Four thoughts about the creation of facts | Articles | Bill James Online

He does have a good grasp of the modern day use/abuse of statistical data. Wide ranging, entertaining article as usual by Mr. James.

from billjamesonline.com
https://www.billjamesonline.com/four_thoughts_about_the_creation_of_facts/

  Four Thoughts about the Creation of Facts

1.  Roger Maris

              On Twitter on Saturday some arm of SABR, perhaps oblivious to the concept of research, was pushing the notion that Roger Maris was a Hall of Famer.  "This slugger never got his due respect.  Should the 2X MVP be in HoF?" 

              You see the rhetorical trick which is being used there?   The tweeter trickster. . . .for all I know he is one of you, so I apologize for my own rhetorical excesses. . .the tweeter trickster is trying to treat Maris' two trophies as hard facts, unassailable by review, and use THOSE to argue that since Maris was given THAT respect, he thus should have been entitled to even MORE respect.   But another way to look at it would be this:  that Maris was given two MVP Awards which he did not really deserve and, based on that, some people now want to leverage that into a Hall of Fame argument.   An equally fair and accurate Tweet would be "Roger Maris won 2 MVP Awards he didn't deserve. Should that make him a HoF'r?"

              Let's look a little more carefully at the issue of who deserved the 1960 and 1961 American League MVP Awards.   I don't object to Maris winning the awards; what I object to is the happenstance of Maris winning the awards being used to leverage yet another level of recognition.  Maris in 1960 hit .283 with 39 homers, 112 RBI.   It's a good season, but it isn't really an MVP season, is it?    Hundreds of players have had better seasons than that and not won an MVP Award.  Dozens of players who were similar to Maris—that is, right fielders and sluggers—have had better seasons than that and not won the MVP Award.

              Roger Maris came through the Cleveland Indians' farm system at the same time as Rocky Colavito.  The Indians kept Colavito and traded Maris because they were both right fielders and the Indians thought at the time that Colavito was the better player.   Colavito was the better player.   Colavito had a better career. 

              In 1958 Rocky Colavito had 578 plate appearances.  In 1960 Roger Maris had 578 plate appearances.   Comparing those two seasons, Colavito had more hits, more extra base hits, more doubles, more homers, more RBI, more walks, a higher batting average, a higher on base percentage, and a higher slugging percentage.   It's not an issue of context; the American League ERA in 1960 was higher than it was in 1958, and Park Effects were similar.   Colavito just had a better year.

              Colavito had a better individual season, but the MVP contest had different entries.  Every year is different.  1960 was a weird year in the American League, in which nobody really had what you would normally think of as an MVP season.  No pitcher won 20 games.  No hitter hit .300 with 30 homers.  There's really nobody there who looks like an MVP.   It just happens sometimes. 

              In 1961 Roger Maris hit 61 homers, but let's compare him, again, to Rocky Colavito.   Maris scored 132 runs; Colavito in 1961 scored 129.  Maris drove in 142 runs; Colavito drove in 140. Maris made 454 outs, Colavito made 440. The park effects, again, are similar.  I estimate that Colavito actually created two more runs (139-137), but you know, that's just a formula, doesn't really mean anything when the calculations are that close.  Colavito had a higher batting average and more walks, an on base percentage 30 points higher, a slugging percentage 40 points lower.   Maybe Maris was better—maybe—but if so, an inch better.  

              Roger Maris was not the best player in the American League, either in 1960 or in 1961.  Still, Maris had a historic accomplishment in 1961, and I don't object to the voters giving him the MVP Award.  It was a reasonable thing to do.

              What I DO object to is using THAT to argue that Maris "didn't get the respect that he deserved", and that therefore he should be in the Hall of Fame.   Roger Maris got much MORE respect than he deserved, and he had nothing remotely resembling a Hall of Fame career.  His pursuit of Babe Ruth's Home Run record became a huge media circus, a story line event.  That's fine; baseball needs story line events.  That's as good as the next one.  But I wouldn't BEGIN to support Rocky Colavito for the Hall of Fame, and Rocky Colavito was a lot better player than Roger Maris. 

2.  Bernie

              After the Las Vegas shooting, Bernie Sanders claimed that "This year there have been more mass shootings than days."

              Well. . .

              The shooting was a gut punch to me because the previous day, three people had been shot and killed in an incident a few blocks from my home.   My wife and I had walked through the intersection where that crime happened about 9:45 at night, on our way home from a restaurant.   As we walked through there my wife commented that the number of bars in the area was perhaps excessive, and that the crowds of young people seemed a little bit out of control.  Three people were killed there about 1:30 the next morning.   I take the event very seriously.   I take the Las Vegas shooting very seriously.

              The claim that there have been more mass shootings than days is based on data that comes from an organization called Mass Shooting Tracker (www.massshootingtracker.org).  They are doing good work, and I don't have any criticism of them for doing it.   But Mass Shooting Tracker counts as a mass shooting any event in which three people are hit by gunfire; in their words "Here at the Mass Shooting Tracker, we count the number of people shot rather than the number people killed because, "shooting" means "people shot"."  (It does?  To whom?  To whom, exactly, does it mean that?)

              It is the Lord's work to document these events, and since they're doing the work, they can count them any way they want to count them.   The thing is, though, that in more than one-third of these "mass shooting" events, no one was killed, no one at all.   In the MAJORITY of these "mass shooting events", the number of people killed was zero or one.  

              Bernie Sanders' claim is literally true, if you accept the misleading definitions which are hidden behind it.   The problem is, though, that on hearing it said, it SEEMS to mean something that it doesn't ACTUALLY mean, at all.  

              I am not suggesting that the level of gun violence in our culture is OK because Bernie Sanders wants to exaggerate the seriousness of the problem.   I'm not suggesting that AT ALL.   I am suggesting that this problem is way too serious to trivialize it.   When you put out garbage information that doesn't mean at all what you try to suggest that it means, that trivializes the event.   What I am arguing is that, in order to have a serious debate, it is best not to try to mislead people. 

3.  The Stunt Derriere

              I remember when I was a kid, watching an episode of an old western on TV.   There was a scene in which an attractive young lady in a bar was pretending to be naïve, and was lured into a poker game.  As soon as she touched the cards she did what I think is called a riffle shuffle, her hands flying so rapidly you couldn't follow the movements, revealing that she was not actually inexperienced at this whole card playing thing.  When this scene appeared on TV, however, the person I was watching with pointed out to me that it was obviously not the actress who had actually done the shuffling; they had "zoomed in" on her hands, and substituted another actress for her, somebody who was more experienced at shuffling cards.   This was a new concept to me at the time, that actors were substituted for other actors at key moments.  

              I am sure I am no different than any of you in this regard; I instinctively watch movies for body doubles and stunt doubles.   Don't we all do that?   We all want to know when we are being tricked.  We all (I think) look instinctively to see whether a politician is wearing a hairpiece.   When it is poorly done and we can easily spot it we are irritated; when it is well done and difficult to spot we respect the effort.  

              Well, there is a commercial running on TV now, the "You know she's having a boy, right?" commercial.   I'm not sure what it is a commercial for, maybe a car.   A lady picks up a cake for a baby shower, but she picks up the wrong cake and has to run back to the baker's double-time to pick up a boy cake instead of a girl cake.  

              The commercial features a young mother with an extremely cute face, and there is a scene in the commercial in which she is seen racing into the bakery in high heels, and she also has.  . .well, she looks really good from behind.  

              The thing is, though, that somehow I became fascinated by the notion that I was being tricked here, that the lady with the cute face and the lady with the cute behind are not actually the same lady.   I think they are using a Stunt Butt.  I don't know whether this is true or not; I haven't been able to reach a definitive conclusion.  Whenever the commercial comes on I focus on it like a laser, paying no attention to whatever the hell they are trying to sell me, but focusing on the question of whether I am being tricked into thinking that this one actress looks great from both sides, when it is actually two different actresses.  I am not. . .I am not obsessed with this question.   I am fascinated by it.   IF there is a substitution, it is very well done, but at the same time, one can see clearly where the substitution took place if there was a substitution. 

              I don't know why I am writing about this; it just seems relevant, and I would like to solve the mystery.   Would a commercial actually do that, you think—substitute a stunt butt for the lead actress in the commercial?   Is that commonly done?   DID they do it?   What do you think? 

4.   Your Own Facts

              Daniel Patrick Moynihan liked to say that everybody is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.   This has become a trope, and we hear it every day now.  

              I think it's kind of a silly thing to say, actually.  It's a silly thing to say for two reasons.   One is that the world is so complex that there are billions and billions and billions of facts available to us.  We don't actually KNOW which facts are most relevant to any debate; we don't.   Each of us is entitled to choose those facts that they believe to be most relevant.   It is entirely wrong for anyone, in a political debate, to try to deny their opponents the right to choose those facts that they believe are most instructive.   No one has a right to do that.

              The second problem is that "facts" are. . .well.   All facts depend on underlying information. When the Mass Shooting Tracker defines a Mass Shooting as any event in which three or more persons are hit by gunfire, they then reach the "fact" that there have been 374 mass shootings in the US this year.   But if another organization were to define a mass shooting as any event in which four or more persons were killed, they would then reach the conclusion that the number of mass shooting events in the US this year was more like 25.   One number would be no more accurate than the other.   One "fact" is no more a fact than the other.

 

              The real issue is, to what extent does this "fact" describe the underlying reality?   The problem with the "fact" that Roger Maris won two Most Valuable Player Awards is that it suggests that Maris was the best player in the American League at that time.   The reality is that he was not.  The fact suggests that Maris was on a level of greatness comparable to Joe Morgan or Frank Robinson or Frank Thomas or Miguel Cabrera.   The reality is that he was nowhere NEAR the level of player that those guys were.  

              When people say that not everybody is entitled to their own facts, what they usually mean is that you have to accept my facts.  No, I don't.  I don't have to accept your facts, and I have no intention of accepting your facts.   The fact that you would say such a thing indicates that you are either an asshole or an autocrat or a would-be tyrant.  You are trying to control the discussion by controlling the facts.   No one has any right to control the facts.     

              And the advertisers. . .well, you can assume that they are conning you.   That's their job.  But you should not assume that sports analysts or sports researchers were conning you, and you should not assume that politicians are conning you.    It is a sad note that this has become so commonplace. 

Sent from my iPhone