Alan Schwarz Chat

---

Moderator: Alan Schwarz, author of the upcoming book, "The Numbers Game," will begin taking your questions at 2 p.m. ET

Moderator: Folks -- We're going to be starting in a few minutes, but I hope everyone understands that we're going to try to keep the questions focused on statistics today. That's for two reasons: 1, that's what my book is about, and 2, my job at Baseball America is to be the one person who DOESN'T focus on prospects, but covers the major leagues. So I hope you understand if I don't handle as many prospect questions as you would otherwise assume. We'll still have plenty of fun....

Q:	Barry from San Francisco asks: Is the Elias Bureau still a bunch of ogres as described by Bill James in the Baseball Abstracts? Who purveys statistics to MLB and to MLB teams? Is it Elias, STATS, Baseball Info Solutions, or Total Sports? What do you think of Baseball Info Solutions? I understand they videotape every MLB game played, and then extract statistics from the games. What with Elias, STATS, and Total Sports, is there a need for this company? Do you think it will succeed? Why or why not?
A:	Moderator: Lots of questions here.....no, Elias isn't nearly as bad as Bill James made them out to be in the '80s, and I make that point in my book. Seymour Siwoff & Co. were in the business of selling statistics, and Bill wanted them to be made more available to the public. Well, that wasn't Elias' business, and said no. Bill made it very nasty and personal, which was a damned shame......Elias is still the outfit that checks statistics that become official; they are kept by Major League Baseball through mlb.com.....As for Baseball Info Solutions, they score games off TV and radio like many other outfits, and keep specialized stats no one else does. Total Sports no longer exists.

Q:	DC from Washington asks: What do you think the future is for all of these STATS-like companies? Will one end up dominating the market? Or is there a place for all of them?
A:	Alan Schwarz: I think there will be a shakeout in the next 4-7 years -- too many outfits are spending too much money keeping the same data. It's too inefficient. I think a few of them will merge.

Q:	Paul G. from Portland asks: Do you think more teams will go the Toronto route and base almost all of their decisions on numbers and very few on scouts?
A:	Alan Schwarz: Toronto isn't making anywhere close to all its decisions based on numbers. They simply are relying statistics more than some other clubs, and scouts less. I do think that some clubs are going to cut back on scouting and rely on services like Inside Edge a little bit more in the future, but more for budgetary reasons than purely philosophical ones.

Q:	Barry from San Francisco asks: One thing that always drives me crazy is statistics being separated between pre-1900 and post-1900. Should I be driven this crazy? Do you think there was such a significant difference in baseball (especially the rules for foul balls counting as strikes) that there should be such a powerful distinction between records set pre- and post-1900?
A:	Alan Schwarz: Yes, there were some big differences. First, the AL came into being in 1901, so 1900 ain't so unreasonable. Second, the pitching rules changed drastically in 1893, and the NL took a few years to recover, so 1900 once again isn't so bad as a cutoff for when things became normal again. And third, the foul-strike rule (foul balls count as strikes, except third strikes) came into play in the NL in 1901 and the AL in 1903, and this made a big difference. That being said, there are many cutoffs to consider -- 1921 (cleaner balls), the inclusion of black players, 1961 expansion -- not just 1900.

Q:	Mike from Lansing asks: With baseball statistics (and their awareness) seemingly growing every year, there just seem to be fewer annual stats publications every year. Why?
A:	Alan Schwarz: Great question, Mike.....That's because printing statistics on the Internet is almost costless. Meanwhile, printing them in magazine form costs a fortune for paper, distribution, etc. There's a big problem under the surface today with record books threatened by this. The Sporting News is considering suspending publication of its record book because it simply costs too much. Boy, I hope they don't, but I'll understand if they do.

Q:	Carl The Calulator from Canada asks: Do you think some of the people in your book (like Lindsey, or Bill James, etc) belong in a special wing for the hall of fame? Are there any current statisticians who you think are the Lindseys or James of our generation?
A:	Alan Schwarz: There's no way baseball's conservatives (of which there is never any shortage) would allow Bill James, a la Henry Chadwick, into the regular wing. But Bill definitely deserves to be in the writers wing. He is almost certainly, along with Dick Young, the most influential baseball writer of the 20th century.....As for modern folks, what made Lindsey and James particularly special is that they published things while no one else was. That of course is not the case today anymore.

Q:	Barry from San Francisco asks: What happened to Total Sports? Does that mean annual editions of "Total Baseball" are not gonna be published any more?
A:	Alan Schwarz: Total Sports as a COMPANY folded a few years ago, sadly. However some of its assets, particuarly the Total Baseball encyclopedia, were bought by Sport Media Group up in Canada. They just reissued Total Baseball 8, which is fantastic, and a must buy. (12 pounds!)

Q:	Barry Deutsch from Coral Springs Fl asks: Hi Alan. I watch a lot of college baseball down here and I really do not get how you can project college stats to major league potential. Are there really one or two statistical markers that are even 25% reliable?
A:	Alan Schwarz: When it comes to college stats, you have to always start with the level of competition. (Is it the ACC or some bad conference?) Even when you do that, the main indicators of future performance are far more HIP and BBSO ratios. They imply more about intrinsic, future talent than BA, ERA and even OPS.

Q:	GJH from KC, Kan asks: What statistics do you think are the most important, or the most telling and what statistics would you like to see become commonplace like OBP and SLG have?
A:	Alan Schwarz: No statistic tells you everything you want to know -- they all have to be taken into context. But if I could look at only one half-conventional number for hitters, it would be OPS, which acknowledges batters' responsibility to both get on base and advance runners.....As for ones that I'd like to see more commonplace, I'd like to see relief stats overhauled, with a better use of Inherited Runners employed.

Q:	Big KG from Big Chicago asks: Have statistics gotten TOO complicated? Are we at a point where we can see the basics of AVGOBPSLGSB and get a feel for what kind of player that is, and it's enough? Do we really need to know a player has precisely 34.54 RTNLP6 when randomness creates such a range in the final numbers?
A:	Alan Schwarz: That's like asking if physics has become too complicated. Everyone is free to get as detailed as he or she wants. Stick with batting average and RBIs if you want, just as some people choose not to worry about the Earth being a little tilted. No one will burn your house down. Meanwhile, those who want to study further can do what they want, too.

Q:	DENNIS from NYC asks: WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF WIN SHARES?
A:	Alan Schwarz: I like Win Shares as a tool to measure things like the amateur draft and aging, where we really needed one quick-and-dirty number to compare players at different positions. That being said, while I am no expert as to the exact ways in which WS was derived, it feels to me like starting pitchers are a little underrated. But I have to defer to Bill James on that, since it's his system, and he surely is aware that that seems strange.

Q:	Joe from NH asks: When did you say, "Alan, I want to analyze stats and break them down to the smallest of detail?"
A:	Alan Schwarz: I'm not sure what Joe means here, but my book is not a statistics book. It's a book about people obsessed with them, how baseball has been fascinated with keeping and figuring out new statistics as far back as the 1850s. As I wrote before, everyone can go into whatever detail they want. That's the beauty of it.

Q:	Jim from Los Angeles CA asks: Which is the most under-used important statistic (and if you wish, the most over-used) in televised TV coverage. I'd like to see OPS up there more often. My wife thinks all the very specific stuff ("he's hitting .450 with runners on and two out with his team trailing after the sixth inning") is funny and kind of ridiculous.
A:	Alan Schwarz: Underused? Maybe OPS, but it still will turn away many people who feel threatened by the new statistics; we're lucky they're using OBP as it is. As for the "he's hitting .450 with the moon full, etc.", yeah, that stuff was pretty big in the late 1980s and early 1990s during the heyday of the Elias Baseball Analyst, but I think you'll find it's really not that bad anymore. There has been a gradual sifting out of the silliness as more people learn what is meaningful and what isn't.

Q:	Joey T. from Sacramento asks: Are individual hitters vs. pitcher statistics relevant or too small a sample size?
A:	Alan Schwarz: I think most people would agree that you need a good 30-40 at-bats before making any credible assessments about batter-vs.-pitcher stuff. And formal statisticians would say it's more than that. That being said, I do think that with the availability of data today, and with batters and pitchers being INFORMED that they're 1-for-11 of someone, I think it might be playing a psychological role that is underestimated.

Q:	David from Cambridge asks: A quote in your book states that the naked eye can't tell the difference between a .275 hitter and .300 hitter...without the numbers. Taking chance into consideration - a key component of the game - is this true without a very large sample-size? Comparing two hitters, could a talented scout not tell you more than the raw numbers in a season's worth of games?
A:	Alan Schwarz: I think a very talented scout might be able to. Then again, the talented scout is going to remember line drives, not necessarily hits, and who knows how many times those line drives and good swings wound up as outs? Batting average is such a horrible statistic, so dependent on luck both in the short term (whether a certain ball falls in for a hit) and the long term (an intrinsically .300 hitter can still hit .200 over two weeks, easily) that it corrupts almost every conversation about statistics from the start.

Q:	David from Cambridge, MA asks: Thinking about regression to the mean, who has a better chance to get a hit off of Pedro in a given situation: Hideki Matsui (a good hitter with poor numbers against him)or Enrique Wilson (a poor hitter with good numbers against him)? Which way does a "numbers savvy" manager go?
A:	Alan Schwarz: Great question. (For those who don't know, Enrique Wilson has a crazily high lifetime BA against Pedro.) The numbers-AWARE manager goes with Wilson. The numbers-SAVVY manager, probably Matsui.

Q:	Avkash from NJ asks: In the book, when discussing front offices that use statistics more than others, you point out Theo Epstein, Paul DePodesta, and Jim Duquette (Beane and Ricciardi go without saying); you also quote Duquette on the importance of Bill James's Abstracts. My question is, in your opinion, which organizations are best combining sabermetrics with traditional methods, and specifically, would you include the Mets with the A's, Jays, Red Sox, and Dodgers?
A:	Alan Schwarz: I don't think any organization can approach the Red Sox in terms of the peaceful and healthy integration of old and new methods. The next tier would find the A's (though Billy Beane is, to use his own word, "draconian" about following certain numbers) and Jays. The Mets are working on it. As for the Dodgers, it's hard to know exactly where Paul DePodesta -- someone I respect immensely -- stands. He vowed that LA would provide him with opportunities that Oakland did not, and he proved that by having the club take HS players in the recent draft. Paul is very open-minded and will surely take the best from both worlds.

Q:	Nick from Robbins, NC asks: Are players more aware of they're stats today? Do they follow the more advanced stuff (EQA, etc.)?
A:	Alan Schwarz: No player has ever heard of Equivalent Average, I guarantee you. Some know about OPS. I think for as many players who are more aware of their stats than before, others choose to ignore them, puffing out their chests and asserting how different they are from the stat geeks for whom they hold contempt.

Q:	Barry from San Francisco asks: Is there any hope for the save rule? Do you see anyone finally coming to their senses on this one?
A:	Alan Schwarz: I don't think we'll ever see a tightening of the save rule, which is OK with me because I'd rather leave it alone and ignorable. As I mentioned, I'd like to see something about Inherited Runners worked out. Also, the system employed by Harlan and Eldon Mills in 1969 (Player Win Averages), and improved upon by several folks since -- which measures how each batter and pitcher contribution influences the chances his team will ultimately win the game -- would be fantastic to see used today on the web, and I think within two years it will be.

Q:	Maurice from Newark, New Jersey asks: How important has the WHIP stat become? I didn't know what it meant at first but now, more baseball enthusiasts mention WHIP before ERA.
A:	Alan Schwarz: WHIP made it into the vernacular through fantasy baseball, but has come into play mainly because it's the pitcher's form of OBP, essentially baserunners allowed. If it's important for hitters to maximize -- and it is -- it's important for pitchers to minimize.

Q:	Kevin from Omaha asks: Moneyball, as a concept, to me is not capable of fielding a solid World Championship team. Statistically choosing players overemphasizes their true talents. In little league I hit .500 three years but that doesn't mean I could've become an All-Star caliber player. Also it fails to give enough recognition of coaching. Coaching is not the same at all levels and in all areas. Stats are fundamentally worthless! What is your rebuttal to that?
A:	Alan Schwarz: First of all, stats can't be fundamentally worthless. If they were, we wouldn't keep records of teams' wins and losses. The main thing here is that there really are two types of statistics -- those which describe the past, and those which predict the future. Your .500 average in Little League didn't mean you were an all-star player because it is clear that there are tons of .500 hitters at that level who don't develop. There are zillions of statistics in baseball that fall into that category -- ones which are merely trivia and don't tell you much about the inherent skills of the player. But there are SOME which tell you a lot more than others, and those are the ones that have become helpful as we all try to understand the game better.

Q:	Barry from San Francisco asks: How can I get ahold of a copy of George Lindsay's work? (If this is something covered in your book, just hit me with a page number.)
A:	Alan Schwarz: I was thinking of posting his articles on my website (www.alanschwarz.com), but I'm concerned about violating copyrights. If anyone wants them, I'll be happy to mail them to you. Just go to my website for my e-mail address.

Q:	Held In Contempt from La La Land asks: Don't you think its a two way street? You say we hold the "stats geeks" in contempt. But isn't the other way around true too? Many of them are know it alls who think scouting is useless, which is wrong.
A:	Alan Schwarz: Hey, I'm not the one who holds stat guys in contempt -- heck, I just wrote a whole book about them. But you're right: the arguments have become so polarized that healthy communication is almost impossible. Each side has to calm the hell down, realize that the other has something to offer, and a much healthier dialogue will result.

Q:	Maurice from Newark, New Jersey asks: Which one is the better feat? Joe Dimaggio going 56 straight games with a hit? Or Orel's streak of 59 innings without giving up a run?
A:	Alan Schwarz: I think that while DiMaggio's streak is about 20 percent higher than the runner up and Hershiser's was only 13 of an inning more, there's no question that Hershiser's was far more important to his team. DiMaggio's streak is essentially a statistical fluke; he could have done just as well and hit in 50 of the 56 games, and no one would have cared. Hershiser, meanwhile, was simply lights-out for about 7 straight starts, and during a pennant race.

Q:	David from Cambridge asks: "Mystique" plays a big part in baseball history. Over-exposure due to television is arguably destroying that - will the continued increase of statistical analysis put the final nails in the coffin? Are too many numbers the death of romance?
A:	Alan Schwarz: Goodness, no. Yes, television has dulled the imagination to a significant degree. There's no denying that. And if you decide that statistics are too much information in the same way, OK. But I think that for every person who is perhaps turned off by not being able to dream about what Barry Bonds must look like in person, there are 100 who can't wait to turn on Sunday Night Baseball and watch him play. And then another 17 who while away their nights banging on numbers to come up with new ways to measure how good he is.

Q:	Mark from Brooklyn, New York asks: If you were a scout, what are the stat(s) that you would look at to determine whether a player could become good someday? Is there even a stat for something like that?
A:	Alan Schwarz: I assume you mean a scout who's watching either high school or college games. Sure, there are a few. HIP for pitchers tells you something about how dominant the pitcher's "stuff" is. And BBSO ratio for hitters tells you something about the guy's ability to judge the strike zone, which is a huge factor in his ability to improve as he moves up any ladder.

Q:	Jack from Peabody asks: Hi Alan I feel that stas are under used for scouting and over used for games. The Red Sox have gone to that idea this year with their team and just look at their record they dont bunt when they should ect because of stats.
A:	Alan Schwarz: That's a fair thought, Jack, but when you say the Sox "don't bunt when they should," what you're saying is that you think doing so would help them score runs in that situation, that the out is worth the base advanced. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, depending on the hitter, pitcher, score, bunter, etc., and people have differing opinions as to what the breakeven point is. I guarantee you that the Sox have put A LOT of thought into this and have determined that it isn't worth the risk. I'd feel pretty confident that they've done their homework.

Q:	Mitchell from N.J. asks: Do you think anyone will strikeout more batters then Nolan Ryan, whose record seems unbreakable at 5,714??
A:	Alan Schwarz: I don't see it happening. Strikeouts were just about at an all-time high when Ryan was pitching, he was ridiculously dominant when he got the ball over the plate, and he was around for what, 24 years or something? That confluence of circumstances will be pretty tough to top.

Q:	bubbapokey from palo alto, ca asks: i am good friends with your cousin in-law, dan, at stanford. look forward to meeting you at the SF book-signing. enough with these stat-head questions.... who do you think will win the 6 divisions this year?
A:	Alan Schwarz: See you in San Fran, bubbapokey. But don't dis the stat fans! Live and let live! As for my division winners, I'll go with Yankees (shocking), White Sox, A's (but those Rangers are amazing), Phillies, Cardinals and Giants.

Q:	Barry from San Francisco asks: Does anybody track PITCHERS' OPS allowed? If you like batters' OPS as a quick-and-dirty, how about pitchers' OPS coughed up?
A:	Alan Schwarz: Yes. Go to ESPN.com's statistics page, and hit the "Opp. Batting" tab. You can find all sorts of great stuff. And yes, I love pitchers' OPS, but I think it's less important for pitchers than batters. Batters have to rely on other batters to generate runs, so a number that assesses that contribution is important. Pitchers, meanwhile, have the sole job of NOT GIVING UP RUNS, period. If they yield a single without him scoring, it really doesn't matter at all. If a batter gets a single and is stranded, we still need to give him credit.

Q:	Barry from San Francisco asks: Any idea where I can get a copy of the Mills Brothers' book? It's not on Ebay.
A:	Alan Schwarz: It's extraordinarily rare, and will probably be even more so as interest in their method increases. As for the copyright, I have no idea who owns it, if anyone, anymore.

Q:	Eric from Cali asks: Bonds is just amazing. He's so good that people are talking about changing the walk rule to penalize the opposing team for IBB Bonds. I don't think this would happen but what would you implement if you had to change it so teams get penalized?
A:	Alan Schwarz: This will never happen, of course, but I have suggested the following. There's no way we can determine whether a walk is intentional or not, so don't bother trying. So let's do this: A four-pitch walk advances runners. That way the hitter, unless the pitcher is completely wild, will get at least one strike to hit. After that, all bets are off. This would send offense sky high, so you'd need to expand the strike zone, but I still think it's a fun concept to think about. But again, it'll never, ever happen.

Q:	Derrick from NC asks: Will we ever see the 4 man rotations again? I think the reason why the strikeout record won't be touched is because players become too fragile thanks to teams babying them to the majors.
A:	Alan Schwarz: I think that one of the biggest opportunities in baseball right now is for some team to figure out a far better way to deploy its starting pitching, whether in a 4-man rotation, an 8-man rotation (pitchers throw 4 innings every four days) or something else. What they're doing now is a foolish use of capital.

Q:	David from Saint Louis Cubs fan asks: With all the stats available these days and in the past, which ones are used more so for contract negotiating? youve said that winloss records dont reveal the true pitcher, and I agree, but do owners and agents look at the true stats or just overall effectiveness?
A:	Alan Schwarz: I have a long section in my book on how statistics are used in arbitration, and one of the things I learned is that hearings need to be kept very simple for the arbitrator to understand. They aren't stat wars, with one side saying, "My guy had a 5.41 range factor!" and the other responding, "Yeah, but he had only a .234 EqA!" It's very basic stuff, and each side just needs to learn how to exploit the other's arguments.

Q:	David from Cambridge asks: What is the most "underrated" number in baseball history (example: Gibson's 1968 ERA)?
A:	Alan Schwarz: Great question. I think we're about to see it. Barry Bonds this year is going to hit an absurd percentage of strikes for home runs. As for old numbers, Gibson's ERA was great, of course. It might actually be Tip O'Neill's .492 batting average, believe it or not. People dismiss it because it came during the one year that walks were counted as hits. But he still would have hit something like .438 under conventional rules. So tip your hat to Tip!

Q:	dan w. from stanford asks: who wins a wrestling match- you or gammons?
A:	Alan Schwarz: Gammo, easily. He was incredibly gracious in writing the Foreword to my book, so I'd let him pin me right away. I'm pretty sure I could take John Kruk, though. I'd bring donuts as a distraction.

Q:	Barry from San Francisco asks: What SF book-signing? Where? When?
A:	Alan Schwarz: I am making appearances around the country to sign books -- Houston, Cincinnati, Los Angeles, San Fran, Seattle, a lot more. See my website (www.alanschwarz.com, and the appearancessignings link) for information about dates and times. Looking forward to meeting you all.

Q:	Bret from NY asks: I think the most overrated stat is not the save, but batting average. Case in point, I hit only .286 but my OBP was .457. I think BA is more of a individual stat while OBP is more helpful to the team. Do you think this is true?
A:	Alan Schwarz: Absolutely. Batting average is by far the most overrated statistic in baseball history; nothing else is even close. Doesn't mean it means nothing, but man, some people just don't get that there more illuminating things out there.

Q:	Bob Scott from Garden City, New York asks: I was flipping through the index of your book and saw you mention the work of Baseball Prospectus. While they have made some great contributions over the past few years, how come no mention of Ron Shandler who has done at least as much and over a longer period of time? His whole philosophy of componenet skills analysis has changed the entire way I follow the game.
A:	Alan Schwarz: Ron does very good work. I couldn't mention every worthy person in the book -- there are many others, like the APBA folks, Gary Gillette, and many, many more. I had to keep a readable narrative going, and that meant not giving everyone the space I would have preferred.

Q:	Adam from Saint louis asks: I see alot of stats being broken down by "half-seasons". Is this a fair judgement? Reason Im asking, is i saw Mark Prior have an "ok" first half last year and then an obscene 10-1 second half. how does the long season wear on players(pitching vs. hitting) and who has the upside come august-october?
A:	Alan Schwarz: Honestly, I'm not sure if there's any correlation between first- and second-half performance, or whether it's more random. I do know that a half-season worth of data (300 PA or 17 starts) really isn't much to go on if you want a clear picture of the player.

Q:	Barry from San Francisco asks: Do you foresee a more specific quantification of park factors become more wide-spread? Hearing your local announcer say, "He hit .345 last year, but his park improved his offense by 20%," that kind of thing?
A:	Alan Schwarz: I don't think you'll ever see anything that specific, at least until Baseball Prospectus buys into the National TV contract. But I think we are seeing many announcers acknowledging that parks do play a role -- Petco Park being this year's example.

Q:	Derrin from UCONN asks: Would you take a team full of contact hitters (around .300) or a team full of power hitters (35 HR's)? and why?
A:	Alan Schwarz: I'm sorry, but there's no way to answer that question. What kind of power do the .300 hitters still have? What kind of contact do the power hitters make? The whole point is that no one number can possibly tell you what you want to know about player. They all have to be taken together, and then, even then, with a grain of salt.

Moderator: Well, folks, it's been about an hour and a half, and I'm about typed out. Thank you very much for participating. I'm looking forward to joining you again soon. Have a great summer.