Mark Twain wrote a chapter in a book called Letters from the Earth. The chapter, called Cooper's Prose Style, was a literary criticism of James Fenimore Cooper's The Deerslayer.

I just read an excerpt of that chapter, and it's an excellent piece. Orwell wrote a similarly excellent resource, if a little more long-winded.

But, there's alot to be said to simply producing quality volume. At this point, for me, I'd rather churn out quality, than be meticulous and put out less. I'll guess MGL is in the same boat as I am. (As, I would add, are most people. Writing is tough.)


Part of the quality of your work is in its presentation. It is your right, of course, to prioritize the production of data over the presentation. I agree that good writing is difficult, but my personal experience is that many of the techniques used by the best writers end up saving tremendous time in the long run. That time is saved not only in the writing itself, but in the editing process as well. You may also find that a small amount of attention to a tighter style makes the process of writing less of a chore.

I mean this in a general sense. I've been a little backlogged in my reading queue and The Book hasn't broken in yet, so I can't speak specifically to that writing.

MGL wrote, quite a way back upthread:

What I try and do is educate the manager (fan) about what is relevant and what is not, give some basic rules of thumb, and then let the manager (fan) make a cogent decision, based on what he knows and what is relevant, and the "weights" of those relevant variables. Things traditionally used by managers/fans to justify bunting or not (and other strategies, like the IBB), such as, "We want to put an early run on the board," or, "We have not been scoring runs lately," (or, "We don't want to let so-and-do neat us") by and large are founded on superstition and ignorance (or lack of understanding), and are therefore not generally particularly fruitful in terms of giving the deciding team the best chance to win the game.

I don't think I'm taking that out of context; I think that's an accurate statement of what MGL actually believes to be his responsibility, based on his other writings in this thread and elsewhere. My response to that is what I said before: that if you look at how managers actually use - and don't use - the bunt, it appears as though managers are ALREADY making cogent decisions on when to use it, and don't NEED to be educated about what is relevant and what is not. And nothing that MGL has said leads me to believe otherwise.

I know what MGL concluded about the bunt; I read The Book, I read his comments on this thread. The issue for me isn't what MGL concluded about the bunt (I happen to agree with that conclusion); it's that MGL appears to feel that his analysis is somehow essential to managers in order for them to understand when to order, and when not to order, a bunt. I'm suggesting that's not the case, that managers already know full well that a bunt is not in order except on rare occasions, that they DO take relevant factors into account and balance them more or less appropriately already when deciding that one IS in order, and they do that without reading, or even knowing what's in, The Book. And that's all I'm suggesting.

Now, if MGL's not trying to educate managers, then nothing I've said applies to him, and I apologize for having that impression. It's my belief (FWIW) that most fans and analysts underestimate how much managers actually know about the probabilities attached to given strategies, even if they can't articulate them as well as can MGL, and statistical analysis could serve the cause by focusing more on the choices managers actually make when they have a choice, as opposed to choices that they could theoretically make but mostly don't make.

-- MWE

Nicely said, Mike. Exactly what I think. And you are clearly a better man than I.

The 20-minute interview of MGL by Richard Justice.

Requires Flash.

***

Gambling Rent: thanks for the suggestions. Some have been implemented, while one ("puke green") was reversed after reader feedback.