Bill James Bio?

Different book, but I bought and read this last year:

http://www.amazon.com/Bill-James-Changed-View-Baseball/dp/0879463171

Truthfully, it wasn't all that exciting. You had a number of contributors saying the same thing 14 different ways.

pretty sure I overheard Bill telling a Noodles Hahn anecdote this morning

bought the paperback historical baseball abstract for $1 @ a book sale and there was a $2 bill inside

Hard not to read this thread title as akin to Ronny James Dio.

Has he (or anyone similar) ever written about team win/loss streaks... in season only, not the plexiglass principle.

Probably the year after the Tigers' 35-5 start (meaning the '85 Abstract), James wrote a long thing on when a fast start starts to become significant; i.e., 5-0 doesn't mean much, 10-0 means a lot, etc. That's the only related thing I remember.

A couple of you in the past have indicated that James may have lost something over the years, that he's now part of the same baseball establishment he once questioned at every turn. Most of the time I still love reading him, but sometimes he'll write things that do make me wonder. There were back-to-back "Ask Bill"s this morning that were puzzling.

1) One thing I still remember from an old Abstract is where he tried to systematically look at a player's IQ based on factors like strike-zone judgement, number of caught stealings, the ability to improve over time, etc. I remember he identified Alfredo Griffin as the dumbest player in baseball--he may have stopped short of using those exact words--and, I think, Lou Whitaker as the smartest. He got a question today complaining about Alfonso Soriano, and whether he still thinks baseball intelligence can be quantified.

"I don't think you can reliably infer intelligence from a player's baseball statistics, no. I do think we could do a better job of charting on-field mistakes, and perhaps in that way identifying players who just don't play the game very well."

2) Right before that, there was a question on whether or not to shut down Strasburg, which was basically the exact same question he fielded a month ago.

(July 13) "No, I wouldn't shut him down. I never understood the logic by which limiting the growth of innings pitched year to year could protect a pitcher, and I think most serious analysts agree that that was just sloppy research."

(today) "Well...I think (shutting him down) is reasonable, yes...Strasburg is coming back from Tommy John, and he is still very young. You're asking him to do A LOT for a pitcher one year away from Tommy John, and you're exposing a 23, 24-year-old pitcher to a full workload."

Not that I know the right answer myself, but there's quite a disconnect there.

The first problem seemed poorly stated to begin with. And what's so strange about him changing his mind 30 years later? I'm sure that plenty of things in the early Abstracts were written on a whim anyway.

There isn't necessarily a contradiction in the Strasburg stuff ... I would agree that it's reasonable to shut him down, but at the same time, I wouldn't do it.

I'm always quoting and defending James, so it's weird for me to take the other side. Changing or modifying your views over time, especially as it relates to the availability of more and better information, is a good thing--actually, James's vigilance against being boxed in by dogma is one of the greatest things about him. The reason the first one caught my eye is that it does seem to line up with the idea that he's more reluctant to pointedly criticize players since he joined the Red Sox. This makes sense--once you've had more direct contact with players on the inside, it stands to reason you're a little more guarded about doing things like trying to quantify their intelligence. (Not to mention that people generally soften with age anyway.) It's just something I noticed.

With Strasburg (I didn't quote either of his answers in full), more than the first issue, I do find the contrast strange. His first response was an emphatic no, there's no reason to shut him down (the rest of his answer: "I think they need to be careful with Strasburg, perhaps limit his pitches, be extra careful about looking for signs of fatigue. But drawing an innings limit and pretending that that's somehow going to protect him is perilously close to magical thinking"). The second could have come from the Nationals' GM himself.

did anyone read his true crime book

Yeah. He's kind of a nut nowadays, but I thought it was a fun read.

I read the crime book and--no bias here--liked it fine. Don't think I've read any true-crime books other than In Cold Blood, though, so that was a limitation of sorts.

i heard it was kinda wackadoo

It is kinda, but that's almost part of its charm. He keeps coming up with formulas to calculate like "how sordid was this crime on a scale of 1-20" or whatever, it's pretty funny.

Bobby Valentine said he didn't hear from Bill once when he managed Boston, so if he's a nut he may be crazy like a fox.

Won't be able to read this till later tonight. It's long, free for now, and surely has lots for everyone to hate.

http://www.billjamesonline.com/how_the_democrats_can_win_kansas/

mostly just clueless

"But it rather seems to me that you could and should have won this election by, oh, I don’t know, 538 to nothing or thereabouts" is a good place to start.

This is not directed at you personally, mookie, but I don't really understand the ILX tendency to brush aside people like James, Marcus, and Christgau--older writers who don't necessarily have the visibility or the influence they once had; I suspect if Kael were still writing, especially somewhere other than the New Yorker, she'd get the same treatment--with curt dismissals. Your post reminds me of some of the reaction when I linked to Marcus explaining months ago why Trump might win. I don't agree with everything James writes, but there's a lot there, and I'd say at least half of it is spot-on. It's as good an election postmortem as just about anything I've read from people who write about politics for a living.

haha i actually thought about going deeper last night but figured why bother. 'clueless' was the wrong adjective, tbf.

i haven't read a great deal of james, marcus or christgau. i have nothing at all against marcus. i think christgau is a prick and while i respect his sheer dedication to listening to literally everything, i've generally found his reviews to be useless. it's impressive that he turned being gnomic into a career, but whatever.

i respect james' grasp of statistics and willingness to challenge the received baseball wisdom of 30-40 years ago. he was a pioneer and his ideas have won the day in the game. i don't think any of that makes him a particularly insightful political commentator. among baseball writers alone, i suspect keith law and rany jazayerli and jonah keri have much more useful things to say about politics.

in this particular piece, i find his suggestions risible. these are not ideas on how the democrats can win kansas; they are ideas on how the democrats can win his (idiosyncratic) personal full support.

a package of severe inheritance taxes, intense business regulation, free college education, and massive support for inner cities doesn't really sound like a winner in kansas. nor do these interventionist policies square with his insistence that national health care be jettisoned.

Well, it is every bit as despicable to call someone a racist who is not a racist as it is to actually be a racist; in fact, I would argue that it is more despicable to do this, since it both promotes racism and debases public discourse.

this is straight-up bullshit, as is his insistence that neither trump nor jeff sessions nor anyone involved is a *real* racist.

if bill james wants to talk about baseball i'd be happy to listen. he has no particular expertise elsewhere and his (horribly written) political tracts are no different than any other 67-year-old dude ranting on facebook.

Explanations help--much prefer that kind of response than the one-line dismissal.

I think he goes a little off the rails when he argues for the Nazi-in-all-of-us. I'm pretty self-critical, I think--have often written about my passive-aggressive vindictiveness--but I don't think I'm secretly harboring a Nazi inside.

I was surprised he went anywhere near race. He regularly ducks baseball questions that are too close to his job with the Red Sox, so why he thought that would be a good subject to take up, I don't know. I think some of what he says is good: "You’re letting David Duke out of his cage. If you call a million people racists, he’s just one of the millions, just another guy," and "you might as well put $20 in an envelope and mail it to Rush Limbaugh." The line you quoted above--the "more despicable" formulation--no.

I don't know if his prescriptions more accurately represent Kansas or him alone. He's been writing about Kansas regularly for almost 40 years, so I'm inclined to trust that he has some understanding of the subject, but I really don't know.

Other than choosing to write it as an open letter, a device I never like, couldn't disagree more with "horribly written." I think his influence as a writer may even outweigh his influence as a baseball analyst.

Knowing almost nothing abt SABR/James apart from a skimread of Moneyball once, I gave his true crime bk a go a little while back and thought it was atrocious - ignorant, reactionary, bombastic and self-regarding. And yes, horribly written. I mean, I don't like Christgau, and have huge problems w/ Kael and Marcus, but all three of them can turn a sentence on occasion, whereas James really can't (I was just about to write that he reads like a typical pompous old git on Facebook until I saw mookieproof's final sentence!)

I read very little true crime, but I liked James's book just fine (since then, I've read books about Paul Bernardo, Charles Whitman, Richard Speck, and Manson). We must have very different Facebook feeds--the people over 50 on mine aren't the problem.

Sensing there's not a great future for this discussion. But I do agree Kael can turn a sentence on occasion.

That article was very James-ian, that's for sure. I agreed strongly with some parts, shook my head in frustration in other parts, and wondered why he took so long to get to the point for at least half of it. In other words, I had much the same reaction as I do with his baseball writing.

He just opened it up to reader comments last night--waited two days before doing so; good idea with contentious online material, I think, forces people to think about what they want to say, instead of just venting--and it looks like he'll be putting in some time defending parts of it. (The early focus seems to be the idea that Clinton is as corrupt as Trump.) I like the way one reader puts it:

"I think there's a split in the article, between (1) the basic message -- which I think is just about 100% right on (and yes, as was suggested in a 'Hey Bill' post, I hope it will be widely disseminated); and (2) the specific suggestions, which I think are problematic, no less so than the specific things that the Democratic Party was putting forth."

Blaming Republicans for Trump is like blaming Poland for Adolph. He invaded the party and took over. What were they supposed to do about it?

— Bill James Online (@billjamesonline) August 5, 2017

missed this bit of keen political insight

hahaha

wow

i'm gonna guess he still doesn't think trump and sessions are racists

I can read some of his political stuff; sometimes I just stop and head elsewhere. The worst thing is, when people write in to question him on something, he's at his most abrasive. (Aka, rudest.) I think he said he voted for Hillary, reluctantly.

was there any other way?

He's got a new book coming out next week. Not about Trump, so it should be safe. (Evidently co-written with his daughter.)

If the Orioles traded Manny Machado, I don't know if they would stay in competition this summer.

— Bill James Online (@billjamesonline) May 1, 2018

Sometimes I feel like a fatherless child.

okay, this was funny

Did you know that Mike Trout has never in his career been credited with a Sacrifice Bunt? Complete player, my ass. . .

— Bill James Online (@billjamesonline) May 23, 2018

Giving money to political candidates is NOT helpful. What is helpful is NOT giving money to political candidates. If you have a Dumpster Fire on your left and a Dumpster Fire on your right, you don't put firewood in either dumpster. https://t.co/z8Gtbp9U0a

— Bill James Online (@billjamesonline) June 15, 2018

Is he a libertarian?

Not a Pandora's Box worth opening...

you should never put firewood in any dumpster, regardless of whether it's on fire or not

His Twitter feed is on the front page of his site now. He's got a poll question up there this morning: "If you could have Bryce Harper or Andrew Benintendi for the rest of his career, who would you want?"

Answer aside, I believe that's what's called sticking-it-to-you on Seinfeld.

There's a card of him this year you can also get as a poster.

https://www.topps.com/2018-topps-allen-and-ginter-bill-james-base-poster-d-to-99.html

This is not behind the paywall:

http://www.billjamesonline.com/privacy_and_the_past/

Anyone who's decided he's a useless crank now will have every worst fear confirmed here. Like any crank, he doesn't care.

(One thing that really bugs me is when he complains about people being rude to him. He can be exceptionally rude to some of the "Hey Bill" questioners.)

I can think of one example specific to my own life where I agree with him 100% (and that I've been complaining about to anyone who'll listen for the past few years): the OSR, or Ontario Student Record. Every kid has a folder that follows him or her around from school to school. They've been around at least since I went to school in the '60s and '70s. Everything goes into the OSR: reports, standardized testing, transfers, anything involving discipline, etc. An average student, the OSR doesn't have a great deal in it; a kid on an IEP, the OSRs are sometimes the size of carry-on luggage.

Every September we have to sign these things in, and in June we sign them out and organize them by next year's classes. A tremendous amount of energy goes into moving them from school to school. The province hangs on to them for a couple of decades once the student is "retired" from the system. They're completely useless--other filing away reports, I might go back and check something about a particular student once or twice a year.

At the very least, they should spend some money to digitize everything. But what they really ought to do is get rid of them altogether.

"other than"

The bigger problem with trying to debate ideas on twitter is that anyone can join in, so discussions run all over the map. A productive discussion pushes toward understanding of an issue. A twitter discussion jumps from one issue to a related issue to a related issue to another, the fourth idea having no relevance at all to the first. Different people pull the discussion in different directions, so no progress is made in any one direction, and the heart of the discussion is almost instantly torn to shreds by the competing efforts to move it in different directions. All discussions on Twitter are drawn and quartered, and then the quarters are drawn and quartered, and then the smithereens are drawn and quartered.

the same diagnosis could apply to discussions on ILX, which i still enjoy and frequently learn a lot from reading, even when the original point is sometimes lost

I definitely wouldn't categorize detours as inherently bad or good; sometimes I enjoy them, sometimes I'm impatient. In my own writing, I veer off into personal anecdote and barely related matters all the time. I mean, that was one of my first attractions to James, as a writer who could do that masterfully--he'd be talking about Steve Sax, then he'd segue into something that happened to him in the army 20 years ago, and eventually he'd make his point and bring everything back to Steve Sax.

I don't read (follow, whatever) Twitter at all, so I can't speak to that.

haha, yeah well he went on to say that the same problem applies to his website (and to conversations between human beings in general, anywhere, i'd add). i'm interested in trying to get through the rest because it looks like it gets really dark (sample line i skimmed across: "This is not "history"; this is political warfare. Peter Strzok and the semi-attractive woman that he was Strzoking...") but i'm not sure i'm ready to read new yorker length bill james tonight!

the law is basically nothing but old documents ffs. documents from which we are apparently supposed to glean how 18th-century people would feel about machine guns and the internet; documents that establish precedents such that we needn't argue every single incident from first principles.

is he really arguing that brett kavanaugh should be judged on his interview rather than the things he's actually written? i don't care what dumbass ideas bill had in his youth -- if someone is up for a lifetime position that will shape the entire country for decades to come, i'd rather have one of the other 330 million people who *didn't* write dunb shit

i'm not gonna defend twitter or its discourse -- i can totally understand why he or anyone would want to use a different medium -- but nevertheless he remains an utter clown about anything but baseball

This Kavanaugh story today should be a good example of why James is wrong--it should disqualify him under the present circumstances.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/brett-kavanaugh-watergate-decision-might-be-wrong/

Of course, it won't matter.

Sounds like someone is having problems with the IRS.

"Most people--99% of Americans, I would say--feel that we need to find some way to 'come together' as Americans. I don't see it happening, really, and I believe that we are better off admitting that we are no longer one country and dividing peacefully into three or four separate nations; you guys take care of your problems, and we'll take care of ours. But we're not at the point yet of admitting that our marriage has failed and it is time to move on to divorce."

And then you guys can have four presidents, and we can have four simultaneous political threads on ILX.

dividing peacefully into three or four separate nations

i'm sure he has a totally common-sense plan for doing this

How to save yourself the cost of hiring someone to poll your demographics:

The first player you clearly remember seeing (live or on TV) was a contemporary of:

(If you're too young to remember any, please choose 4th group. Thank you.)

— Bill James Online (@billjamesonline) January 17, 2023

No votes for Old Hoss Radbourn.

Twitter poll I find funny:

Who do you want to bring back to television?

— Bill James Online (@billjamesonline) April 25, 2023

Tweet the other day: "If the Yankee fans somehow get Munson into the Hall of Fame, then we DEFINITELY should get Varitek in." (Followed later by "I'm signing off Twitter for the day. Those of you who wish to contribute to the barrage of personal insults following the Thurman Munson jokes will have to wait until tomorrow until I can block you.")

He has this weird hate-on for Munson. I looked at the two of them, Munson and Varitek--if he wasn't joking, and I'm pretty sure he wasn't, I don't see the comparison. They had almost the same number of career PA, and it's hard to find anywhere where Munson wasn't clearly superior, even with the shortened career. Admittedly, he was starting to decline the year of the plane crash, so his career rate stats almost certainly would have been less impressive had he played to 39 like Varitek, but what happened happened.

Wonder how he feels about Posey

I know he was running a Twitter poll the other day on Posey vs. Mauer, and he made some comment about them both being great players. There was a lot of commentary about the numerous Posey/Munson similarities when Posey retired, so, to my mind, there's some inconsistency there (i.e., of course agree with him about Posey, but don't see why he doesn't grant the same to Munson).

Thought this bump was going to be about this.

The only thing I will concede about Thurman Munson is that he was probably a better baseball player than he was a pilot.

Note that I said "probably".

— Bill James Online (@billjamesonline) May 23, 2023

Terrible, I agree. I defend him about lots, and he'll always be one of the key influences on me, but that's indefensible--I think he was really taken to task for it, and, as per his follow-up, got really defensive and snippy--and his inability to see how good a player Munson was is perplexing.

Damn:

https://www.billjamesonline.com/a_sunset_over_the_hill/

I complain lots about the way he conducts himself with readers--he recently shot down a Manoah-related question I sent in (not too pointedly, actually)--but knowing I could send in a question any time and count on most of them being answered, that was great. And I liked his right-hand guy, Dave Fleming, a lot.

If a couple of good books come out of this, that'll at least be something.

I found gyac's home/road thing with the Rays really interesting, so--possibly the last time I'll ever do this--I sent in a "Hey Bill."

Bill -- I will miss this...Someone on a message board today noticed the Rays' extreme home/road split, wondering if that was unusual. So I looked into it: it would seem so for teams this good. All post-war teams that have won 108 games or more, with their home/road winning percentages:

(same data as above)

I guess the question is, is this just a meaningless blip, or does it suggest some flukiness to the Rays that will catch up to them?
Asked by: Phil Dellio

Answered: 6/15/2023
There is not space left in the season that you would PREDICT it would catch up with them. Odds are it will flatten out a little bit.

Not 100% sure, but I take his answer to mean that he also thinks their home/road record will converge a bit as the season goes on.

Posnanski wrote about James pulling the plug the other day--paywall, so I put it on a Google Doc if you're interested.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GrfQNWNZm8OiGb3-iu-lwBL-0N7slYCSuTJyasxTsiM/edit?usp=sharing

You may argue for Lou Whitaker for the Hall of Fame, but you have to admit that Robinson Cano...
Asked by: JackKeefe

Answered: 6/30/2023
I think we're done here.

(... = I'm cutting the rest of what you say)

Will miss "Hey Bill" a lot. I won't miss that.

If Justin Verlander wins 300 games, how long will it be before someone says that no one else will ever do it?

— Bill James Online (@billjamesonline) July 3, 2023

Based on past history, that's funny. But 1) I'd give Verlander about a 1% chance of winning 300, and 2) they'd probably be right this time anyway (barring drastic and unforeseen changes in the game, which, in fairness, is implicit in James's tweet--he's always writing that it's a mistake to assume that what's true now will continue to be true down the road).

Quite likely my last "Hey Bill" (site shuts down next month):

Bill - Thanks for answering my many questions over the years (117 by my count--I went through and saved them). One more before you go.

What I am I missing with Rougned Odor--meaning, how does he keep a job? His batting averages the last five seasons (working backwards) have been .203, .207, .202, .167, .205. In fairness, the first of those seasons he hit 30 HR, and he was in double figures the next three seasons (but probably not this year). He doesn't appear to be an outstanding fielder, he strikes out a lot and doesn't walk much, and he doesn't steal bases anymore. Does he have a reputation as the greatest clubhouse guy in the world?

I may be a little biased here as a Jays fan who remembers his dust-up with Bautista.
Asked by: Phil Dellio

Answered: 8/21/2023
Juan Samuel syndrome. Juan Samuel was kind of a sensation when he first came up, very young, a second baseman, extremely fast. He was perceived as a potential superstar in the building.

He struck out a lot, couldn't actually play second base (or any other position) very well, and he didn't get better. His weaknesses kind of swallowed him up, but it took a long time for the league to come to grips with what had happened to him. He was still a "great athlete," still had star potential. It took a long time for EVERYBODY to accept that this is just what he is. No matter where you put him, there is some reason that it doesn't work.

Assume that was supposed to be "budding," not "building." Anyway, signing off on the Juan Samuel Rule. (Weirdly, I think James once wrote about Juan Samuel in one of the Abstracts in terms of what he called the Walter Matthau Rule--as in, "For everything he brings to a team, what exactly do you do with him?" That was early in Samuel's career, when he was still piling up some impressive bulk numbers.

Juan Samuel was definitely an exciting player, and it's hard to dismiss a young guy who puts up 30+ doubles, mid to high teens in terms of triples, and the same for HRs. Not to mention 40-70 SBs. His rookie year was truly eye-popping, even w/the lack of walks. It was good enough that he actually landed a single first place ROY vote in a year when the runaway winner with all the other top votes was Dwight Gooden. I also recall some favorable comps to NL MVP Ryne Sandberg; i think that mostly boiled down to the impressive fact they tied for the league lead with 19 triples.

After his 1987 season, it looked like he was going to break through into superstar level, but he never improved and only had a couple more full-time seasons. from '84-'87 i would say he was definitely valuable at the plate, but he was vv memorable as a disappointment thereafter.

Great answer from Bill. Jay Bruce also comes to mind. He was good for many years (but not the superstar that everyone thought he would be) but still got chances from several teams even though he declined rapidly in his 30's.

Early Juan Samuel: a potential superstar in the building
After six or seven seasons: Juan Samuel has left the building

I'd like to nominate Angel Hernandez to be the next Speaker of the House. Just anything to get him off the baseball field. . . .

— Bill James Online (@billjamesonline) October 4, 2023

Bill James, despite his faults, does pop out some all time tweets

Now that his site's closing down, I'll probably have to do something I've never done before, follow somebody on Twitter.

Noooo, it's a trap!

I was thinking that Angel Hernandez must be the most unifying force in baseball.

There’s several Jomboy videos about him, there’s one with Kyle Schwarber absolutely losing it at him and getting (deservedly) tossed, and then the Phillies manager is out there trying to put a diplomatic face on it. Incredible guy.

lol I'd take Ángel Hernández over Jim Jordan or Steve Scalise as Speaker any day

Win-win, as the saying goes.

The site is lingering longer than it was supposed to, but nothing new has been posted for a while. The starting pitcher rankings seem to have been updated, though, right through to the end of the World Series going by Merrill Kelly's placement. Last one ever, then:

http://www.billjamesonline.com/polls_ratings/starting_pitcher_rankings/

1. Gerrit Cole
2. Zack Wheeler
3. Blake Snell
4. Corbin Burnes
5. Merrill Kelly
6. Zac Gallen
7. Spencer Strider
8. Shohei Ohtani
9. Justin Verlander
10. Logan Webb

First I've heard about this:

About a week ago I suffered a stroke. I am more or less OK. I am not in ANY pain. I can walk normally and take care of myself, but my right hand is messed up and interferes with my ability to do things like tweet. Thank you all for your support.

— Bill James Online (@billjamesonline) January 26, 2024

Regarding Bauer, there is loud contingent shouting "There is only ONE acceptable opinion here, you HAVE to agree with us or you're a terrible person." Whenever one side of the argument sounds like that, I take a more careful look at the other side.

— Bill James Online (@billjamesonline) March 26, 2024

here’s our lovable brain damaged legend

Funny, cos I’m sure Bill is more empirical about things like “four separate accusers”, “once harassed a teenage girl by sending her dozens of tweets because she said she didn’t like him” and so on. Honestly beyond me that someone didn’t delete his account for his own good years ago.

Saw this come up again in light of his recent comments:

Was explaining to my wife and our friends about the time I got into a Twitter spat with Bill James that directly led to the MLBPA rebuking him and the Boston Red Sox distancing themselves from him, a real Twitter highlight for me https://t.co/z8H7mPcTEB

— Chris Towers is the Riley Greene Preservation Soc (@CTowersCBS) July 20, 2022

bill has been brain damaged for years now. sad but just is what it is

from his daughter on bluesky:

any time you think "wow i'd like to be a nepotism baby" i encourage you to think about what your dad might post were he in the position to give out said nepotism

lol, sympathy acquired

his latest tweet is praising Joe Lieberman as "the only Democrat who would stand up for Rush Limbaugh's right to speak" (???)

mods, please change the title of this thread to "Bill James RIP".

signed,

OP

Philosophical Q. Suppose your dog has been taught not to do something and usually doesn't, but has a breakdown and does it, and gives you that guilty look. Is that the same as knowing right from wrong, for a human & in a legal sense? Or is knowing right from Wr a broader concept?

— Bill James Online (@billjamesonline) March 28, 2024

i prefer not to speak.gif

Wait Bill's dogposting now? Refollowed

Is Bill working up to a confession here or