Ah...I'm not really here wrote:

I've run into plenty of people for whom "Bill James says" ends the
discussion. Can't think of any I'd classify as statheads.

As I believe Jonathan can confirm, the attitude among the statheads
is great critical thinker (I can't count the number of times something
he's written has caused me to re-think something I'd taken for
granted), fine writer (whose biting style has influenced a lot
of statheads), whose general skills with numbers are the weak
part of his game.

To quote Jonathan (in response to a "Bill James said" argument)

"Yes, but just because Bill James didn't make it beyond the second
week of his statistics class, doesn't mean we can't make use of the
enormous amount of data his method can't look at... "

Don't get me wrong. If James writes it, I'll buy it. I've enjoyed
re-reading
even his weakest efforts.

johnson@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca wrote in news:1160502320.032748.106230
@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:


I tried that with EQA and Clay in r.s.bb. recently, but it doesn't work
any more.

JHB

johnson@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca wrote in
news:1160540896.423986.135760@b28g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com:


That sounds about right. I believe, although I'm not sure about it, that
there are also some who question his skills as a historian. I tend to
be a big fan of his work in that area.


Me? I guess so.


Agreed.

JHB

<johnson@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote in message
news:1160540896.423986.135760@b28g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
Bill
only

Good point. Maybe they're not statheads but statheads wannabes.

Jonathan Bernstein wrote:

A comment on the limitations of James' matched pairs method.