With the recently thread about Moneyball and Billy Beane being overrated I got to thinking what exactly is sabermetrics? Now, I think most of us have some intuitive gut feeling definition. Statistical analysis is often seen as equivalent to sabermetrics. When sabermetrics is mentioned often Bill James comes to mind. But one person that I always think of is Craig Wright. He was the first person ever hired by a major league team (Texas Rangers-1981) with the title of sabermetrican. Below is his first business card. Recently, I've been reading his website, The Diamond Appraised. In an article he talks about his work experience working for major league teams. He said something that struck me as very interesting.
The bolded part really caught my eye. He mentions this in several other articles on his website.
It got me thinking what is this science and synthesis approach that Craig talks about. How is it fundamentally different that statistical analysis that seems to be the theme of sabermetrics today? Craig also mentions that in the forward to the 1985 Bill James Abstract he gives his definition of sabermetrics. It is posted below. It seems Craig had a very different vision of what sabermetrics is supposed to be than what it has become today. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Can sabermetrics return to what Craig Wright believes it should be?
The first business card in baseball using the title “sabermetrician” caused quite a stir in those days.
I stopped using that title around 1990 because the meaning had shifted too far from a scientific approach to baseball to one focused on statistical analysis of baseball.
I stopped using that title around 1990 because the meaning had shifted too far from a scientific approach to baseball to one focused on statistical analysis of baseball.
The first time I ever heard of Bill was when I read his 1980 Abstract. By then I had already been developing and using my scientific approach to the game for over a dozen years, and had already been pitching the idea to the ML clubs. Indeed, I had already begun my correspondence with Eddie Robinson that eventually led to my being hired by the Rangers after the 1981 strike ended.
I've no problem with opinions that Bill and I have a similar approach to the game. I share that opinion and said in The Diamond Appraised that I felt his work was far closer to my science and synthesis approach than the work of others who focused more on statistical analysis. I made that same point in my foreword to his 1985 Abstract. And I've no problem with people who would identify Bill and I as friends and/or colleagues. That is a demonstrable fact in every nuance.
Comment