...............

Thirty years.  Don't they go by in a blink.  ::anthonyhopkins::

Thanks to csiems for the linkup to Bill James' 1982ff Baseball Analysts.  We immediately started noodling around in issue 3.

.

=== The State of the Art, Dept. ===

In chess circles, there are ferocious debates about the strengths of the champions from 1858, from 1902, from 1927, from 1938, from 1972 and from today.  These debates weave in and out against each other as if they were lattices.  

Generally, weak chessplayers (50th percentile of tourney players) argue strenuously that Paul Morphy, genius champion from 1858, would not even be a very good high school player nowadays.  They groan at Morphy's old-fashioned, kludgy 1800's opening sequences and wonder why Morphy wasn't using positional technique that was developed in the 1920's.

Generally, very good players assume that the great players of the 19th century were as brilliant, though not "booked up".

Generally, great players -- world champions -- don't argue.  They simply state that the best chessplayers of the 1800's were as talented as those today.  "In the depth of their conceptions and the accuracy of their calculations, both Morphy (1857) and Steinitz (1889) were the equal of all those who followed them" -- Reuben Fine, world champion 1940's

"In a set match, Morphy (1857) would defeat any player alive today" - Bobby Fischer, world champion 1970's

.

=== What's Yer Point, Dept. ===

Going back through the Bill James Abstracts from 1982, a reader's first impression might be, "Wow, Hardball Times and Fangraphs have come a long ways since the days of Bill James.  Nice to have real geniuses in the field nowadays."

Dr. Arpad Elo, who invented the chess rating system, warned against this impression.  "To say that today's chessplayers are better than those of the 1800's ... that would be like saying a 2011 high school physics student was a greater scientist than Isaac Newton, simply because Newton didn't have access to the periodic table."

Others have followed on.  Was Napoleon lacking as a general, because he didn't have nuclear weapons?  Or do you credit him for being in advance of the generals he competed against?

To take it to the reductio ad absurdum ... could you, with a Bic lighter, a thermal blanket, and a compass, survive better than a primitive man who himself conceived and invented fire?

........

It is not inherently impressive (though it is useful and appreciated) to take James' runs (and wins) created formula, tweak it a bit, and publish WAR.

It is inherently impressive to be the first one to realize that players' careers rise and fall on predictable arcs, and to be the first one to realize that a 23-year-old in AAA can expect to produce twice the career that a 25-year-old will.