Stats.

[GuyClinch@xxxxxxx]

> My whole point was that at some times, Bill James and the guy who wrote 
> this seem 
> to need to come up with additional statistical categories to explain 
> certain things

Hmm well I have to disagree some here.
There is good reason Bill James comes up with additional statistics...he 
wants stats that better reflect the true value of a player or team. Baseball 
is far ahead of hoops in this regard, and Bill James is a big part of the 
reason why..

You see the problem with stats and basketball is that they don't have the 
RIGHT statistics to tell the complete story of what is going on. They don't 
really quantify say a "good" pass if it doesn't lead to an assist. They don't 
have stats that really quantify a good defensive player. They don't have 
stats that really capture team leadership or court smarts. They don't have 
stats for boxing out...or hustle and so on and so forth. With hoops the box 
score is only giving you glimpse of what happened...

BUT in baseball...
Stats do tell the story..and the nearly the whole story. In each circumstance 
only a limited number of outcomes can occur and all instances are 
catergorized in a game. Thats not true with basketball. There isn't even an 
attempt to keep track of everything thats is going on. 

 And while technically its a team sport, it's really a series of individual 
acts that can be easily quantified. So if you know your stuff...stats can 
really help. And since nearly every meaningful event is quantified in 
baseball coming up with new stats here really helps.

I think its safe to say that Bill James knows his stuff.
Bill James would be the first to tell you that game winning RBI's are a 
useless stat so thats a bad example. But looking at say the OPS is much 
better way to judge a players offensive abilities.

The problem with the Celts article is that it was trying to explain a 
supposed statisical incongruity as luck...when he was ignoring several 
factors.. Moreover I am not sure looking at those limited stats is really 
enough to qualify a team as lucky. 

Bill James would never make a mistake like that, IMHO. He would have factored 
out blowouts and so forth to determine if luck was really a factor. He really 
does some interesting stuff. His ideas about WHIP and his improved range 
factor stuff are really great. I wish someone like him would start to really 
quantify hoops alot better though it will never be as stat friendly as 
baseball. 

Pete