Friday, April 09, 2004
Hindsight is 20/20
Here is a brilliant piece of hypothetical history from Gregg Easterbrook on what would have happened if the Bush administration had done what Richard Clarke and many Democrats claim, now, that it should have done when it took office.
|
|
Trends in Grade Inflation
I ran into this website thanks to a link at The Chronicle for Higher Education site. The trend is disturbing.
No wonder one school is fining professors for giving out too many As. Also, Princeton has put a cap on the number of As professors can give.
|
No wonder one school is fining professors for giving out too many As. Also, Princeton has put a cap on the number of As professors can give.
|
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
More Advice about Econ Grad School
Craig Newmark at Marginal Revolution has some more good advice for graduate school in economics.
You also may be interested in my guide to graduate school in economics.
|
You also may be interested in my guide to graduate school in economics.
|
Sewanee in The Tennessean
There is an interesting article in The Tennessean about Sewanee's image modification. I think the article is misleading. My impression is that the name change had NOTHING to do with the loosening our affiliation with misguided southern stereotypes. I sat in on several of the meetings where outside consultants encouraged us to play up our being in the South. It was the insiders who wanted to play down the southern image. The consultants responded that unless we plan to move up north there is no use in fighting that fight. Clearly, the writer is quoting from one of two reports on the issue, so he is not making it up. But this was not the one of the main reasons for the change.
Here is the deal. Our name is The University of the South. Most people in "the South" call us Sewanee. Even our letterhead says Sewanee. This is very confusing. So now we are using the name Sewanee: The University of the South. I don't understand why this is so upsetting to people. It is just formalizing and informal name of the school to help outsiders understand that Sewanee and The University of the South are one in the same.
|
Here is the deal. Our name is The University of the South. Most people in "the South" call us Sewanee. Even our letterhead says Sewanee. This is very confusing. So now we are using the name Sewanee: The University of the South. I don't understand why this is so upsetting to people. It is just formalizing and informal name of the school to help outsiders understand that Sewanee and The University of the South are one in the same.
|
Friday, April 02, 2004
My How We've Grown
Tyler links to an interesting post on changes in the US since 1904. This is particularly interesting to me since my grandfather was born during that year. The numbers are staggering, particularly the life-expectancy of 47. I think it is truly amazing how much the living conditions of my family have changed in just two generations. It makes me gasp at what my daughter's children will have in 2073 (when I will be 100).
|
|
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Trump on Socrates
Enjoy a taste of Dan Ackman’s hilarious review of Donald Trump’s new biography Trump: How to Get Rich (Note: I refuse to provide a link to this book) from the Tuesday March 30, 2004 WSJ:
Who among us -- ex-wives, former mistresses and spurned business partners excepted -- does not love The Donald? He first entered our world, and allowed us into his, more than 20 years ago, and he has never left. Now the idea of Donald J. Trump not being around seems difficult to imagine. Mr. Trump always saves us the trouble of having to try.
Mr. Trump tells his readers that they should budget quiet time: For Mr. Trump it's between 5 a.m. and 8 a.m., when he reads seven newspapers and catches up on the dozen magazines he receives daily. He also says that you should read books a lot. Mr. Trump does it "in the evening, after a black tie dinner," while munching pretzels. He enjoys biographies. But "now and then I like to read about philosophers -- particularly Socrates, who emphasizes you should follow the convictions of your own conscience, which basically means thinking for yourself, a philosophy I tend to agree with."
The book reads as if it had been dictated in the back of a limousine on the way to a helicopter, which is exactly what you'd want from a Trump production.
Should you read this book? You could read Socrates instead, but he was never as rich as Mr. Trump and not as much fun.
|
Who among us -- ex-wives, former mistresses and spurned business partners excepted -- does not love The Donald? He first entered our world, and allowed us into his, more than 20 years ago, and he has never left. Now the idea of Donald J. Trump not being around seems difficult to imagine. Mr. Trump always saves us the trouble of having to try.
Mr. Trump tells his readers that they should budget quiet time: For Mr. Trump it's between 5 a.m. and 8 a.m., when he reads seven newspapers and catches up on the dozen magazines he receives daily. He also says that you should read books a lot. Mr. Trump does it "in the evening, after a black tie dinner," while munching pretzels. He enjoys biographies. But "now and then I like to read about philosophers -- particularly Socrates, who emphasizes you should follow the convictions of your own conscience, which basically means thinking for yourself, a philosophy I tend to agree with."
The book reads as if it had been dictated in the back of a limousine on the way to a helicopter, which is exactly what you'd want from a Trump production.
Should you read this book? You could read Socrates instead, but he was never as rich as Mr. Trump and not as much fun.
|
Advice to Econ Graduate Students
Fellow GMU alum and now GMU professor Alex Tabarrok gives some excellent advice to graduate students in an interview with Crescat Sententia.
Sobering advice, but still excellent.
|
If you go to graduate school be prepared to be bored for at least the first two years. After that it gets much more interesting. And believe it or not the boring stuff will help you to do the fun stuff. (And the boring stuff becomes a lot more fun when it turns out to be useful!) Sure, it's overdone at most places but math and hard-core empirical work have their place.
Intuition is a tricky thing because most of our intuitions are wrong. For most of us, it's only by training ourselves on the boring stuff that we develop good intuitions which we can then use to blog!
Sobering advice, but still excellent.
|
Why are Gas Prices so High?
It is not just OPEC (as Bill pointed out) or greedy oil companies, but environmental regulations. Well, I suspect there is a good chance oil companies have had a hand in supporting these regulations (see Russell Roberts's post on Bruce Yandle's Bootleggers and Baptists hypothesis). Skip has a good post on this, and he is pessimistic about the chances for a fall in gasoline prices anytime soon.
|
|
High Concept Comedy
On Monday nights Letterman show, Dave presented the following high concept comedy piece - have 1999 Nobel Prize winner for Economics Robert Mundell come out and tell old Jeff Foxworthy “You might be a redneck” jokes. Throughout the entire hour, Dave called on Mundell to tell old chestnuts like:
If you only have one tooth, you might be a redneck.
If you call your sister mom, you might be a redneck.
If you’re too drunk to fish, you might be a redneck.
Brilliantly applied comedic theory! It could only have been improved if they had included my favorite redneck joke “If you job requires you to wear a shirt with your name on it, you might be a redneck” and also if they could have somehow gotton James Buchanan, who is from Alabama, to participate instead of the Canadian Munndell.
Up to this point, whenever I have told someone I am an economist, they reacted with mix of confusion and mild disgust. After this comedy bit, the public’s perception of economists can only improve, although we may get called on to occasionally tell a redneck joke, which I know will be no problem for myself or JC.
|
If you only have one tooth, you might be a redneck.
If you call your sister mom, you might be a redneck.
If you’re too drunk to fish, you might be a redneck.
Brilliantly applied comedic theory! It could only have been improved if they had included my favorite redneck joke “If you job requires you to wear a shirt with your name on it, you might be a redneck” and also if they could have somehow gotton James Buchanan, who is from Alabama, to participate instead of the Canadian Munndell.
Up to this point, whenever I have told someone I am an economist, they reacted with mix of confusion and mild disgust. After this comedy bit, the public’s perception of economists can only improve, although we may get called on to occasionally tell a redneck joke, which I know will be no problem for myself or JC.
|
Monday, March 29, 2004
Wisdom from Thomas Sowell
Here are a couple “Random Thoughts” from the great Thomas Sowell:
It is almost impossible to go to a shopping mall these days without seeing some teenage girl's navel. There was a time when a guy was not likely to see a girl's navel except on some more memorable occasion than a visit to a mall.
I don't want to give false hope to anyone with medical problems. But I remember a doctor telling me, after the end of my finger had been smashed by a powerful machine and looked like hamburger: "I will try to save your finger but you should never expect to see a fingernail there again." Six months later, a fingernail began to grow back
|
It is almost impossible to go to a shopping mall these days without seeing some teenage girl's navel. There was a time when a guy was not likely to see a girl's navel except on some more memorable occasion than a visit to a mall.
I don't want to give false hope to anyone with medical problems. But I remember a doctor telling me, after the end of my finger had been smashed by a powerful machine and looked like hamburger: "I will try to save your finger but you should never expect to see a fingernail there again." Six months later, a fingernail began to grow back
|
Introducing Sabernomics
For those of you who have been following Old Fishinghat from the early days, you have certainly noticed a change in the content of my posts. While my tone remains bitter and sarcastic (like Bill), my main topic of interest has been baseball (unlike Bill). Therefore, I decided to create a new weblog for my baseball studies and commentary.
I am happy to announce the start of Sabernomics: a weblog dedicated to economic thinking about baseball. If you are a regular reader of this site, then you know what to expect. If this interests you, please visit the new site. I have transferred many posts from the Hat over to Sabernomics to get it started -- I always hate it when new weblogs start with just that first post.
What does this mean for Old Fishinghat? Not much. Bill and I will still be posting plenty of commentary.
|
I am happy to announce the start of Sabernomics: a weblog dedicated to economic thinking about baseball. If you are a regular reader of this site, then you know what to expect. If this interests you, please visit the new site. I have transferred many posts from the Hat over to Sabernomics to get it started -- I always hate it when new weblogs start with just that first post.
What does this mean for Old Fishinghat? Not much. Bill and I will still be posting plenty of commentary.
|
Thursday, March 25, 2004
Private Stadiums are Profitable
Doug Pappas and Baseball Primer discuss a study by Marc Poitras (GMU alum) and Larry Hadley that shows privately funded baseball stadiums can turn a profit.
In their study, the researchers took into account team performance, ticket prices, the honeymoon period of a new stadium, stadium capacity and player salaries. With the first season in a typical $268 million stadium expected to produce about $33 million, half the cost of construction would be recovered in five years and all of the cost in 12 years, the study said. After 20 years, revenues would exceed construction costs by more than $100 million and by $200 million after 30 years, the study said.
|
In their study, the researchers took into account team performance, ticket prices, the honeymoon period of a new stadium, stadium capacity and player salaries. With the first season in a typical $268 million stadium expected to produce about $33 million, half the cost of construction would be recovered in five years and all of the cost in 12 years, the study said. After 20 years, revenues would exceed construction costs by more than $100 million and by $200 million after 30 years, the study said.
|
The Old Fishinghat Revealed
Q: Why is this weblog, which is mostly about baseball economics, named "Old Fishinghat?"
A: Here is a picture of this site's namesake.
|
A: Here is a picture of this site's namesake.
|
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Measuring the Quality of Competition in MLB
This article by Chris Dial caused me to revisit some of my thinking about the quality of competition in baseball over time. Judging player ability over time when player performance is a function of other participants in the game is not easy. For example, in sports such as running, where the outcome is measured by time, it is very easy to compare athletes over time using absolute measures of performance. The runner with the fastest time is clearly the best. However, sports such as baseball, where outcomes are a function of the relative performance of players, comparing abilities becomes much more difficult. While Babe Ruth was the greatest hitter of his era it does not mean that he is any better than the players in today's game. The pitchers of today differ from the pitchers of Ruth's era. While Ruth may have dominated in his own time, few would argue that this beer-swilling slugger would be the same player in today's game. But, it is possible that Ruth performed better against his competition than Barry Bonds does to his.
So if we cannot use absolute statistics to measure achievement, how can we compare player performance across eras. Stephen Jay Gould suggests such a method: compare the distribution of playing talent in the game. The talent spectrum in baseball ranges from AAA call-ups to superstars. As the talent pool expands more fringe players enter the game. This means that the best hitters (pitchers) in the league get more opportunities against low-quality pitchers (hitters), giving the best players a greater opportunity to excel. Gould takes his argument a step further to say that the compression of talent in today's game -- due to the rising population compared to stagnant number of teams -- reduces the occurrence of abnormal excellence. He views the decreased dispersion, as measured by the standard deviation of several baseball statistics, as the reason that no player has batted .400 since Ted Williams in 1941.
I decided to use Gould's argument in a different way. I want to see how competitive the game was, as measured by talent dispersion, during different eras in baseball history. I am curious as to the quality of the game as measured by the distance between the best and the worst players. An instructive example occurs every four years in soccer with the World Cup. The best players in major leagues around the world form all-star teams by country and compete. I am not a huge soccer fan, but I have watched both MLS and World Cup soccer. There is huge difference in quality of play, with the World Cup being at a much higher level of play. This makes me wonder, has the talent distribution in baseball become more like the World Cup over time, as Gould predicts?
First, I want to look at the percent of the US population playing Major League Baseball over time. This table lists the population per MLB player at the start of each decade.
Since 1940 MLB has been above the average ratio of the century, but it has not continually increased. Why not? Expansion. Also, I am excluding some other important measures that understate dispersion in the early part of the century such as racial segregation and the lack of international players. However, this may be counterbalanced by the emergence of other sports with which baseball competes for talent. Therefore, I am not sure how useful this information is.
Second, I want to directly examine the dispersion of baseball talent in hitting and pitching. Instead of using the pure standard deviation of baseball statistics, I am going to use the coefficient of variation (CoV) as a measure of dispersion. The CoV is simply the SD/Mean, and it is superior to the non-normalized SD because it is not biased by the mean. For example, a year with a high mean batting average is likely to have a higher SD of batting average than a year with a low batting average. Using the Lahman database I use all pitchers that face at least 50 batters and players that have 100 at-bats to calculate the CoV of quasi-OBP allowed [(hits +walks)/(AB+walks)] and batter OPS for all pitchers and hitters. I would prefer to calculate OPS against for pitchers, but this data needed to calculated this is not in the Lahman data. I pick the cut-off of 50 and 100 for pitchers and batters to cut-out the players who do not have enough observations to for reliable statistics, but I don't want to cut out all of the fringe players. I set a lower standard for pitchers, because raising the cut-off excludes a good number of relief pitchers. This figure lists this dispersion by decade relative to the 1920-2003 average. Higher bars mean greater dispersion, lower bars mean more similarity across players.
One thing that is quite interesting is the difference in fluctuations across hitters and pitchers. They do not seem to move together. For example, in the 1980s and 1990s hitters were not widely dispersed though pitchers were very dispersed. This leaves a few questions to ponder.
1) Why does the dispersion of hitting and pitching talent differ? If it were just the result of changes in the size of the population from which MLB draws players, they should move together.
2) How can baseball fans use this data to compare individual players across eras? Though pitching talent is more dispersed than in Ruth's era, the average offense of the league is much higher now. How can we combine both of these metrics to compare players from different eras to each other versus their competition? Bonds has done well in an era of pitchers that are on average worse than Ruth's pitchers, and the modern day pitchers are much more varied in quality. I want to give Ruth the edge here -- not because I like him, but because it seems the right thing to do -- but I would like a more objective way to quantify this. Maybe the historical win shares database will do it, but I don't know.
Finally, I would like to figure out which decade from the past is most like today in terms of the quality of competition. The clear winner is the 1950s, certainly a good decade for baseball. Hitting and pitching dispersion were very similar to today, and Steve Treder seems to like it for some other reasons. It is also interesting that the population to player ratio of today is very similar to 1950.
|
So if we cannot use absolute statistics to measure achievement, how can we compare player performance across eras. Stephen Jay Gould suggests such a method: compare the distribution of playing talent in the game. The talent spectrum in baseball ranges from AAA call-ups to superstars. As the talent pool expands more fringe players enter the game. This means that the best hitters (pitchers) in the league get more opportunities against low-quality pitchers (hitters), giving the best players a greater opportunity to excel. Gould takes his argument a step further to say that the compression of talent in today's game -- due to the rising population compared to stagnant number of teams -- reduces the occurrence of abnormal excellence. He views the decreased dispersion, as measured by the standard deviation of several baseball statistics, as the reason that no player has batted .400 since Ted Williams in 1941.
I decided to use Gould's argument in a different way. I want to see how competitive the game was, as measured by talent dispersion, during different eras in baseball history. I am curious as to the quality of the game as measured by the distance between the best and the worst players. An instructive example occurs every four years in soccer with the World Cup. The best players in major leagues around the world form all-star teams by country and compete. I am not a huge soccer fan, but I have watched both MLS and World Cup soccer. There is huge difference in quality of play, with the World Cup being at a much higher level of play. This makes me wonder, has the talent distribution in baseball become more like the World Cup over time, as Gould predicts?
First, I want to look at the percent of the US population playing Major League Baseball over time. This table lists the population per MLB player at the start of each decade.
Date Pop/Player Ratio
1900 238,163
1910 288,214
1920 265,054
1930 308,007
1940 330,411
1950 378,314
1960 358,646
1970 338,687
1980 348,532
1990 382,631
2000 375,229
Century 328,353
Post-1940 352,557
Since 1940 MLB has been above the average ratio of the century, but it has not continually increased. Why not? Expansion. Also, I am excluding some other important measures that understate dispersion in the early part of the century such as racial segregation and the lack of international players. However, this may be counterbalanced by the emergence of other sports with which baseball competes for talent. Therefore, I am not sure how useful this information is.
Second, I want to directly examine the dispersion of baseball talent in hitting and pitching. Instead of using the pure standard deviation of baseball statistics, I am going to use the coefficient of variation (CoV) as a measure of dispersion. The CoV is simply the SD/Mean, and it is superior to the non-normalized SD because it is not biased by the mean. For example, a year with a high mean batting average is likely to have a higher SD of batting average than a year with a low batting average. Using the Lahman database I use all pitchers that face at least 50 batters and players that have 100 at-bats to calculate the CoV of quasi-OBP allowed [(hits +walks)/(AB+walks)] and batter OPS for all pitchers and hitters. I would prefer to calculate OPS against for pitchers, but this data needed to calculated this is not in the Lahman data. I pick the cut-off of 50 and 100 for pitchers and batters to cut-out the players who do not have enough observations to for reliable statistics, but I don't want to cut out all of the fringe players. I set a lower standard for pitchers, because raising the cut-off excludes a good number of relief pitchers. This figure lists this dispersion by decade relative to the 1920-2003 average. Higher bars mean greater dispersion, lower bars mean more similarity across players.
One thing that is quite interesting is the difference in fluctuations across hitters and pitchers. They do not seem to move together. For example, in the 1980s and 1990s hitters were not widely dispersed though pitchers were very dispersed. This leaves a few questions to ponder.
1) Why does the dispersion of hitting and pitching talent differ? If it were just the result of changes in the size of the population from which MLB draws players, they should move together.
2) How can baseball fans use this data to compare individual players across eras? Though pitching talent is more dispersed than in Ruth's era, the average offense of the league is much higher now. How can we combine both of these metrics to compare players from different eras to each other versus their competition? Bonds has done well in an era of pitchers that are on average worse than Ruth's pitchers, and the modern day pitchers are much more varied in quality. I want to give Ruth the edge here -- not because I like him, but because it seems the right thing to do -- but I would like a more objective way to quantify this. Maybe the historical win shares database will do it, but I don't know.
Finally, I would like to figure out which decade from the past is most like today in terms of the quality of competition. The clear winner is the 1950s, certainly a good decade for baseball. Hitting and pitching dispersion were very similar to today, and Steve Treder seems to like it for some other reasons. It is also interesting that the population to player ratio of today is very similar to 1950.
|
