Sabermetrics Crackpot Index (August 29, 2003)
Some Friday fun. Replace "physics" with "sabermetrics", "Einstein" with "Bill James, "Galileo" with "Branch Rickey", and "Newton" with "Pete Palmer".
Feel free to add your own.
--posted by TangoTiger at 09:50 AM EDT
Posted 9:50 a.m.,
August 29, 2003
(#1) -
tangotiger
Thanks to Andrew Clarke.
Posted 10:05 a.m.,
August 29, 2003
(#2) -
Freddie Mercury
Branch Rickey! Branch Rickey!
Branch Rickey! Figaro.
Posted 10:22 a.m.,
August 29, 2003
(#3) -
Antonius Block
That was fantastic.
"pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity" should be replaced with "pointing out that you were on your high school baseball team"
and "suggesting that you are deserving of a Nobel prize" should be changed to "suggesting that you are deserving of a Primey."
Posted 10:39 a.m.,
August 29, 2003
(#4) -
Pasqual Perez
3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent
5 points for each word in all capital letters
Any system that would rate TOLAXOR as more of a crackpot than RossCW is clearly flawed.
Posted 10:53 a.m.,
August 29, 2003
(#5) -
Ross in a WC
There's no evidence that crackpots are more likely to make logically inconsistent statements.
Posted 10:59 a.m.,
August 29, 2003
(#6) -
Andrew Clarke(e-mail)
Primey for #1!
Posted 11:28 a.m.,
August 29, 2003
(#7) -
jwb
For item #8, shouldn't that be "Hawking" rather than "Hawkins"?
Posted 11:31 a.m.,
August 29, 2003
(#8) -
Points for jwb
That was covered in #20.
Posted 11:53 a.m.,
August 29, 2003
(#9) -
RossCW
Uhm huh. Apparently, some people think crackposts are those who believe 100 years of baseball wisdom should not be thrown out based on back-of-the-envelope calculations and sports writer musings that can't be tested. My guess is that if you put Bill James through the crackpot test against traditional baseball wisdom he would score quite high.
Posted 12:05 p.m.,
August 29, 2003
(#10) -
Chris Hartjes
(homepage)
RossCW is so obviously a troll, but I'll bite. Baseball "wisdom" is not always right, and "back-of-the-envelope calculations" aren't always right either.
Bill James is one of those guys who (rightly so) says "Baseball wisdom says X is true. Here's why I think that X is not true, and here are the numbers to prove it." Case in point is his excellent essay in either the New Historical Abstract or Win Shares (I can't remember which one) where he shows what he feels are optimal uses of a team's ace reliever.
Posted 12:59 p.m.,
August 29, 2003
(#11) -
Tom S
The (sabremetric) Crackpot Index
original physics index by John Baez
A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:
1. A -5 point starting credit.
2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
8. 5 points for each mention of "Billy Bean", "J. R. Riccardi" or "Bob Neyer".
9. 10 points for each claim that OPS+ is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.
12. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.
13. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
14. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
15. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".
16. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
17. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts careers correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
18. 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Voros or claim that DIPS is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
19. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
20. 20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index, e.g. saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Billy Bean" in item 8.
21. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a SABR award.
22. 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Bill James, or claim that Runs Created or Win Shares are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
23. 20 points for every use of baseball fiction works or movies as if they were fact.
24. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
25. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
26. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
27. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Neyer was a closet opponent of Win Shares, as deduced by reading between the lines in his column.)
28. 30 points for suggesting that Branch Rickey, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
29. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an Major League team (without good evidence).
30. 30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.
31. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
32. 40 points for claiming that the "baseball establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
33. 40 points for comparing yourself to Jackie Robinson, suggesting that a modern-day prejudice is attacking your case, and so on.
34. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day baseball analysis will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about ESPN specials in which writers who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
35. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
Posted 1:14 p.m.,
August 29, 2003
(#12) -
Bill James
34. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day baseball analysis will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about ESPN specials in which writers who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
-100 points when the ESPN special is aired.
Posted 4:55 p.m.,
August 29, 2003
(#13) -
Scott Lange
Bill James said: -100 points when the ESPN special is aired.
+150 points if the ESPN special involves Alan Dershowitz ripping your arguement to shreds
Posted 7:29 p.m.,
August 29, 2003
(#14) -
Antonius Block
+50 if you say that people who disagree with your theory "need to stop playing with their spreadsheets and start actually watching some games"
Posted 7:46 p.m.,
August 29, 2003
(#15) -
RossCW
Bill James is one of those guys who (rightly so) says "Baseball wisdom says X is true. Here's why I think that X is not true, and here are the numbers to prove it."
Bill James is a sports writer who comes up with interesting ideas and proves them to his own satisfaction. Where is the objective test for MLE's? Where is the objective test for win shares? Where is the objective test for his claims how relievers should be used? There aren't any. They are interesting ideas. He may be right, but not much reason to think so.
Posted 10:24 a.m.,
August 30, 2003
(#16) -
kamatoa
31 - 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to sportswriters, scouts, or Cam Bonifay.
Posted 11:11 a.m.,
September 1, 2003
(#17) -
Alan Jordan
100 points for claiming that the people who secretly run baseball will change all the rules once they understand the brilliance and the irresistable new philosphy of your ideas.
25 points for writing everything from your mother's basement.
Posted 7:33 p.m.,
September 1, 2003
(#18) -
Pseu
www.timecube.com
Posted 10:12 a.m.,
September 4, 2003
(#19) -
Yaz
I believe that Time Cube achieves a perfect score on the Crackpot Index.
Posted 2:30 p.m.,
September 5, 2003
(#20) -
Matthew Elmslie
I don't think that a reference to Billy Bean (with that spelling) is a sign of crackpoticity in a theory. You really might be able to use the guy as an example of something or other.