<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: The Best System for Evaluating Pitchers
Review: Although this book has some obvious and well-documented flaws, it is the first system created that allows for a fair assessment of pitchers from all time periods. That alone is a very important contribution, and one that has generally been overlooked so far. Thomas idea for the book is simple: Create a baseline from one five-year time period (1996-2000) from which to compare all players based on the performance levels in those years. There are of course some flaws with the idea, as well as with Thomas' own execution of it. Certainly the game changes for one, and its hard to act as if doesn't. For example, the innings thrown for the pitchers from the dead-ball era are simply too high: Pitchers could throw many innings then since hitting was much harder. Estimating how many equivalent innings that would be in today's game is both impossible and irrelevent. The computerized playoffs Thomas sets up are also a bit fruitless. Why should we believe his simulations more than what actually happened? The statistics for hitters, however, are more useful. It gives a good idea of what a player who hit in a power-poor era would produce today. It also makes one appreciate the hitting prowess of the great sluggers like Williams, Ruth, and Mantle. The major flaw is that this system cannot take into account a hitter's protection in the lineup, so a player hitting on a good team, like Lou Gehrig, will look better than he actually was. I believe that for hitters, the Bill James win shares system is superior, but this system should not be so easily dismissed.The great contribution of this system, however, is in its ability to allow for a fair comparison of pitchers. The Win Shares system comes up short on this standard, since it seeks an absolute number of win shares won. This would obviously favor players from the dead ball era when pitchers could throw many more games. And nearly all the top players in the Win Shares system are from the dead ball era, while modern stars like Roger Clemens and Greg Maddux languish out of the top ten. Leveling the Field is superior in this regard since it does not seek absolute numbers, but relative ones: What would a player's ERA be in a controlled environment? And when we look at it in these terms we find that modern players match up just fine with the old timers: Thomas' lists of greatest pitchers are fairly even matched throughout baseball history, with pitchers from all eras represented. Furthermore, it also clears up a current debate that has been simmering for several years: Who is the greatest pitcher of this generation, Clemens or Maddux? It turns out that Maddux is the better pitcher, and it isn't even that close. Maddux career ERA is 3.05 while Clemens is 3.38. Furthermore, Maddux top seasons were all better that Clemens. In fact, they were even better than Pedro Martinez. It turns out that Maddux best seasons are the best ever, topping even Walter Johnson himself. There are plenty of other interesting things to be found here, like the fact that Randy Johnson has posted better numbers than Sandy Koufax and that Bob Gibson really did not have the greatest pitching season ever in 1968. This book has some very important uses, but baseball fans haven't picked up on it yet. It may be time to take another look.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting concept, nice presentation
Review: baseball fans love statistics and love to debate the merits of players across generations, so this book has a strong appeal, using computer simulation to rewrite baseball history using the game as played 1996-2001 as a standard. Year-by-year results are presented, followed by season and career batting and pitching records, and the lifetime records of a number of outstanding players from yesterday and today. The only problem is, who says souped-up, steroid-fed 1996-2001 ought to be the standard? Essentially what results are beefed-up home run and strikeout totals, somewhat depressed batting averages, and much-inflated earned run averages. There is also some liberty taken in having each league divided into two divisions from 1901, three divisions from 1969, and so on, with a corresponding playoff system each year. Still, this sort of alternate history can be fun, especially in baseball, and the presentation is easy and fun to pore over. Sure to spark debate, and that's something baseball fans love almost as much as the game itself.
Rating: 
Summary: doesn't make sense
Review: This wasn't a bad idea....but the statistics created are fantasy statistics that clearly do no resemble how players of yesteryear would have done today or even the value of what those players would have produced today. Since the numbers are simply too bizarre to take seriously, the book ends up dull and unengaging.
<< 1 >>
|
