Where have you gone Tom Boswell? (January 7, 2004)
When I was a teenager in the 80s, I held Tom Boswell in the same regard as Bill James and Pete Palmer... a pioneer in looking at stats in a new and better way. Tom Boswell, where have you gone?
(Click Discussion for more.)
Here is what Tom Boswell said, and how I reply:
...more than 45 years ago were understood to be utterly essential. Essential, that is, except when it comes to bronze busts in a certain exclusive upstate New York hamlet.
That's right.
Goose Gossage, Bruce Sutter and all-time save leader Lee Smith -- all of whom absolutely, positively deserve induction --
No. Bruce Sutter doesn't deserve it, unless Andy Messersmith, Ron Guidry and Jose Rijo also deserve it. Goose is borderline, and you can make a case either way. Lee Smith is somewhere between these two. Please go and read this.
How is it possible that nearly 25 starting pitchers who've been active since the late '50s are in the Hall of Fame (or will be as soon as they are eligible) but only three relievers have been enshrined?
Maybe because the really great relievers were left as starters?
...no player in the sport is more central to success than a great closer?
A great closer does have alot of impact, but Maddux, Clemens, RJ, and Pedro are head-and-shoulders above any of them.
Statisticians proved long ago that a blown save does more lingering damage to a team -- precipitates more losing streaks -- than any other event in the sport
Do you not read Primate Studies?
So, avoiding such last inning traumas is indispensable to team success.
This is getting old, fast.
Rule No. 1 for success in modern baseball -- when you get a late-inning lead, be able to close the deal
Rule no 1 is to get on base or prevent the other team from getting on base.
Rule no 2 is to move the runners over, or prevent the other team from moving the runners over.
...how can the entirety of their careers be judged as so inconsequential?
Because they *were* inconsequential for the HOF.
For unfathomable reasons the "save" is seen as a flawed statistic. It isn't.
It is. It's fathomable because there is alot of context around the way to get a save that you have to sift through. The save is about as worthwhile as fielding percentage.
--posted by TangoTiger at 10:42 AM EDT
Posted 11:49 a.m.,
January 7, 2004
(#1) -
Danil
Are you really being fair to Boswell? I'm not convinced he's changed a whole lot. This is the same man who wrote "NOTHING is more important than RBI" (it's in one of his collections, the essay on Cecil Fielder).
He still writes the story well, better than most, but makes the usual choice twixt fact and fancy. I think of Matthew Harrison Brady - "it is you who have left us, by standing in one place".
Posted 12:01 p.m.,
January 7, 2004
(#2) -
David Smyth
I credit Boswell with a great concept in Total Avg. People criticize it because he weights all bases the same, but his real problem was lack of data. If you have all of the bases and all of the outs, they can be weighted equally. If you don't, you have to weight to make up for missing data. Total Avg, in its theoretically complete form, is a real good formula.
Posted 12:17 p.m.,
January 7, 2004
(#3) -
Mark S
Well after Happy Days ended he worked on some movies and TV shows and starred in the Father Dowling Mysteries show for a couple years...Oh you meant Tom Boswell. Never mind.
Posted 8:25 p.m.,
January 7, 2004
(#4) -
Charles Saeger(e-mail)
Statisticians proved long ago that a blown save does more lingering damage to a team -- precipitates more losing streaks -- than any other event in the sport
Has anyone actually studied this? I've wanted to see this study for a long time. Somehow, I really doubt this, especially since teams tend to win about 25% of all Blown Saves anyways.
Posted 10:10 p.m.,
January 7, 2004
(#5) -
MGL
Has anyone actually studied this? I've wanted to see this study for a long time. Somehow, I really doubt this, especially since teams tend to win about 25% of all Blown Saves anyways.
Obviously if there is any correlation, it is with blown saves that end in a loss!
I've never seen any research on that. I do vaguely recall some research I did many years ago which suggested that after a "tough loss," a team does worse than expected in the next game. I wouldn't write this one off, although I admit that I don't know the answer.
Where are these Boswell quotes coming from?
Posted 11:12 p.m.,
January 7, 2004
(#6) -
Rally Monkey
(homepage)
I seem to recall somebody looking at this about the time the Royals traded for Roberto Hernandez, with the theory being that tough losses demoralize a team. I think it was a baseball prospectus study. I can't remember what the conclusion was.
Boswell's article is in the homepage link.
Posted 11:23 p.m.,
January 7, 2004
(#7) -
Tangotiger
If you go to the "Index of Primate Studies" link, you will see two Primate Studies links that deals with the issue of psychological impact, including a study that was done (not by me). That researcher concluded that the theory was unfounded.
I also looked at this issue, and it is unfounded.
Posted 11:27 p.m.,
January 7, 2004
(#8) -
Tangotiger
(homepage)
Here's a quick link.
Posted 1:00 a.m.,
January 8, 2004
(#9) -
MGL
I just re-read one of those studies (comparing the W/L records 1/5/10 days before and after various come-from-behind wins). I remember reading it some time ago. My impressions are:
1) Despite what the author concludes, I think that the sample sizes are too small to conclude ANYTHING.
2) If anything, the "day after" win %'s are much higher than the "5 and 10 days later" win %'s. The author fails to mention this for some reason. He only compares the "after" w%'s to the before w%'s. For some reason the before %'s are much higher than the after %'s, excluding the "one day after" %'s. Either there are other things going on, or the sample sizes are so small that were are seeing lots of noise. I would guess the latter, as the SD in w% for even 1000 games (the approx. number of 1 and 2 run comebacks in the study) is 1.5%, so that differences between, for example, .500 and .530 are less than 2 SD's, and therefore don't tell us much.
I'd have to see a much better study before I made up my mind on this one. Might be impossible though, as it could be looking for a needle in a haystack (a "real" difference of less than one 1% for example, which would be almost impossible to detect without an anormous sample). That's the only "study" I read, however...
Posted 9:28 a.m.,
January 8, 2004
(#10) -
tangotiger
I agree that it would be almost impossible to find it. And, if you read one of my quotes of MGL in that above link, you'll realize that the impact of this, even if it existed to a great extent, is so small as to be almost meaningless.
Much ado...
Posted 1:22 p.m.,
January 14, 2004
(#11) -
mommy
Tango: Boswell's article was terrible. But I'm not sure his premise is completely wrong. I think your Leveraged Index is a terrific tool. but i'm not sure that merely converting a reliever's stats to find a comparable starter is the best way to determine his qualifications for the hall of fame. unless you're of the opinion that NO relievers belong in the hall, because they're all basically failed starters. that is an argument i can understand, but don't agree with. because relievers have become so important over the past 10-20-30 years, i think they should have a spot in the HOF. in which case, you have to compare relievers to relievers, to decide which are the truly elite. comparing them to starters is always going to leave them short, if even gossage only compares to langston.
Posted 2:17 p.m.,
January 14, 2004
(#12) -
tangotiger
I'm only saying what their win impact is. I expect the football HOF to be filled with QBs and not having many OTs. You need 1 of each on your team, but the impact of the QB is far higher.
Same for relievers. You need 'em. But, their win impact is less than twice that of a starter on a per batter basis, but they face one-third the batters.
What if in the future the reliever will only come in with 2 outs to go each game? Do you still want that guy in the HOF?
Posted 7:46 p.m.,
January 14, 2004
(#13) -
DavidSmyth
---". I expect the football HOF to be filled with QBs and not having many OTs. You need 1 of each on your team, but the impact of the QB is far higher."
This may seem obvious, because of the attention paid to the QB, and because of the salaries paid to QBs vs OTs. But I have never seen any sore of "proof". A starting player's value is essentially how many more runs or points he contributes than his expected backup. So, if, say, a typical backup QB is 90% as good as a starter, and a backup OT is only 80% as good as a starter (perhaps because of the unusual size/skill blend necessary for line positions), then that might outweigh the difference between the avg QB and the avg OT.
Probably not--I have no real reason to dispute the common wisdom--but has anyone ever studied the differences between repl levels for the various football positions?
Posted 2:57 a.m.,
January 16, 2004
(#14) -
RossCW
Same for relievers. You need 'em. But, their win impact is less than twice that of a starter on a per batter basis, but they face one-third the batters.
This tells you nothing about the impact of elite closers who reduce the game to 8 innings.