My Sabermetrics Paper for School (8+ Pages)

[Sabermetrician]

If anyone is interested in reading this and proofreading, let me know. I haven't yet read the entire thing to proofread, but I did go through as I read each paragraph and edit what I could find.

 

http://www.nfldraftforecast.com/finalpaper.doc

 

Be picky. This counts for the majority of my second marking period grade, so I want it to be good.

 

Also, I'm not satisfied with my conclusion. Any suggestions, let me know.

[bhogg]

what the crap does the nfl draft know about sabrmetrics? ;)

[PieOnMyHands]

That is a quote from Voros McCracken, special advisor to the Boston Red Sox, that appears Michael Lewis’ “Moneyball.”

 

You need to add the word "in" after "appears" and before "Michael." And Lewis' should be Lewis's.

 

 

The evolution of Sabermetrics have helped not only small market teams compete (the Billy Beane era in Oakland and the fourteen straight division titles of the Atlanta Braves) at a playoff-calibre level, but also played a major role in putting an end to the Boston Red Sox 86-yr. World Series void.

 

 

I would change "yr." to year."

Edit calibre to caliber. I think you can get away with either, though...

 

 

Slugging percentage [Total Bases / (Plate Appearances – Walks – Sacrifices], which seems to be the best baseball statistic to non-Sabermetricians.

 

Doesn't sound right. Change it to something like, "Slugging percentage [] appears to be the best baseball statistic to non-Sabermatricians." I don't think you need a comma after just the word Slugging Percentage... it didn't sound correct to me.

 

 

. A high batting average will correlate to at least a decent slugging percentage.

 

I think you should provide an example in this. "Decent" is arbitrary and might be confusing...

 

 

James’ first version of it: Runs Created = [Total Bases * (Hits + Walks)] / Plate Appearances. Since he created the stat, Sabermetricians have refined it to make it more accurate, but even his first variation was believed to be an accurate measure of an individual’s offensive contribution. The correlation between James’ first Runs Created formula, when used on teams, closely approximated how many runs the team actually scored.

 

Change the James' to James's.

 

The form you're using is if there is more than one James. (Like a family of 'em.)

 

 

Average is denoted by the formula: SecA = [ (Total Bases – Hits + Walks + Stolen Bases – Caught Stealing) / At Bats ].

 

Um, I'd re-word this to something like:

 

"Average is denoted by the following forumla:"

 

What you have doesn't need the colon, I don't think.

 

 

In addition, it is an advantage for American League teams to have the effect of the designated hitter in their lineup; more runs are scored in the American League than the National League.

 

Not sure who your audience is, but they might not know what the DH is?

 

 

A quite simpler formula, though not quite as effective, is Adjusted OPS (indicated OPS+).

 

Before this, I would at least mention what "plain old" OPS is. I didn't see you do that..

 

 

In 2004, the A’s traded their two best starting pitchers (Mark Mulder and Tim Hudson), but the following year still finished fourteen games over .500 and were in the playoff race until the final weeks of the season

 

I'd change that to something like "arguably their two best starting pitchers," simply 'cause that's up for interpretation.

 

Also; mentioned how they let other big-name free agents walk, and draw in draft picks as a result of it.

 

 

Because the Braves were such ayoung team in 2005, their players will all remain cheap for at least two more seasons, and the Braves should continue their run of division titles.

 

Typo. "a young" = a young.

 

 

However, they are only useful if they improve ones understanding of the game.

 

I think one should be "one's."

 

 

 

Uhm you said you were going to re-work the conclusion, and no offense, but I would too. I would try and use the word "revolutionize."

 

Maybe something like:

 

"Sabermetrics have become an increasingly popular form of evaluation of baseball; with the release of the book "Moneyball," a greater understanding of the game has been revealed to the general public. Sabermetrics are quickly replacing counting stats are the premiere way to analyze a player, as they are believed to be much more reliable. Many will agree that the implementation of Sabermetrics into baseball have had a revolutionary effect in numerous areas surrounding the game."

 

 

It was a good paper. I'd maybe give a definition of Sabermetrics, and maybe talk about the SABR group (http://www.sabr.org/).

 

Hope this helps!

 

Edit: My Microsoft Office trial ran out, so I had to view it in Wordpad; so sorry I couldn't provide page numbers and whatnot...

[USSoccer]

There are some sentence fragments and misspellings/grammar errors that could be easily polished up by taking a fresh look at it, paragraph by paragraph. Try reading it out loud-that gives you the ability to spot missing words, fragments, etc.

 

The publication of “Moneyball,” a written account of how the Oakland A’s management uses statistical analyses to find ballplayers that other franchises have shown little interest in, has really developed an interest in the concept of Sabermetrics, the analysis of baseball statistics through objective evidence, in the sport of baseball.

 

Try breaking that thought up into shorter sentences.

 

 

Also, should "Sabermetrics" be capitalized? I think it should just be regular case.

 

 

. The evolution of Sabermetrics have helped not only small market teams compete (the Billy Beane era in Oakland and the fourteen straight division titles of the Atlanta Braves) at a playoff-calibre level, but also played a major role in putting an end to the Boston Red Sox 86-yr. World Series void.

 

The info in the parantheses seems awkwardly put. Try rewriting that thought into something like "The evolution of sabermetrics has helped not just small market teams, but major market teams with bigger budgets have also used the priniclples with successful results. One can look at the success of the Oakland A's from 1999-2004, the Atlanta Braves of 1993-2005, and, most recently, the Boston Red Sox of 2004 to see how clubs in different economic states have benefited."

 

On-base percentage [(Hits + Walks + Hit by Pitch) / (At Bats + Walks + Hit by Pitch + Sacrifice Flies)] is the statistic that measures the chances of not making an out, though even OBP has its faults

 

Reword that to say something like " OBP is a stat that measures the likely percentage of not making an out. It as a very effective metric, although it does have it flaws"

 

 

Overall, your thesis is good, and content-wise, it's good. It just needs to be proof read with a fine tooth comb.

 

Well done! :D

Edited December 30, 2005 by USSoccer

[sethuel1]

That is a quote from Voros McCracken, special advisor to the Boston Red Sox, that appears Michael Lewis’ “Moneyball.”

 

You need to add the word "in" after "appears" and before "Michael." And Lewis' should be Lewis's.

Lewis' is also correct

[Garwilly]

That is a quote from Voros McCracken, special advisor to the Boston Red Sox, that appears Michael Lewis’ “Moneyball.”

 

You need to add the word "in" after "appears" and before "Michael." And Lewis' should be Lewis's.

Lewis' is also correct

 

If Lewis is the prural of Lewi, then yes. :wink:

[son of sanford and son]

The evolution of Sabermetrics have helped not only small market teams compete...

 

I would change this to "The evolution of Sabermetrics has helped...."

 

The "evolution" has helped. Not "Sabermetrics" have helped....

 

[/nitpick]

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I'll proof it for you on January 4th. I'm on vacation right now. :mrgreen:

[UK1679666180]

I'll avoid the grammar discussions, simply b/c I work on spreadsheets all day.

 

But, I think it is incorrect to include ATL into the sabermetric realm as you have Oak., Bos., etc.

 

They're probably the most scout heavy team in MLB, there's no other team that would weigh that they're from GA and grew up a Braves' fan into deciding whether or not to draft him.

 

Also, if you mention Beane, you should mention Sandy Alderson as he's the one that started it and Beane has tweaked it along the way.

 

While Rickey hired the first statistican, Earnshaw Cook (mech. engineer) in 1964 came out with a book called Percentage Baseball, it was the 1st one of its kind and questioned the way baseball was run.

Edited December 30, 2005 by UK

[RockTheIvy]

The evolution of Sabermetrics have helped not only small market teams compete...

 

I would change this to "The evolution of Sabermetrics has helped...."

 

The "evolution" has helped. Not "Sabermetrics" have helped....

 

[/nitpick]

 

Nothing to do with your post, just your name...

BUENOS DIAS!

WELL BEANS AND DISEASE TO YOU TOO!

 

Sanford and Son is one of the top five shows ever.

[UK1679666180]

Also, you should tell where the SABR world is going. Has there been a backlash with firing of Depodesta, Riccardi on the hot seat, Epstein stepping down?

 

Will the "renegade" thought process become the norm as teams look for better fiscal responsibility?

 

Discussing the future should be part of the conclusion.

[badgercub]

No offense, but do they not teach english in elementary or high school anymore? I could see if you had some typos but I would be embarrassed to turn that in. Needs a lot of work.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

No offense, but do they not teach english in elementary or high school anymore? I could see if you had some typos but I would be embarrassed to turn that in. Needs a lot of work.

 

 

Thanks for letting us know how great you are w\o adding any actual constructive criticism.

 

 

:thumleft:

[RockTheIvy]

No offense, but do they not teach english in elementary or high school anymore? I could see if you had some typos but I would be embarrassed to turn that in. Needs a lot of work.

 

Why don't you tell us how you really feel?

[Sabermetrician]

Thanks for all the suggestions. I fixed most of them and re-uploaded it.

 

PieOnMyHands...

Good thinking with the FA's and draft picks. A very important part of the A's success.

I really like your conclusion. I think I will put it in somehow and add in UK's idea of where sabermetrics are going in the future.

 

USSoccer...

I liked all of your suggestions and word-by-word used your rephrasing of "The evolution..." and about OBP. Right now they are there are placeholders, don't worry about plagerism because I won't hand it in that way. :)

 

UK...

I too struggled with Atlanta and how the incorprate sabermetrics, but at the same time I couldn't think of a third team that really has had success because of sabermetrics, and two teams just didn't seem enough.

I like your idea for a conclusion, I'll put that in as well.

Also regarding the A's...that'll go in.

 

Keep the suggestions coming - they're very helpful.

[Sabermetrician]

No offense, but do they not teach english in elementary or high school anymore? I could see if you had some typos but I would be embarrassed to turn that in. Needs a lot of work.

 

Maybe I should take suggestions from you, the guy who runs the site which currently looks like this?

 

ÁÑ5'áS6‚ñ’¢DTsEF7Gc(UVW²ÂÒâòdƒt“„e£³ÃÓã)8fóu*9:HIJXYZghijvwxyz…†‡ˆ‰Š”•–—˜™š¤¥¦§¨©ª´µ¶·¸¹ºÄÅÆÇÈÉÊÔÕÖ×ØÙÚäåæçèéêôõö÷øùú

 

...

[UK1679666180]

Thanks for all the suggestions. I fixed most of them and re-uploaded it.

 

PieOnMyHands...

Good thinking with the FA's and draft picks. A very important part of the A's success.

I really like your conclusion. I think I will put it in somehow and add in UK's idea of where sabermetrics are going in the future.

 

USSoccer...

I liked all of your suggestions and word-by-word used your rephrasing of "The evolution..." and about OBP. Right now they are there are placeholders, don't worry about plagerism because I won't hand it in that way. :)

 

UK...

I too struggled with Atlanta and how the incorprate sabermetrics, but at the same time I couldn't think of a third team that really has had success because of sabermetrics, and two teams just didn't seem enough.

I like your idea for a conclusion, I'll put that in as well.

Also regarding the A's...that'll go in.

 

Keep the suggestions coming - they're very helpful.

 

You shouldn't have to be forced show a successful team using the process, I assume it is an informative paper, rather than persuasive. Cleveland fits the bill with an front office of Ivy League grads, but I see no problem w/mentioning Riccardi as far as Toronto not being as successful, yet.

 

Mention the failures of LA, it's not a bulletproof system and mentioning why LA did not work under Depodesta, might be a great way to further metnion the success of Oakland, as one team has a large budget and the other a small budget, yet the small budget team performed much better.

 

Mention the detractors out there, it's part of the process as well. This hasn't been embraced w/open arms.

[CoolHandLuke]

I could be totally wrong but when you mention Moneyball shouldn't you italicize it? I though Book titles get italicized and articles in journals, magazines, etc. get quotation marks.

[Sabermetrician]

I could be totally wrong but when you mention Moneyball shouldn't you italicize it? I though Book titles get italicized and articles in journals, magazines, etc. get quotation marks.

I actually thought books were underlined, but I was told by my teacher quotations, so I'm going with that. But I'll double check before handing it in.

Edited December 30, 2005 by Sabermetrician

[erik316wttn]

No offense, but do they not teach english in elementary or high school anymore? I could see if you had some typos but I would be embarrassed to turn that in. Needs a lot of work.

 

Maybe I should take suggestions from you, the guy who runs the site which currently looks like this?

 

ÁÑ5'áS6‚ñ’¢DTsEF7Gc(UVW²ÂÒâòdƒt“„e£³ÃÓã)8fóu*9:HIJXYZghijvwxyz…†‡ˆ‰Š”•–—˜™š¤¥¦§¨©ª´µ¶·¸¹ºÄÅÆÇÈÉÊÔÕÖ×ØÙÚäåæçèéêôõö÷øùú

 

...

 

Haha. Burn!

[Garwilly]

I too struggled with Atlanta and how the incorprate sabermetrics, but at the same time I couldn't think of a third team that really has had success because of sabermetrics, and two teams just didn't seem enough.

 

Wow. Is that considered laziness? apathy? or lying?

[Sabermetrician]

Wow. Is that considered laziness? apathy? or lying?

 

The thing is, an essay map needs to be incorporated into the paper somehow, and most essay maps really require three major points. The A's were the obvious choice and Boston because of the Bill James hiring and how they went on to win the World Series, but then there's no other obvious team that's been successful. The Braves seemed logical because they understand the value of their farm system, EqA, etc. I'll probably do Indians now that it's been mentioned, that one slipped my mind but it's a good example.

 

By the way, I don't think I can be considered lazy for this paper...I'm been working on it for quite some time and I've posted a couple of topics on these forums already asking for advice. Also, is it lying? The Braves have been successful and I'm sure sabermetrics have been a part of it.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Wow. Is that considered laziness? apathy? or lying?

 

The thing is, an essay map needs to be incorporated into the paper somehow, and most essay maps really require three major points. The A's were the obvious choice and Boston because of the Bill James hiring and how they went on to win the World Series, but then there's no other obvious team that's been successful. The Braves seemed logical because they understand the value of their farm system, EqA, etc. I'll probably do Indians now that it's been mentioned, that one slipped my mind but it's a good example.

 

By the way, I don't think I can be considered lazy for this paper...I'm been working on it for quite some time and I've posted a couple of topics on these forums already asking for advice. Also, is it lying? The Braves have been successful and I'm sure sabermetrics have been a part of it.

 

The Braves success is probably more due to excellent scouting rather than a focus on sabermetrics. If you recall in Moneyball, Beane reduces his risk by drafting college players. That is one of his primary facets of success. The Braves do just the opposite. They target high schoolers that they believe their player development people can mold into all-star caliber baseball players.

 

I'm not saying the Braves don't rely on statistics as they have an incredible front office, but they are many teams that are more sabermetric than the Braves in their approach.

 

In fact the amount of money placed into the Braves scouting and player development is contrary to the sabermetricians view of the draft. I'm pretty sure the Braves would draft players based on the scouting tools rather than the stats put up in college. The Braves would have never drafted Jeromy Brown.

 

Including the Braves as an example is not showing intellectual integrity. I understand the essay map, and you might get away with it because your teacher may not have an intricate knowledge of baseball, but if a student handed in that paper to me with the Braves as an example and with the knowledge I have on the subject, I would deduct a large number of points.

[Diffusion]

What are OBP's flaws?

 

I'll read the paper in a minute.

[Diffusion]

“Moneyball,” a written account of how the Oakland A’s management uses statistical analyses to find ballplayers that other franchises have shown little interest in.

 

That's not what Moneyball is about at all. Moneyball is about coming to a fuller understanding of the game, primarily through an emphasis on relatively objective evidence, and using that knowledge to exploit market inefficiencies and so punch above one's weight. The fact that some of the players that the A's target as they go about doing that tend to be unwanted is entirely secondary.

 

sabermetrics, the analysis of baseball statistics through objective evidence

 

Is it not the case that baseball statistics (with a few relatively minor exceptions: hit/error rulings, for instance) are entirely objective? And are they not evidence? If so, then you might as well be saying that sabermetrics is the analysis of baseball statistics through baseball statistics, or that sabermetrics is the study of objective evidence through objective evidence. Which you obviously should avoid saying.

 

You'd be far better off using a quoted definition of sabermetrics. Bill James' "the search for objective knowledge about baseball" perhaps.

 

Before “Moneyball,” only few franchises had used sabermetrics to build their teams

 

Either "only a few" or just "few".

 

Are you entirely sure that the turning point in all of this was the publication of Moneyball? I'm not saying that it isn't, but that's a pretty bold statement, that a book changed the game, and you must be aware that that's exactly what your sentence there implies.

 

since the publication of "Moneyball" there has been a change in the philosophy of many major league front offices that has resulted in an increase in the ability of teams to compete and field profitable teams

 

Ditch the word profitable. Profitable references the bottom line, income relative to expenditure. That's economics. Your essay is about sabermetrics. You don't want to go into a diatribe about whether baseball teams are making more money these days, which you have to do to justify making a statement like this. You don't then want to have to prove that sabermetrics is responsible for them making more money these days, largely because that'd be just about impossible. Stick to the baseball and get rid of the word profitable.

 

And if you're getting onto dodgy ground underfoot if you're going to argue that there's been an increase in the ability of teams to compete since they adopted a more sabermetric approach because they read Moneyball. At the very least you're going to have to justify this statement. You certainly can't just leave it out there, merely referencing the success of the A's (who were successful before Moneyball, hence Moneyball being written), the Braves (who have very little to do with sabermetrics, so I've no idea why you've included them, and they were running a winning organisation long, long before Moneyball anyway) and the Red Sox (who also had the "ability to compete" well before Moneyball - the Red Sox have finished second in the division since 1998, Moneyball was published in May 2003)

 

The need for sabermetrics stems from faults in most of the traditional baseball statistics, which are also known as “counting stats.”

 

Batting average is a counting stat? Oh, and please, statistics aren't faulty. A statistic can't be faulty. What's faulty, if anything, is either the design of it or someone's application of it.

 

batting average [Hits / (Plate Appearances – Walks – Sacrifices]

 

Batting average is hits divided by at-bats. If you must express at-bats as a function of plate appearances, the denominator is (PA - BB - HBP - S - SF).

 

[batting average] does not measure the talent of a batter whose talent is to extract walks from pitchers who do not wish to put him on base, or whose power is so great that pitchers will take their chances working the corners of the plate rather than risking an extra-base hit

 

So what? On-base percentage doesn't measure power. Slugging percentage doesn't measure the ability of a player to steal bases. Does that mean that those statistics are flawed? Of course not. You judge a statistic against what it's designed to measure. And batting average is designed to measure how often a player gets on with a hit, and it does a great job of that.

 

Your line of argument here should be a) that how often you get on with a hit isn't all there is to being a good offensive player and b) the traditional application of batting average as a measure of how good offensively a player is thus is greviously flawed.

 

The main fault with OBP is that it is unweighted; it makes no distinction between a walk or hit by pitch and a grand slam home run.

 

Again, so what? On-base percentage is designed to tell you how often a player avoids making an out. It does that just fine. You seem under the impression that you need to make a decision as to a player's offensive value on the basis of just one statistic. That is not the case. So you should stop deriding statistics that aren't designed as catch-all measures for not being catch-all measures. Look at what a statistic does, not what it doesn't do. If the metric is commonly applied in such a way that doesn't fit with what it can and can't tell you, then complain about the application of it. You've got this entire bit about statistics (which sadly makes up most of your piece) backwards.

 

Slugging percentage [Total Bases / (Plate Appearances – Walks – Sacrifices] appears to be the best baseball statistic for non-sabermetricians

 

The denominator is again wrong. See batting average for the correction.

 

Its problem is it declares a double equal to two singles, a triple worth one and a half doubles, and a home run worth four singles. Both one home run and four singles will have a slugging percentage of 1.000, but it is quite obvious the four singles is better because the hitter did not commit three outs in between.

 

A lousy example, though it makes the very point that I've been making all along: you don't judge a player just on his slugging percentage, or just on his average, or just on his on-base percentage. None are designed as a catch all measure. On the first day of the season, Player A hits four singles (1.000/1.000/1.000). Player B hits a home run and makes three outs (.250/.250/.1000). Anyone here want to argue that Player A and B both done equal good? Well, you're wrong, because on average Player A contributed 1.44 more runs to the cause in that game.

 

But, yes, you're right in your basic point that each total base is not created exactly equal. As such two players can have identical slugging percentages (and averages and on-bases) but have contributed different amounts to their teams by virtue of the way they amassed those total bases. Suppose Player A and Player B put up absolutely identical numbers over a season with the exception that Player A hits 30 more doubles, but Player B hits 20 more singles and 10 more home runs. Player B actually on average contributes 0.3 runs because of the difference in the way the total bases were put up. As such, slugging percentage isn't a perfect measure. But it's good enough: 0.3 runs over a season really isn't that much, and if you want a more extreme example you have to involve guys that hit 30 triples or something similarly unplausible.

 

A high batting average will correlate to at least a decent slugging percentage.

 

Meh. I know what you're trying to say, but that's completely the wrong way of saying it.

 

For example, you will never see a player with a batting average of .300 and a slugging percentage of .400

 

I see plenty of them. From 1959-2004, there were 171 instances of a player with 300 or more at-bats in the season having a .290-.310 average and a .390-.410 slugging. The most recent examples include Darin Erstad and Edgardo Alfonzo in 2004, BJ Surhoff and Sean Casey in 2003, Dan Wilson and Jose Vizcaino in 2002.

 

slugging percentage does not indicate how many runs are produced by a players hits, and does not give credit to other offensive categories, such as walks, hit by pitch, or steals.

 

Again, so what? It's not designed to. It's design is pretty sound. No-one even wrongly uses it that way. There's not much wrong with its application. In other words, there's not much wrong with slugging percentage.

 

Since [bill James] created [Runs Created], Sabermetricians have refined it to make it more accurate, but even his first variation was believed to be an accurate measure of an individual’s offensive contribution.

 

Actually, I'm pretty sure the only person that's refined Runs Created is Bill James.

 

The correlation between James’ first Runs Created formula, when used on teams, closely approximated how many runs the team actually scored.

 

How closely? Closely compared to what?

 

Another statistic created by Bill James is Secondary Average. It gauges a player’s ability to produce extra bases though independent of their batting average

 

And does a rubbish job of it. It's poorly designed, because a total base isn't worth a walk isn't worth a stolen bases isn't worth a caught stealing. Using at-bats as the denominator is contentious at best. And the statistic is completely redundant, because it doesn't tell you anything you can't tell from an AVG/OBP/SLG line. That's why you never see it used in modern day sabermetrics.

 

If a hitter plays for one season in a hitters park and then the next season switches teams to a pitchers park, it is almost a guarantee his counting stats will be higher in the hitters park, irrelevant to team success.

 

That's a pretty horrid way of making that point.

 

In addition, it is an advantage for American League teams to have the effect of the designated hitter (where the pitcher is exempt from batting, allowing a position player to hit instead) in their lineup; more runs are scored in the American League than the National League.

 

Actually, since 1998, the NL has comfortably outscored the AL every year. Obviously that's down to it having two extra teams, but it still invalidates what you've written. I know what you're trying to write, obviously, but you need to re-word.

 

 

OPS+ is a horrible statistic by the way. Cool, it adjusts for park and league average, but it's still OPS. And it's still adding two things that use different scales.

 

 

Due to their small budget, the A’s have been forced to trade their highest priced players, yet they’ve done so when their stock is at its highest and they always receive good prospects in return.

 

Always? Please. Next you'll be telling me Billy Beane has never made a mistake in his life because of sabermetrics.

 

In 2004, the A’s traded arguably their two best starting pitchers (Mark Mulder and Tim Hudson), but the following year still finished fourteen games over .500 and were in the playoff race until the final weeks of the season.

 

Are you implying causation or not? I can't tell.

 

In addition, the A’s have mastered the art of the free agent market. Instead of re-signing their high price free agents, they find lesser known players that will still help the team.

 

Esteban Loaiza?

 

After the 2001 season, free agent Jason Giambi signed a seven-year, $120 million deal with the New York Yankees.

 

You're writing this whole thing as though the reader knows nothing about baseball. So you have to tell them that Giambi used to play for Oakland. And you should mention that the A's got their draft picks for him, and that this is a policy they pursued with Ray Durham, Miguel Tejada etc as well. Then go and look up who they drafted with those picks, and what they're doing for the team now.

 

Oakland signed Scott Hatteberg to replace him on a one-year, $950,000 contract. The following year, Hatteberg had the best season of his career, and he remained in Oakland for three more seasons as well.

 

You should probably mention that by best season of his career, you're talking about .280/.374/.433, which is extremely unremarkable for a first baseman. And you should probably also mention that Hatteberg was rubbish in two of those three extra seasons, and that he earned $6.5m for them.

 

 

The Braves have just about nothing to do with sabermetrics. Maybe look at the BlueJays, who pretend to under Riccardi. Or the Dodgers under DePodesta. Or would that not be one sided enough for you?

 

 

James pushed to sign free agent David Ortiz, who had been released by the Minnesota Twins after the 2002 season before signing with Boston.

 

You should include a source for these kind of assertions.

 

Counting stats have now been proven meaningless, to completely understand baseball they must be ignored.

 

What? On? Earth? Are? You? On? About?

 

 

Otherwise, besides spelling, punctuation and grammar etc., it's just about acceptable. If you want to improve it you need to look at your writing style, you need to back up the points that you make in much greater depth, you need to take a much much more objective viewpoint (because, ironically, your essay on the great and the good of objective evidence is currently riddled with your subjective high opinion of everything sabermetrics touches), and you should probably stop looking at sabermetrics just in terms of the statistics that it argues are more valuable when it comes to player evaluation. There's more to sabermetrics than RC27 etc.. It'd probably make for a much more interesting read that way as well. Drearily explaining one statistic after another really isn't doing much for me.

 

I don't know how old you are or what the significance of this paper is, so bear that in mind.