Slashdot Mirror

Baseball especially is jam-packed full of stats, and most kids that age are into baseball (or some other sport that makes use of statistics). You won't get into the complex stuff like permutations or z-scores, but it's a good way to teach the simple stuff like averages, difference between expectation (probability) and prediction, and some of the wackier stuff that can arise from just those simple stats like the Pirates beating the Yankees in the 1960 World Series even though the Yankees destroyed the Pirates in almost every individual stat.

What? You thought every teaching tool had to be online?

As a baseball fan, I have read literally dozens of articles and hundreds of message boards rants on this subject. If you're interested, a little wading through Baseball Think Factory will allow you to relive the endless re-hashings at your leisure. More generally, this sort of statistical talk is very common among a certain segment of baseball fandom, and is (as has been mentioned before) the milieu from which Nate Silver emerged.

What's interesting about this specific issue is that Cabrera vs. Trout has been painted as a traditionalists vs. stat-heads vote, but an argument for Trout can be made with no reference to advance statistics. It goes like this:

Trout's traditional "slash line" (batting average, on-base percentage, and slugging percentage) is very similar to Cabrera's. Cabrera hit for more power, but otherwise they are nearly equal. Trout's home ballpark is harder to hit in than Cabrera's. Trout led the league in stolen bases with 49, Cabrera had 4. Cabrera grounded into 28 double plays, most in the league. Trout grounded into 7. Cabrera is a poor defensive player, Trout is an outstanding defensive player. Trout's team even had a better record than Cabrera's, even though Cabrera's Tigers made the playoffs and Trout's Angels didn't.

Nothing in that argument requires anything more complicated than the division required to work out batting average and the like. The fact that Trout's candidacy has been painted as just the result of statistical mumbo jumbo is ridiculous.

(It should be pointed out that there is a lot of mumbo jumbo in baseball's defensive statistics. They are not at all mature yet, and are heavily influenced by very subjective inputs. This is part of why I prefer the non-statistical argument for Trout. When someone says that Trout's glove was worth 2.1 wins above a replacement player (the number given at Baseball Reference he is speaking with a false precision. Silver, it should be noted, doesn't fall into this trap, and I should say that Sean Foreman at Baseball Reference doesn't believe that his 2.1 win number is anything more than an educated guess.)

A basement dweller hears Schilling's name and remembers that only 4.9% of the runs that Schilling allowed over his career were unearned, which is the lowest percentage for any pitcher with a long career. We, er, *they* know that this means that ERA undervalues Schilling, because preventing unearned runs is a skill -- you do it by striking out batters, not walking anyone, and getting batters to hit fly balls rather than ground balls.

Yeah, that's way more useful than being able to identify the classes of various starships.

Of course it's not at all useful, which is the great beauty of it. Baseball probably has more nerd fans than any other American sport, in large part because it is an incredible generator of numerical data. Just look at Schilling's page at Baseball Reference. Look at all of those beautiful numbers!

A baseball game is largely a series of discrete events with a relatively limited number of possible outcomes. A typical baseball game has maybe 250-300 pitches thrown in it, each one of which has a measurable outcome that can be described in a relatively small number of ways. Almost every plate appearance results in one of these 27 outcomes. We have box scores recording most or all of this information going back to 1918, and various more basic levels of data back to 1871.

You can probably see where this is leading. Lots of data compiled over many years plus a relatively simple array of outcomes means that baseball is extremely well suited to the statistically inclined. There is a vast well of data to mine, you can create mathematical models of the game relatively easily, and, most importantly, many of these models do a decent job of describing what actually occurs on the field. And so now we have the vast and ever-expanding field of Sabermetrics, full of wonderful things like minor league equivalencies and extensive studies of the effects of a catcher's ability to "frame" a pitch. It's even possible to be a knowledgeable baseball fan and *never* watch a game or listen to one on the radio, but instead just look at the numbers every day. Almost like in The Matrix.

Compare this to other team sports, like football (either kind) or basketball. In them, numerous people are involved in every play and you have no good way of recording this in a way you can put on a spreadsheet. You can watch a soccer game and see that the goal was scored because a player who never touched the ball made a great run that confused the defense. But it's very difficult to record this information in a form that is friendly to data analysis. Or think of American football -- how do you make a good statistical record of the play of an offensive lineman? It's very difficult. In baseball, the fundamental interaction is between the pitcher throwing the ball and the batter trying to hit it. It's almost binary, and everything else on the field is vastly less important. It's a game for numbers, it's a game for nerds.

Could someone explain to a non-sports person why steroids (which is what I assume you are talking about) is any different from taking vitamin supplements, diets planned by professional nutritionists, sports drink, specially designed running shoes, etc. Who cares? If it's not "fair" just allow everyone to take steroids.

A good question that's been discussed by many in sports. Here's my understanding and take:

First, technically there are other drugs besides steriods; Human Growth Hormone (HGH), for example. I think the proper all-encompassing term is performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs).

1) The non-PEDs that you mention haven't significantly altered performance. Take baseball for example: Before PEDs, in the 75 year modern history of the home run, once someone hit 61 HRs (Roger Maris in 1961) and once someone hit 60 (Babe Ruth, 1927). Nobody else hit 60 in all those seasons by all those players. In the 4 years from 1998 to 2001, players hit 63, 64, 65, 66, 70, and 73 home runs! Look at this list and note how many top HR single seasons occurred during the PED-era, and note that the trend stopped when drug testing began. (Many other records were set during the PED-era, HRs are just an easy example; the greatest individual hitting season ever and greatest individual pitching season ever both occurred (if you ignore the cheating) during the PED era).

2) Sports are interesting as a contest of physical ability and effort, not of chemistry. That may be arbitrary, and maybe the Chemistry Olympics would be more interesting to Slashdotters, but physical competition is what is being advertised.

3) PEDs involve health risks. Athletes are highly competitive by nature, and the difference between a good and bad season can be a multi-million dollar contract or the end of a career, being a minor-leaguer or making the big time. Unless PEDs are regulated, athletes are put in a position where they have to take greater and greater health risks, or lose.

• "[...] Spirit backed up over Gertrude Weise [...]"
• "Spirit acquired full color 13-filter images of Gertrude Weise [...]"

• "[...] Spirit backed up over Gertrude Weise [...]"
• "Spirit acquired full color 13-filter images of Gertrude Weise [...]"

"It was half of a joke, half reality after the 2002 player strike. Some fans who had season tickets would go to games and take a cardboard cutout of a fan that said,..."

"Very true. However, if I could pocket $600k a week with a half full ballpark of 30,000 people, I would not even worry about trying to collect $10 a week or month from some geek that wants to read about RBIs, errors, and homeruns. All of this data is freely available anyway. Go here: http://www.baseball-reference.com/ Sure, they probably make a modest amount of cash off of the niche stats market, nothing on order of $600k a week. If you think its worth it, go ahead. $600k is nothing to sneeze at."

"Huh? I can be as openminded under my bridge all I want, it probably doesn't pay much. To get paid for things you need 2 things. 1) skill at doing something 2) people have to like it, so they will pay you money."

How do the fans go on strike exactly?

It was half of a joke, half reality after the 2002 player strike. Some fans who had season tickets would go to games and take a cardboard cutout of a fan that said, "Fan on strike". More info http://www.eworldwire.com/headlines/majornewswire/ sportsfansofamerica.htm

Different people have different interests. And furthermore, this is not an XOR situation. You can go to the games and still analyze statistics on your own time. Your comments continue to show that you're not a fan of the game. Stop criticizing people who are for the way in which their interest manifests. Again, different people have different interests.

Very true. However, if I could pocket $600k a week with a half full ballpark of 30,000 people, I would not even worry about trying to collect $10 a week or month from some geek that wants to read about RBIs, errors, and homeruns. All of this data is freely available anyway. Go here: http://www.baseball-reference.com/ Sure, they probably make a modest amount of cash off of the niche stats market, nothing on order of $600k a week. If you think its worth it, go ahead. $600k is nothing to sneeze at.

So open-minded and accepting of people who enjoy different things than you, I see. I believe you should get back to hiding beneath your bridge.

Huh? I can be as openminded under my bridge all I want, it probably doesn't pay much. To get paid for things you need 2 things. 1) skill at doing something 2) people have to like it, so they will pay you money.

Linus is a millionaire off of free software. He has 1 and 2.

A janitor has 1 and 2 also. His skill is less, anybody can do it. If you do a shitty job or don't show up or even if you piss them off, janitor is out of a job.

I never heard of that band, but now he's got a solo career going. ROCK ON BIG MIKE!

But, he's been a real busy guy, he started out way back in the 80's (1880's!) playing baseball and even managed the Brooklyn Bridegrooms who would become the Brooklyn, then Los Angeles of Los Angeles Dodgers.

I never heard of that band, but now he's got a solo career going. ROCK ON BIG MIKE!

But, he's been a real busy guy, he started out way back in the 80's (1880's!) playing baseball and even managed the Brooklyn Bridegrooms who would become the Brooklyn, then Los Angeles of Los Angeles Dodgers.

I don't know about winning "big games," but that is the only plausible explaination for Kenny Rogers' continued employment.

Boston hasn't had a losing season since 1997.

According to baseball-reference.com, he was a Hall of Famer who won 314 games. I think he got past that school shit pretty well.

Good point. Of course, I could have used Eddie Cicotte as a comparable, given that his score is a 42. Mind you, the fact that his stellar career as a pitcher for the Chicago White Sox came to an abrupt end in 1920 may well be a subtle hint as to why he isn't in the Hall of Fame.

• Was Ryan a great pitcher? No. Was he a spectacular pitcher who belongs in the HOF? Absolutely. Just don't confuse him with Cy Young, Walter Johnson, or even Roger Clemens.

Who was comparing him to any of those pitchers? You were comparing him unfavorably to Schilling and I disagreed.

I don't think most experts are that impressed by win/loss record as that has so much to do with the teams around you. Note the relative lack of HOFers on the career W/L% list, for example. Note also Schilling is missing from this list.

For Ryan's long career, he played on a lot of mediocre teams.

To his credit, Ryan does have some great records to be proud of. Like, hits allowed, innings pitched and Hits allowed/9IP. The book is still being written on Schilling, but will he hold any carreer records in any category when it's done?

• Was Ryan a great pitcher? No. Was he a spectacular pitcher who belongs in the HOF? Absolutely. Just don't confuse him with Cy Young, Walter Johnson, or even Roger Clemens.

Who was comparing him to any of those pitchers? You were comparing him unfavorably to Schilling and I disagreed.

I don't think most experts are that impressed by win/loss record as that has so much to do with the teams around you. Note the relative lack of HOFers on the career W/L% list, for example. Note also Schilling is missing from this list.

For Ryan's long career, he played on a lot of mediocre teams.

To his credit, Ryan does have some great records to be proud of. Like, hits allowed, innings pitched and Hits allowed/9IP. The book is still being written on Schilling, but will he hold any carreer records in any category when it's done?

• Was Ryan a great pitcher? No. Was he a spectacular pitcher who belongs in the HOF? Absolutely. Just don't confuse him with Cy Young, Walter Johnson, or even Roger Clemens.

Who was comparing him to any of those pitchers? You were comparing him unfavorably to Schilling and I disagreed.

I don't think most experts are that impressed by win/loss record as that has so much to do with the teams around you. Note the relative lack of HOFers on the career W/L% list, for example. Note also Schilling is missing from this list.

For Ryan's long career, he played on a lot of mediocre teams.

To his credit, Ryan does have some great records to be proud of. Like, hits allowed, innings pitched and Hits allowed/9IP. The book is still being written on Schilling, but will he hold any carreer records in any category when it's done?

Baseball Reference's Hall of Fame Monitor has him at 127 points already; no eligible pitcher of the modern era with more than 130 points is not in the Hall of Fame (well, Lee Smith, with 136 points, isn't in yet, but it's a fair bet that he'll get in before his eligibility is up, and he's a reliever anyway).

His score of 33 on the Black Ink Test puts him in the company of Juan Marichal (34), Three Finger Brown (35) and Old Hoss Radbourn (35); once again, every eligible pitcher of the modern era with a Black Ink score of 33 or higher is in the Hall (heck, if it weren't for Sudden Sam McDowell at 32, and Ron Guidry at 29, we could run that number all the way down to Hippo Vaughn and Dolph Luque at 27).

The Gray Ink Test isn't quite as kind to him, mainly because it is kinder to a lot of other pitchers (interestingly, it's the only one of the tests that puts Maddux ahead of Clemens, so I automatically like it). The Gray Ink Test has him at 168, down amongst a lot of weaker Hall of Famers such as Dazzy Vance (171) and Red Faber (161), and a lot of good non-HoFers like Claude Passeau (170) and Allie Reynolds (161). On the other hand, it's a lot easier to pick up additional points on the Gray Ink Test, so it's virtually certain that he'll move up on that list.

Finally, the Hall of Fame Standards Test, calibrated to give an "average" Hall of Famer 50 points, has him way down on the list, at 37 (along with Mickey Lolich and Dennis Martinez). That's still higher than Hall of Famers such as Herb Pennock (36), Eppa Rixey (35), and Hal Newhouser (34); but it's lower than Luis Tiant (41), Carl Mays (41), and Babe Adams (39). Still, looking at that list, most of the players ahead of him are either (a) not eligible, (b) pre-lively ball, (c) in the Hall, or (d) ought to be in the Hall (i.e., Bert Blyleven at 50, Jim Kaat and Tommy John at 44).

Of these indicators, the Hall of Fame Monitor numbers are probably the best known and most trusted, and those numbers say that he's already pretty much a lock. Give him a couple of pretty godd years with a pretty good team, and he'll be a sure thing.

Baseball Reference's Hall of Fame Monitor has him at 127 points already; no eligible pitcher of the modern era with more than 130 points is not in the Hall of Fame (well, Lee Smith, with 136 points, isn't in yet, but it's a fair bet that he'll get in before his eligibility is up, and he's a reliever anyway).

His score of 33 on the Black Ink Test puts him in the company of Juan Marichal (34), Three Finger Brown (35) and Old Hoss Radbourn (35); once again, every eligible pitcher of the modern era with a Black Ink score of 33 or higher is in the Hall (heck, if it weren't for Sudden Sam McDowell at 32, and Ron Guidry at 29, we could run that number all the way down to Hippo Vaughn and Dolph Luque at 27).

The Gray Ink Test isn't quite as kind to him, mainly because it is kinder to a lot of other pitchers (interestingly, it's the only one of the tests that puts Maddux ahead of Clemens, so I automatically like it). The Gray Ink Test has him at 168, down amongst a lot of weaker Hall of Famers such as Dazzy Vance (171) and Red Faber (161), and a lot of good non-HoFers like Claude Passeau (170) and Allie Reynolds (161). On the other hand, it's a lot easier to pick up additional points on the Gray Ink Test, so it's virtually certain that he'll move up on that list.

Finally, the Hall of Fame Standards Test, calibrated to give an "average" Hall of Famer 50 points, has him way down on the list, at 37 (along with Mickey Lolich and Dennis Martinez). That's still higher than Hall of Famers such as Herb Pennock (36), Eppa Rixey (35), and Hal Newhouser (34); but it's lower than Luis Tiant (41), Carl Mays (41), and Babe Adams (39). Still, looking at that list, most of the players ahead of him are either (a) not eligible, (b) pre-lively ball, (c) in the Hall, or (d) ought to be in the Hall (i.e., Bert Blyleven at 50, Jim Kaat and Tommy John at 44).

Of these indicators, the Hall of Fame Monitor numbers are probably the best known and most trusted, and those numbers say that he's already pretty much a lock. Give him a couple of pretty godd years with a pretty good team, and he'll be a sure thing.

Baseball Reference's Hall of Fame Monitor has him at 127 points already; no eligible pitcher of the modern era with more than 130 points is not in the Hall of Fame (well, Lee Smith, with 136 points, isn't in yet, but it's a fair bet that he'll get in before his eligibility is up, and he's a reliever anyway).

His score of 33 on the Black Ink Test puts him in the company of Juan Marichal (34), Three Finger Brown (35) and Old Hoss Radbourn (35); once again, every eligible pitcher of the modern era with a Black Ink score of 33 or higher is in the Hall (heck, if it weren't for Sudden Sam McDowell at 32, and Ron Guidry at 29, we could run that number all the way down to Hippo Vaughn and Dolph Luque at 27).

The Gray Ink Test isn't quite as kind to him, mainly because it is kinder to a lot of other pitchers (interestingly, it's the only one of the tests that puts Maddux ahead of Clemens, so I automatically like it). The Gray Ink Test has him at 168, down amongst a lot of weaker Hall of Famers such as Dazzy Vance (171) and Red Faber (161), and a lot of good non-HoFers like Claude Passeau (170) and Allie Reynolds (161). On the other hand, it's a lot easier to pick up additional points on the Gray Ink Test, so it's virtually certain that he'll move up on that list.

Finally, the Hall of Fame Standards Test, calibrated to give an "average" Hall of Famer 50 points, has him way down on the list, at 37 (along with Mickey Lolich and Dennis Martinez). That's still higher than Hall of Famers such as Herb Pennock (36), Eppa Rixey (35), and Hal Newhouser (34); but it's lower than Luis Tiant (41), Carl Mays (41), and Babe Adams (39). Still, looking at that list, most of the players ahead of him are either (a) not eligible, (b) pre-lively ball, (c) in the Hall, or (d) ought to be in the Hall (i.e., Bert Blyleven at 50, Jim Kaat and Tommy John at 44).

Of these indicators, the Hall of Fame Monitor numbers are probably the best known and most trusted, and those numbers say that he's already pretty much a lock. Give him a couple of pretty godd years with a pretty good team, and he'll be a sure thing.

Baseball Reference's Hall of Fame Monitor has him at 127 points already; no eligible pitcher of the modern era with more than 130 points is not in the Hall of Fame (well, Lee Smith, with 136 points, isn't in yet, but it's a fair bet that he'll get in before his eligibility is up, and he's a reliever anyway).

His score of 33 on the Black Ink Test puts him in the company of Juan Marichal (34), Three Finger Brown (35) and Old Hoss Radbourn (35); once again, every eligible pitcher of the modern era with a Black Ink score of 33 or higher is in the Hall (heck, if it weren't for Sudden Sam McDowell at 32, and Ron Guidry at 29, we could run that number all the way down to Hippo Vaughn and Dolph Luque at 27).

The Gray Ink Test isn't quite as kind to him, mainly because it is kinder to a lot of other pitchers (interestingly, it's the only one of the tests that puts Maddux ahead of Clemens, so I automatically like it). The Gray Ink Test has him at 168, down amongst a lot of weaker Hall of Famers such as Dazzy Vance (171) and Red Faber (161), and a lot of good non-HoFers like Claude Passeau (170) and Allie Reynolds (161). On the other hand, it's a lot easier to pick up additional points on the Gray Ink Test, so it's virtually certain that he'll move up on that list.

Finally, the Hall of Fame Standards Test, calibrated to give an "average" Hall of Famer 50 points, has him way down on the list, at 37 (along with Mickey Lolich and Dennis Martinez). That's still higher than Hall of Famers such as Herb Pennock (36), Eppa Rixey (35), and Hal Newhouser (34); but it's lower than Luis Tiant (41), Carl Mays (41), and Babe Adams (39). Still, looking at that list, most of the players ahead of him are either (a) not eligible, (b) pre-lively ball, (c) in the Hall, or (d) ought to be in the Hall (i.e., Bert Blyleven at 50, Jim Kaat and Tommy John at 44).

Of these indicators, the Hall of Fame Monitor numbers are probably the best known and most trusted, and those numbers say that he's already pretty much a lock. Give him a couple of pretty godd years with a pretty good team, and he'll be a sure thing.

Career losses for a pitcher.

Career W/L % leaders (note the lack of Nolan Ryan in this list...)

OK, so Nolan Ryan pitched for a very long time. And he was hard to get a hit off of. But he didn't win much as he never ranked higher than fourth in wins, and never higher than seventh in winning percentage.

Strikeouts and no-hitters don't matter when you walk 5 batters and game and don't win,.

Was Ryan a great pitcher? No. Was he a spectacular pitcher who belongs in the HOF? Absolutely. Just don't confuse him with Cy Young, Walter Johnson, or even Roger Clemens.

Career losses for a pitcher.

Career W/L % leaders (note the lack of Nolan Ryan in this list...)

OK, so Nolan Ryan pitched for a very long time. And he was hard to get a hit off of. But he didn't win much as he never ranked higher than fourth in wins, and never higher than seventh in winning percentage.

Strikeouts and no-hitters don't matter when you walk 5 batters and game and don't win,.

Was Ryan a great pitcher? No. Was he a spectacular pitcher who belongs in the HOF? Absolutely. Just don't confuse him with Cy Young, Walter Johnson, or even Roger Clemens.

Career losses for a pitcher.

Career W/L % leaders (note the lack of Nolan Ryan in this list...)

OK, so Nolan Ryan pitched for a very long time. And he was hard to get a hit off of. But he didn't win much as he never ranked higher than fourth in wins, and never higher than seventh in winning percentage.

Strikeouts and no-hitters don't matter when you walk 5 batters and game and don't win,.

Was Ryan a great pitcher? No. Was he a spectacular pitcher who belongs in the HOF? Absolutely. Just don't confuse him with Cy Young, Walter Johnson, or even Roger Clemens.

• And Schilling's a much better pitcher than Ryan.

Of course, these statistics aside, Ryan's No Hitter record combined with his longevity near the top make him a shoe-in for the HOF, things that Schilling will find hard to match. Ryan was a shoe-in, though, so Schilling could get in, too.

You might want to check out cricket, www.cricinfo.org and Wisden for some serious stats.

Perhaps it is you who needs to be enlightened. A brief look at the stats glossary at Baseball Prospectus might show you just how far out the geekier baseball fans are willing to go. Some other sites of interest include Baseball Reference, which contains complete statistics for every player ever to appear in a major league game, and Retrosheet, an organization attempting to gather historical play-by-play information on every game in MLB history. The detail put into these things is frightening.

FWIW, power pitchers like Schilling tend to last longer than finesse pitchers - think Nolan Ryan here. And Schilling's a much better pitcher than Ryan. Schilling compares favorable rate-wise to Roger Clemens, who's a lock for the HOF. Schilling's only problem is the significant time he missed to injury - not uncommon at all for a pitcher.

Read this for a better perspective on Bond's possible steroid use.

Roger Maris's HR totals go like this:

14, 28, 16, 39, 61, 33, 23, 26, 8, 13, 9, 5

Thanks to baseball-reference.com.

Oh, yeah, 1961 was an expansion year. Nothing like a journeyman whacking away at diluted pitching to break Ruth's single-season HR record...

PS - Barry Bonds is about the same size and weight as Brett Favre...

Sammy Sosa is 7th on the all-time list of career strikouts; and 2nd among active players.

Read about it here.

I'd say XML is analogous to that: perhaps right behind C# among active "players?"

I realize this is slashdot, but maybe there's other stats geeks out there that like baseball. Baseball-Reference is hands down the best stats site out there. And it's based on the Lahman database which is freely available (newest version coming soon).

-Gabe

What did this guy ever do to you?

I aim to produce a couple or more "one more turn" style strategy games played in-browser. I have two ideas in mind, one centering around baseball; the other, politics.

First, I have a database of all major league players, managers, teams, ballparks, etc. that I found at baseball-reference.com. From this, I believe I can put together several types of fantasy baseball games involving historical leagues, all-time leagues, salary cap leagues, tournaments, etc.

Lots of variations of one game, baseball. A game-play engine can probably evolve in open source, and the rest of the implementation can be behind the scenes. There's a wealth of fantasy baseball games out there, but I think baseball enthusiasts always enjoy new opportunities to try their luck. Second, I'd like to put together a fantasy U.S. Congress. Users would try to build a political career by selecting a branch of government they want to serve in and they set out to earn as much political capital as they can by casting votes for legislation that passes, having posts related to debates modded up, or even selling out to special interests and lobbyists. Users could even trade political capital for votes or vice versa as is the game in Washington, right? This has some value I think as a tool for educators and civics teachers in addition to all of us arm-chair pols. I'm excited by the potential this idea has.

From what I gather, money needs to be a byproduct of the labour of love. And I agree. I just don't want to piss away an opportunity to do something like this for a living (even a meek one) if such an opportunity exists. But first, I need to get something working.

As I said, these will be web-based, in-browser, strategy games. I imagine there will be some use of Java, Perl (mod_perl), SQL database backends. I'm more worried about finding graphic design talent than anything. I can draw shapes in the Gimp, but I doubt that'd get me anywhere.

I have a web site named Teamchemistry.com that I'm going to host these games and their project development on. I'll register the projects with Sourceforge and see what happens. Thanks to everyone for responding.

>"Slashdotted"? It's what Yoggi meant when he said, "No one goes there anymore. It's too busy."

FYI: It's "Yogi", not "Yoggi"...

Yogi Berra

The point of this being that penny-per-page will inaugurate the scam-model that any page worth viewing requires navigating several pages of contentless architecture first.

Sturgeon's law is about 2-sigma (1/22nd non-crap). The Web is probably about 3-sigma (1/333rd non-crap). The Web on 1c/p would be 6-sigma (1/1744278th non-crap).

Alternative example: Baseball-Reference.Com[yeah, there] is shareware online. It doesn't nag about donations, it just makes it clear that it accepts them, and even reports on how it goes. But the information is so thick and clean you feel dead guilty not contributing. I probably cough up more than 1c/p for it in occasional $10 PayPal impulse donations.

Maybe what's needed is a micropayment system where you can click a button on your browser if you feel the page you're viewing was worth a penny. How you'd fund that system's infrastructure I don't know.

It'd have to have an interesting security design, to prevent spoofing and camouflaged payment links (e.g., click inside the link text to pay a penny; click anywhere outside the link text and hear cha-ching.wav and you paid two pennies).

We already have the converse, where you pay if you think the page you want to go to might be interesting, and you're screwed if it isn't. But that's how sales works, and that's evolved over tens of thousands of years. So that's how the net will end up working.

--Blair
"My own little slashback. Cha-ching!"

Only me, the underboss of this holocaust, truly yours, Frank White.

The underboss of this holocaust, truly yours Frank White!

`Viola: The beefier cousin of the violin.'

"Viola, Frank: Left handed starting pitcher who led the Twins to the 1987 World Series"

I'm not sure if micropayments can work very well, but asking for donations can work. For a lot of smallish sites, it only takes a few decent sized donations to keep them afloat. I've donated money to one of my personal favorites because I want to see it stay around. It's not only a very useful site in its area of interest, but IMO also one of the best designed sites I've ever seen and one that I recommend as an example of good use of linking. If everyone would just give a $10 donation to a single site once in a while (instead of $0.10 to a bunch of sites), it would work just fine.