Individual Poster Page

See copyright notice at the bottom of this page.

List of All Posters

Sabermetrics Crackpot Index (August 29, 2003)

Posted 12:59 p.m., August 29, 2003 (#11) - Tom S
  The (sabremetric) Crackpot Index
original physics index by John Baez

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:

1. A -5 point starting credit.

2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.

7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

8. 5 points for each mention of "Billy Bean", "J. R. Riccardi" or "Bob Neyer".

9. 10 points for each claim that OPS+ is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.

12. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.

13. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.

14. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.

15. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".

16. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.

17. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts careers correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

18. 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Voros or claim that DIPS is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

19. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".

20. 20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index, e.g. saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Billy Bean" in item 8.

21. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a SABR award.

22. 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Bill James, or claim that Runs Created or Win Shares are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

23. 20 points for every use of baseball fiction works or movies as if they were fact.

24. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

25. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".

26. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".

27. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Neyer was a closet opponent of Win Shares, as deduced by reading between the lines in his column.)

28. 30 points for suggesting that Branch Rickey, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

29. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an Major League team (without good evidence).

30. 30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.

31. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

32. 40 points for claiming that the "baseball establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

33. 40 points for comparing yourself to Jackie Robinson, suggesting that a modern-day prejudice is attacking your case, and so on.

34. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day baseball analysis will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about ESPN specials in which writers who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

35. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.