Correcting Bill James

Do I dare?

Correcting Bill James

I love the 1985 World Series.

I’m not sure how to explain it. I love watching those games, and have watched every game of that series countless times.

I think it’s the combination of the uniforms, the artificial turf, and the ABC cameras that do it to me. It hypnotizes me in a way. It makes me feel like I’m a child again.

It’s probably no coincidence that my favorite volume of the old Bill James Baseball Abstract series is the one from 1986. James’ commentary on the 1985 World Series is fantastic, and is something every baseball fan should read.

But there are a few problems.

I did a deep dive into the 9th inning of game 2 of that World Series, inspired largely by James’ commentary. And, well, he got a few things wrong.

Apologies in advance for the shadows. I’ll try to take better photos next time.

James was wrong here. Leibrandt’s pitch might have been a little bit outside, though I would have called it a strike. However, Charlie did not make a gesture after that pitch. That gesture came after the first pitch to Jack Clark was called a ball later in the inning — and the Clark pitch was a lot closer.

James probably couldn’t see it very well from right field, but he also misses the fat that Jim Sundberg should have caught the foul ball right before that supposed third strike. The foul ball landed right in front of Sundberg’s face, hitting a Royals player in the rear end.

James is incorrect. The first pitch to Clark should have been called a strike, and was similar to the pitch Clark wound up hitting through the left side of the infield. The second pitch was low and outside, but wasn’t in the dirt. The third pitch was high and outside.

James also misses the fact that George Brett was playing the line, which is why he didn’t grab Clark’s ground ball. That would have been a routine play if Brett were stationed where he should have been. There was no reason to have Brett covering the line, of course. Kansas City was still up by 2 with 2 men out and only one runner on.

Finally, there’s this blurb.

I agree with James, but only to an extent. I think that there are times in sims — tabletop or computer — where walking the bases loaded makes sense. I know that James spent years playing Ball Park Baseball, but that doesn’t really matter.

The problem with walking Cedeno is that Leibrandt stayed in the game. If you walk Cedeno and stick Quiz in there, I can sort of see the strategy. However, the only thing walking Cedeno did was allow another St. Louis baserunner to potentially score should Pendleton get a hit.

Cedeno hit .291 in 1985, split between the Reds and the Cardinals. Pendleton’s on base percentage was .285.

That’s right. Pendleton’s on base percentage was lower than Cedeno’s batting average.

It wasn’t lower by much, however. And I think James’ point is right. You pitch differently when there’s nowhere to put the hitter. The pitch that Pendleton hit for a double was inside, not outside, and got a lot of the plate. If Leibrandt had thrown that pitch to Jack Clark, Clark would have tied the game right then and there.

Anyway, there you have it. James should have slowed down and verified the details. I know writing the Abstract was frustrating and time consuming — trust me, I know all about how much time it takes to create quality content — but this is the sort of thing that James could have easily looked up. I mean, he videotaped all 7 games, right?