<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Pay attention when you read
Review: If other reviewers of the book noticed, in the introduction to the book, Schell writes that batting average is not the best way to rate a baseball player-Schell clearly states that the book measures the best HITTERS, not the best BATTERS-in which case he would have used many other batting stats("Statistics that combine various hitting events...are searching for the best batters. The search in this book is for the best hitters, that is, the players with the best chance to get a hit in a given at bat."). Unless you know about statistics the book is confusing, but you don't have to read all the technical notes. His conclusions, and his methods are very interesting and definitly worth reading, (although you may not agree with the methods he uses). Again, you may not fall in love with the book, but it's worth reading.
Rating: 
Summary: a stats book that looks like a baseball book
Review: Most baseball fans like statistics, so it should not be a disappointment to them to find out that this is an elementary statistics book where the statistical methods are taught to explain how to adjust batting averages in order to compare players in terms of their batting averages. The average baseball fan would be interested in comparisons of Ty Cobb, Tony Gwynn, Ted Williams and others who are acknowledged as the best hitters for average in the game. Schell considers factors that make direct comparisons unfair and he provides methods to adjust for these factors based on the vast amount of statistical data available to him that has been gathered throughout the history of major league baseball.Key effects include the home ball park, stage of career and interventions such as the lowering of the pitcher's mound after 1968. To adjust for players whose abilities decline substantially in the latter years of their career Schell uses only the first 8000 at bats to gauge the players hitting ability. This helps players like Mickey Mantle whose performance declined appreciably at the end of his career due in part to injuries. Schell provides a lot of interesting statistics and comparisons. Ty Cobb had the highest lifetime batting average but after all the adjustments finishes second to Tony Gwynn, a result that will surely create controversy. Nevertheless Schell's approach makes sense and his results are not too surprising. As he notes his adjustments move many of the modern players whose numerical averages are lower than the players from the late 1800s and early 1900s, ahead on the list. Schell relates how he showed up to meet and congratulate Gwynn on the date of his 8000th at bat when he clinched first place based on the Schell adjustment system. Mike Schell is a sports enthusiast and a professor of biostatistics at the University of North Carolina. In 2002 he was one of the invited speakers at the Sport Statistics Section Session of the Joint Statistical Meetings.
Rating:
Summary: A Valiant Effort to Level the Playing Field
Review: Schell's methods are an excellent approach to putting individual performances in context. Those criticizing the book because it is statistically oriented are not Schell's audience: if I didn't like baseball poetry, I wouldn't buy a poetry book. If you don't like baseball statistics, don't buy a statistics book. Those criticizing Schell's use of batting average haven't read the book carefully: Schell freely admits that batting average isn't the best statistic to measure players. But batting average is easily understood and known to most fans. How many typical fans can name the career leaders in on-base percentage or slugging average or explain how they are calculated? Anyway, Schell's methods have lit a path that others may follow with other statistics like on-base percentage and slugging average. Indeed, toward the end of the book Schell applies his methods to on-base percentage and briefly discusses the results. Just because he chose a more popular statistic to introduce his methods doesn't undermine the usefulness of those methods. I found the book a little hard to read without a strong background in statistics, but I understand what Schell is trying to do, and it makes sense to me.
Rating: 
Summary: A Waste Of Paper
Review: This book spends a great deal of time making (very reasonable) adjustments to the batting averages of baseball players. That's fine, but the problem is that batting average is a terrible measurement of offensive ability. It's less important than on-base percentage (OBP), and it's less important than slugging percentage (SLG) and thus, by implication, any reasonable measurement that combines OBP and SLG. What a waste of time to go inte such depths when only looking into a terrible predictor of offensive ability.
Rating:
Summary: Best of its kind
Review: This is the most painstakingly objective attempt I have ever seen to level the playing field when comparing players across eras. The criticisms that have been levelled against it are unjustified. First, the complaint is made that only batting averages are being considered, not on base percentage or hitting for power (slugging average). In the first place, that's not entirely true- he also runs an analaysis of on base percentages, and devotes a separate chapter to this - leaving me to wonder if the one critic who blasted the author for not considering on base percentages has even read the book. Secondly, the book is about batting averages, so of course the main focus is on -batting averages. Thirdly, another book will be forthcoming from the author on slugging averages.
The other criticism - that the book is "for nerds only" - is just an indication of who the target audience is. Not every book is written for everybody. If you like baseball and are a stats junkie and like to argue about this player being better than that player, then this book is for you. If you don't like baseball and aren't a stats junkie and don't like such arguments - then the book is NOT for you. For what it is - comparing batting averages and on base percentages of different players from different eras - it is the best of its kind.
<< 1 >>
| 
