Slashdot Mirror

I'm surprised I don't see more on /.; baseball depends heavily on a very controlled environment (batter vs pitcher) and is accessible to extensive statistical analysis. For those interested, I recommend Baseball Prospectus, Baseball Think Factory, the Society for American Baseball Research (SABR), and the writings of Bill James, the great modern popularizer of the statistical analysis of baseball (I think of him as the Bruce Schneier of baseball -- very insightful, clear analysis).

/. has enough problems, it doesn't need to become Professor Frink's crew hanging out in the back of Moe's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MoneyBART

^ ...everyone cared so much about the Banksy couch gag that no one watched the episode :P

This is pretty funny. If we were talking about Halo, we wouldn't see so many naive claims and theories, and so many of them moderated up! Instead of replying to each one, let me clarify a few points:

A major league batter knows the base he'll likely reach as soon as he knows where the ball will land. Having seen many thousands of hits, he can make a pretty good judgement pretty quickly. I've merely watched the games, and I can tell you well before the ball lands. It's all done without any math or calculations, if you can believe it, just rules of thumb based on experience:
  * Over the center-fielder's head is a triple
  * Reaching the wall elsewhere: a double
  * Doesn't get by the outfielders: a single.

There are variables from that 'baseline': The defense could make a play on another baserunner, giving the batter the chance to get another base. Fielding mistakes, and sometimes a hard hit, a very fast/slow runner, or a very good/bad arm can make a difference of a base, but it's rare.

For the other question, I really don't know for sure. Baserunners are regularly outside the baselines, but I've rarely seen a baserunner go that far out unless he was avoiding a tag, taking out a fielder in a double-play, or over-running first base. But they sometimes round bases pretty widely without being called out. The rules are more complicated than they appear and the umps have discretion. I don't know for sure, but I doubt they'd be called out unless they were avoiding a tag or interfering with a fielder. I wouldn't depend on an answer that didn't come from an umpire.

I'm just a long-time avid baseball fan. I'm surprised I don't see more on /.; baseball depends heavily on a very controlled environment (batter vs pitcher) and is accessible to extensive statistical analysis. For those interested, I recommend Baseball Prospectus, Baseball Think Factory, the Society for American Baseball Research (SABR), and the writings of Bill James, the great modern popularizer of the statistical analysis of baseball (I think of him as the Bruce Schneier of baseball -- very insightful, clear analysis). Now, back to your regularly scheduled News for Nerds ...

According to this page

http://roadsidephotos.sabr.org/baseball/name.htm

you're wrong there. It was originally named the "Championship of the World" and this was then shortened to "World Championship Series", and again to "World Series". Your way would make much more sense, though.

This is total bullshit.

First off, no one has been able to predict baseball results with great accuracy, and it's not for lack of trying. There's a whole cottage industry built around baseball statistics, populated by fans and professional scouts alike, and there's been some major innovation. But there's so much chance involved, and so many factors that we just can't measure (injuries, weather, slumps, etc.), that I don't think it's even possible to generate reliable predictions. Being more right than wrong five years out of six isn't all that impressive; common sense can usually net you at least three division winners a year.

As other posters have mentioned, 110 wins would not be a safe prediction for any team in history. Even for a very good, well funded team expected to be in the running, such as the Yankees or Red Sox, a reasonable expectation is 95-100 wins per season. 110 happens, but it's rare. Especially in the somewhat competitive AL East, where the Sox and Yankees reside. Most of the big win totals come from teams that utterly dominate their divisions. (About half of MLB games are intra-division.)

Furthermore, Burkiet's "surprising findings" aren't breaking news at all. I only dabble in Sabermetrics, but even I know that batting order has been proven to not really matter all that much, and that the third slot is where your best power hitter goes. (That last bit is actually conventional baseball wisdom, and has been around forever.)

If you're interested in learning more about statistical analysis of baseball, ignore the publicity-seeking academics and look to the Society for American Baseball Research, or pick up anything written by Bill James. Michael Lewis's Moneyball is also a good place to start.

"One baseball myth that just won't die is that the "World Series" was named for the New York World newspaper, which supposedly sponsored the earliest contests. It didn't, and it wasn't.

In fact, the postseason series between the AL and NL champs was originally known as the "Championship of the World" or "World's Championship Series." That was shortened through usage to "World's Series" and finally to "World Series.""

The whole issue of who is juicing and who is not now puts into question all of the records and stats assocaited with Baseball. Does McGuire's HR record still count or not? I'm sure that there are plenty of Sabermaticians who will debate that for quite some time ...

I like sports games. I like them a lot, and I don't consider myself to be an idiot.

Regrettably, there seems to be this elitist and narrow-minded opinion among many in the "gamer" (I despise that word) community that FPS and RTS games are the pinnacle of gaming's evolution, and that all other genres are somehow beneath them. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Virtually all popular sports are amazingly complex blends of strategy and skill. An astonishing level of depth exists in games like football. I'd go so far as to say that the level of intelligence and forethought required to coach a football team (electronic or otherwise) far outstrips the marginally functional level of brain activity required to build up a Zerg army and send it rushing towards your opponent, who is most likely doing the exact same thing. Even seemingly simplistic games like baseball have evolved very strong strategic components. (Look at some of the work that SABR has done.)

So, in summation, you're an idiot who has no idea what he's talking about, and, most likely, IHBT. Ah well...