approach to choosing players in a uneven marketplace was the basis for Moneyball.

As for stats and all of its effect on fans and the game that plane was broken years ago, F.C. Lane and Branch Rickey were bones in the ground before Bill James picked up a pencil to write a word about baseball.

I have read many things on him, and was under the impression that he was the brains behind moneyballYou should do yourself a favor an read something by him, stuff about him is bound to be much worse than stuff by him.

tripleaaaron
06-23-2006, 04:30 PM
what do you recommend for my first reading? are they available in common bookstores or do I need to order them?

IslandRed
06-24-2006, 10:38 AM
You might be able to find his New Historical Baseball Abstract in a bookstore somewhere.

westofyou
06-24-2006, 10:40 AM
The Historical Abstract is a great read, it's a cover to cover or hunt and peck type of book, most libraries have it, his book on the Hall of Fame and Baseballl Managers are really good too.

Those books both deal less with numbers than with nuances and information that we might not have come across or seen compiled all in one place.

I can see that James can make people really think NUMBERS!! But his real strength lies in his knowledge of the game and the ability to tell compelling stories that help build the readers knowledge of the game up, and perhaps change the way they look at baseball or just its past.

His annual abstracts from the late 70's are hard to find, the ones in the 80's are easier, many libraries have them and also can get them on interlibrary loan (ask about it there) Those tend to be more numbers centric, plus they are all on the current players of the day, which is fun for me, but maybe those who didn't see Garth Iorg play don't care to revisit his career.

redsupport
06-24-2006, 02:52 PM
I was particularly interested in Dane Iorg

dabvu2498
06-24-2006, 09:33 PM
You'll soon be hearing about Cale and Eli Iorg.