the queen of diamonds in “The Manchurian Candidate.” If someone called me up right now and said, “Why don’t you pass the time by playing a little solitaire,” and I looked at my baseball cards, and came across batting average, homers and RBIs, yeah, I’d probably be programmed to kill.

The Pos-man belts 'em out the park with regularity, doesn't he?

Angela Lansbury gets a pass for all her "Murder, She Wrote"s just for her creepy role in the original. Another movie that I can't flip past. It really captures the Red paranoia of the time. I am always creeped out by the demonstration/ladies club meeting.

She was 3 years older in real life than her movie son, Laurance Harvey, but she pulled it off.

The only flaw is that the budding of the romance between Janet Leigh and Frank Sinatra is awfully forced. But it's so incidental to the movie that it doesn't interfere.

EDITed for clearer wording.

She was 3 years older in real life than her movie son, Laurance Harvey, but she pulled it off.

That's nothing; Elizabeth Taylor played a grandmother in Giant when she was 23.

Elizabeth Taylor played a grandmother in Giant when she was 23.

In the Flintstones, she turned in a remarkable performance as a hideously deformed creature. She was the glue that held the whole film together.

I fully understand the importance of what James did, but sometimes I wonder how fair it is to criticize someone like Dawson for the way he hit in 1987.

I realize that there were some players in the older days who did get a very high number of bases on balls. I acknowledge that those players were more valuable than others who didn't. But I also wonder if some of the acrimony against someone like Ted Williams from the Boston press came from his taking a walk instead of hitting away.....

If the above TW supposition is valid (even partially valid), then it would at least behoove us to take into account the societal context in which these players came up and played (there's this old Lat Am baseball saying, particularly - I think - in the Dominican, that you can't walk your way off the island. Coming up in that type of environment surely affects the way a hitter approaches his craft. I also wonder if the old negro league players, who often were part time barnstorming-entertainers, didn't also HAVE to put the ball in play to make a better show of it).

If you are about my age*, then you grew up as a baseball fan with three statistics and only three statistics. There was batting average. There were home runs runs. And there were RBIs. That was it.

*You might also groan when you get out of a chair

Please, Joe. You're less than a year older than me. I may have to wake up in the middle of the nite to take a leak nowadays and I may find humidity to be more unbearable, but other than that I feel pretty much like I did 10 years ago.

I still look at RBI, although almost more as a function of determining playing time if "games" or "at bats" are not listed. I have noticed more telecasts putting OBA up there - I wish they'd do SLG.

What I wish they'd stop doing is (1) post-season numbers at the expense of regular season stats. Its nice to know that Chase Utley is 2 for 6 in the post-season, but I haven't been following the Phils all season since I'm an AL fan, and I'd like to know what kind of regular season he had (2) numbers against a certain pitcher unless its really outrageous. I don't care that Mark Teahen is 4 for 12 against Scott Baker.

Its really curious "Grand Total Bases" didn't become an accepted stat somehow. Its pretty simple to tabulate and understand and is a pretty accurate reflection of player value.

"RBI" is actually harder to get - when does an RBI count? When does it not? Why does it not distinguish between a guy that made an out to score a run and a guy that hits safely to score a run? Does it tell us much of anything about a player value?

I was reading something recently that said the RBI correlate fairly well with doubles and triples. So, the Triple Crown stats are sort of proxies for the three types of hitting; albeit blurry ones.

In the early-to-mid 1970s when I started collecting cards, the only numbers they had on the back other than the core three: at-bats, hits, doubles and triples. It wasn’t until 1977 that Topps even put RUNS on the back on cards. In 1978, they added games.

That's funny---the 1972 Topps Jim Lyttle I'm holding lists on the back games and runs.

Now the 1976 Bill Buckner I'm holding also lists games and runs...

And the 1969 Bill Melton also lists games and runs... as does the 1970 Mike Epstein.

And wow, the 1971 Bill Mazeroski lists games, runs, total bases, and stolen bases. Then again, they only had the single previous-year stat line, as well as career totals.

My recollection is that in 1973-1975, Topps cards did not include games or runs, but it's not as if they didn't show them until 1977...it's more like they just got kind of retarded there for a few years..

but other than that I feel pretty much like I did 10 years ago.

nothing like watching #### burn to keep a man youthful.

In 1973 and 1975 the backs of Topps cards were vertical, so I'm sure they dropped games and runs because they didn't have room. The backs in 1974 were horizontal, but they didn't put the stats across the entire bottom of the card the way they did in 69, 70 and 76. They only went about 2/3 across with the comic taking up the bottom right side.

What I wish they'd stop doing is (1) post-season numbers at the expense of regular season stats.

Yes!! I HATE that! In the second game of the playoffs, MLB thinks that everybody is hitting .000, .250, or .500. It's madness! I can at least interpret full-season Triple Crown stats, but who really cares if a guy happened to go 1-for-4 in the first game of the World Series.

But I also wonder if some of the acrimony against someone like Ted Williams from the Boston press came from his taking a walk instead of hitting away.....

It did, yes. Williams found himself defending his propensity for walks a lot; he always explained that if he extended his strike zone to avoid walks it would eventually come back to bite him as a hitter.

Why do you think Bill James was such a seminal figure — it’s because he so clearly and concisely and hilariously was able to slap our faces and show us that, yeah, there was more out there, a bigger world.

What made James a seminal figure was not, so much, what he did in the 80s - but what the people who learned from James in the 80s were able to accomplish using the Internet in the 90s.

-- MWE

Yes!! I HATE that! In the second game of the playoffs, MLB thinks that everybody is hitting .000, .250, or .500. It's madness! I can at least interpret full-season Triple Crown stats, but who really cares if a guy happened to go 1-for-4 in the first game of the World Series.

I am in complete concurrence.
The playoff/ series stat stuff kills me and unless I am mistaken its a pretty recent innovation. In my memory, they used to show regular season numbers in the playoffs too. Give me a larger sample pool please.

What made James a seminal figure was not, so much, what he did in the 80s - but what the people who learned from James in the 80s were able to accomplish using the Internet in the 90s.

His contributions are more meaningful because of what followed in the 1990s, but James was a huge figure before that. I'm about the same age as Posnanski, and as far as I'm concerned, he captures the pre-James era perfectly. What he did was such a shock that I'd guess Miller, Steinbrenner and James were the most controversial figures in baseball during the 1980s, at least until Rose's problems became public. A lot of esteemed people just had no idea what to make of him.

His contributions are more meaningful because of what followed in the 1990s, but James was a huge figure before that.

Again, not really. The community of people who had been exposed to James was still *relatively* small. James had a towering reputation within that community, true (as did Pete Palmer), but their impact within the MSM was almost non-existent. Without r.s.bb.a, and then Baseball Prospectus, James would (IMO) still be a footnote to history.

-- MWE

The only flaw is that the budding of the romance between Janet Leigh and Frank Sinatra is awfully forced. But it's so incidental to the movie that it doesn't interfere.

The first time I saw the movie I agreed with you. Since then someone suggested that it's because she's not really supposed to be a romantic interest, she's Sinatra's handler" -- he's been programmed too -- and I've found that if I watch it with that theory in mind, the "forced" nature of their romance seems more palatable. (In particular, the conversation on the train is fairly surreal if it's not subliminal coding).

Robert, thanks -- that does make sense. I'll listen carefully to the conversation on the train the next time.

But I also wonder if some of the acrimony against someone like Ted Williams from the Boston press came from his taking a walk instead of hitting away.....


It did, yes. Williams found himself defending his propensity for walks a lot; he always explained that if he extended his strike zone to avoid walks it would eventually come back to bite him as a hitter.

It's remarkable that TW had enough strength of character to do things his way, but surely other talented baseball players adapted their playing style to the expectations of their time, which is precisely my point....

(again, it's clear that we known TODAY - and obviously, ever since James and co. started looking into the issue - that players with high OBP and SLG were better than players with different hitting profiles. HOWEVER, my point is that the players AT THE TIME did not know this, and it somehow seems unfair to me to diss or dismiss players using TODAY's POV due to their playing in accordance with the preevalent playing style of THEIR DAY).

James had a towering reputation within that community, true (as did Pete Palmer), but their impact within the MSM was almost non-existent.

While your original comments about why James being a seminal figure, footnote in history, etc. are correct, James did have an immediate, albeit negative effect on the MSM. James and the Elias Sports Bureau engaged in a bitter feud over stats, and Elias tried to squelch James by flooding the world with splits, most which were meaningless. However, the MSM, particularly television, gobbled and regurgitated those stats with gleeful abandon, which quickly led to a backlash so severe that James walked away for a while, emabarrassed at what he helped begat.

Without r.s.bb.a, and then Baseball Prospectus, James would (IMO) still be a footnote to history.

-- MWE

Would there be a Baseball Prospectus if not for James? I guess, with personal computers becoming available in the 80s, a sabrmetric revolution was inevitable - but you forget what really separated James from Palmer and a few earlier guys- he made the best-seller list year after year with the Abstracts- his audience was larger than any earlier Sabr pioneer and it skewed young, and many baseball writers NOW who were in their teens or earlier 20s in the 80s actually bought and read his books.

It's remarkable that TW had enough strength of character to do things his way

I think for Ted doing it someone else's way was not an option.

Seriously- many athletes- for better or worse, have the "strength of character to do things" their way- of course if it's not working, management refers to such players as "uncoachable".

Yes!! I HATE that! In the second game of the playoffs, MLB thinks that everybody is hitting .000, .250, or .500. It's madness! I can at least interpret full-season Triple Crown stats, but who really cares if a guy happened to go 1-for-4 in the first game of the World Series.

I would like to add to the complaints batting average w/RISP during the playoffs. SHUT UP JOE BUCK.

I think for Ted doing it someone else's way was not an option.

Seriously- many athletes- for better or worse, have the "strength of character to do things" their way- of course if it's not working, management refers to such players as "uncoachable".

Well, if that's the case, how come baseball players are changing / have changed their way of hitting to reflect today's more OBP friendly style?

(perhaps there's been a change all the way down to the lowest levels in baseball which happened while I wasn't looking in the 80s or 90s, but I would think players who are in the majors today learned to play baseball in a manner which was in accordance with what is in vogue in the 80s and early 90s, which was pre chicks-dig-the-long-ball. And yet some managed to change that style and succeed....).

I would like to add to the complaints batting average w/RISP during the playoffs.

Much like the 2007 season was the year of MSM spouting how every team needed/got back/lost its "swagger".

The 2008 season will forever be known for every damn team/anouncers complaining about their "RISP" numbers.

HEY, THE OFFENSE WAS DOWN A TICK...ergo.

Well, if that's the case, how come baseball players are changing / have changed their way of hitting to reflect today's more OBP friendly style?

Sure a lot of players are adapting their style of hitting, but there are still numerous examples of players who aren't. Jose Guillen, Garret Anderson, Mike Jacobs, among others have all been criticized for there lack of walks, but have not changed their style at all.

The balance is probably somewhere between hard-headedness and the difficulty of pitch recognition. Not every player has the ability to improve their OBP, and not all players are willing to adapt.

Right, not all players can adapt (either because they are hard-headed or because they are hard wired that way).

My point, however, is twofold: (1) I disagree partially with JPWF13's statement that hitting another way is not an option, because clearly, some players have changed their style, as they've realized that they must in order to succeed;

(As a digression, I sort of wonder if part of the reason why some Cuban ball players - and this ties into the mention in Dayan Viciedo thread that Kendry Morales turned into a AAAA player - don't have as much success as they could in the Majors is because the idea of high OBP/SLG style of hitting is completely alien to how they've been brought up and groomed.

Really, there's nothing demographically or ethnically that should make Dominicans much more successful MLB Baseball players than Cubans, especially considering that Dominicans are usually poor - i.e., it's probably not a nutrition issue).

(2) If it is possible for at least some players to change their style of hitting depending on the whims of the period, then that buttresses my point that it's somewhat unfair to dismiss the exploits of players from a different era who played according to the prevalent standards of their day for not being successful as per the standards of our day and age.....

I would like to add to the complaints batting average w/RISP during the playoffs.

And is there anything dumber than the chart next to the hitter that has "Cold zone, hot zone and HOT HOT zone"???

And is there anything dumber than the chart next to the hitter that has "Cold zone, hot zone and HOT HOT zone"???

The Fox obsession with animated fighting robots?

The Fox obsession with animated fighting robots?

Totally. Don't we have the technology to have actual fighting robots by now? Animated fighting robots are lame.

;-)

Totally. Don't we have the technology to have actual fighting robots by now? Animated fighting robots are lame.

Did you ever watch "Robot Wars". It was even worse than animated fighting robots. It was just a game of who could build a wedge which rode closest to the ground. If I'm stuck choosing between the two, I'll take the animated ones.

Did you ever watch "Robot Wars". It was even worse than animated fighting robots. It was just a game of who could build a wedge which rode closest to the ground. If I'm stuck choosing between the two, I'll take the animated ones.

Yeah, but that was because of the stupid rules they had for the robots. No projectiles, no flamethrowers, etc. Remove those rules about what you can put on the robots, and it becomes a whole lot more interesting.

Did you ever watch "Robot Wars". It was even worse than animated fighting robots. It was just a game of who could build a wedge which rode closest to the ground. If I'm stuck choosing between the two, I'll take the animated ones.

Yeah, it had promise, but the wedge thing did suck. I always thought that if you built a "hammer-bot" with a ten-pound sledge as the hammer, you could have ended that wedge fad real quick.

My point, however, is twofold: (1) I disagree partially with JPWF13's statement that hitting another way is not an option,

I disagree that I said that- I said it was not an option for Ted Williams- I then said that "many athletes" insist on doing it their own way- and if it doesn't work they get the "uncoachable" tag - most athletes don't get that label BTW.

Also a player may be stubborn and resistant to coaching- but it doesn't mean he won't experiment
- even the guys who don't follow direction from a coach will experiment and modify their approach on their own- the Sean Burroughs- the guys who will not alter their approach no matter what- even to the point of ruining their careers are very rare.

(perhaps there's been a change all the way down to the lowest levels in baseball which happened while I wasn't looking in the 80s or 90s, but I would think players who are in the majors today learned to play baseball in a manner which was in accordance with what is in vogue in the 80s and early 90s, which was pre chicks-dig-the-long-ball.

Growing up in Long Island I had a little league coach, ex minor league pitcher, who was insistent that batters try to work the count- he had 13 years olds reading Ted W's book on hitting - claimed MLB batters (this was the 70s)- were not as good as they could/should be because too many were hackers.

HE came of age in the 50s when work the count and drive the ball was in vogue- I always thought that many of the work the count and drive the ball hitters we've seen in the past 15 years were influenced by coaches who remembered the 40s and 50s approach rather than the 60s and 70s approach to hitting. IOW some of these "changes" could simply be cyclical.

James was an entertaining writer with a sense of humor. He cultivated a devout following even amongst those who were not statistical by nature. You deeply underestimate his talent and contributions.

And is there anything dumber than the chart next to the hitter that has "Cold zone, hot zone and HOT HOT zone"???

Eh, I always look at it as inspired by one of the diagrams in Williams's The Science of Hitting. Sure, Fox probably just thinks they're aping what shows up in video games, but that's what it always reminds me of.

Did you ever watch "Robot Wars".

was that a UK thing? In the US there was Battlebots (briefly, on Comedy Central). I completely ignored it, but somehow I think the guys from Mythbusters participated, which makes me wish I had seen it.

was that a UK thing? In the US there was Battlebots (briefly, on Comedy Central). I completely ignored it, but somehow I think the guys from Mythbusters participated, which makes me wish I had seen it.

It may have been a UK thing. In Canada, we get an odd selection of shows and series from both the US and UK, so it's sometimes hard to remember which one came from where (or which one ripped off the other one first). Regardless, I didn't much like either show.

JPWF13,

I tried to convey your point. I did not think it necessary to transcribe it, since it is clear to see above.

As to your coach, sure, it's possible that there were exceptions all along, especially in a country as large as the U.S. However, you mention in your own post that your coach thought that many 70s MLB hitters were hackers, so again, that shows that this was the prevalent POV of that time frame....

James was an entertaining writer with a sense of humor.

I liked the fact that he rather impolitely ripped on players I didn't like to begin with- if he did that to a player I was fond of I might have had different feelings- and stopped reading right then and there.

James would write things like: "Kittle finally got his jockstrap on straight in the second half..."- no other sportswriter back then PUBLISHED writing like that.

He would have non-pro contributors to his Abstracts, non-newspaper writers who would write things like, "why has team A lost 95 games 3 years in a row? I've met the Gm and team President, and this may surprise you, but they are morons, they got their positions through nepotism and cronyism and they know no more and probably less about how to build a winning team than your average fan"

You see sentiments like that on blogs all the time- from callers to sports-radio- from sports radio hosts- but back then? early 80s? It was really a breath of fresh air- my team, the team I watched 100 times a year- was horrificly inept and poorly run until a 1980 change in ownership- no radio announcer/tv announcer or newspaper columnist admitted as such- but James was not shy.

Sports coverage (all media, MSM + blogs and everything else) has become coarser- but more honest- and more useful imho since then

Did you ever watch "Robot Wars". It was even worse than animated fighting robots. It was just a game of who could build a wedge which rode closest to the ground. If I'm stuck choosing between the two, I'll take the animated ones.

Yeah, it had promise, but the wedge thing did suck. I always thought that if you built a "hammer-bot" with a ten-pound sledge as the hammer, you could have ended that wedge fad real quick.

Battlebots had a few "hammer-bots," although they seemed to perform poorly compared to some of the more vanilla wedge-bots. There were a couple of enterprising guys who built spinner-bots that were both effective AND entertaining to watch. Imagine an upside down wok with a few short, thick blades mounted on it, spinning at hundreds of RPM. The spinners were sort of the TTO players of the Battlebots world... they tended to either reduce their opponent to a smoking heap of ruined scrap metal, or they suffered technical failures with hilarious consequences.

Battlebots had a few "hammer-bots," although they seemed to perform poorly compared to some of the more vanilla wedge-bots.

The "Hammer-bots" just never had a stable enough base from which to swing; they were far too likely to flip themselves if they got a good strike in, and they also suffered from a need for too much precision. All the wedge and spinners needed to do was run in to the other guy, whereas the hammers needed to actually aim, which was a very hard task with the crude controls.

Can anyone provide examples of regional networks that display player stats in any kind of innovative way? I have seen OBP listed on NESN. How about announcers that provide context for stats like league averages for OBP, SLG, ERA? Part of the holdup with mainstream acceptance of OBP, SLG etc has to be the lack of familiarity with the normal range of each stat.

It drives me nuts when someone is introduced with 70 RBI without further comment. If it's June 1st that's pretty darn good. 12 HR sounds fairly pedestrian unless you point out the guy was just called up last month etc etc.

NESN once tried to introduce SLOB, but that didn't last a long time.

I've noticed a lot of broadcasts (YES, SNY, ESPN) now include OBP in with BA, HR, and RBI in the basic hitter profiles, probably because the value of walks has gradually gained mainstream acceptance.

how come baseball players are changing / have changed their way of hitting to reflect today's more OBP friendly style?

What's the evidence supporting the contention that baseball players in general "are changing / have changed their way of hitting to reflect today's more OBP friendly style?"

Consider the following two columns of figures. One is the year-by-year MLB walks/game figure for the seasons 1971 thru 1978, and the other is the same figure for the seasons 2001 thru 2008:

3.23 3.25
3.15 3.36
3.37 3.27
3.33 3.34
3.46 3.13
3.20 3.26
3.27 3.31
3.23 3.36

Can you tell which is which? Is there a meaningful difference between the two?

Growing up in Long Island I had a little league coach, ex minor league pitcher, who was insistent that batters try to work the count- he had 13 years olds reading Ted W's book on hitting - claimed MLB batters (this was the 70s)- were not as good as they could/should be because too many were hackers.

HE came of age in the 50s when work the count and drive the ball was in vogue- I always thought that many of the work the count and drive the ball hitters we've seen in the past 15 years were influenced by coaches who remembered the 40s and 50s approach rather than the 60s and 70s approach to hitting. IOW some of these "changes" could simply be cyclical.

Is there a good source somewhere on the history of the theory of hitting? I think this would be a far more fascinating topic than many that are discussed here.