Levitt Bets on the A’s

Just popping in from my vacation, where I’m typing while looking out over a South Carolina marsh. The SC coast is one of my favorite places on earth. The salty air is probably not great for my laptop, but the benefits are quite high.

For all you who gave Steven Levitt such a hard time, you will be happy to know that he’s put some money down on the A’s. You see, Levitt is interested in getting things right, not “being right” as any good social scientist should be.

4 Responses “Levitt Bets on the A’s”

  1. Aaron says:

    Speaking of winning money, SSPS has me in contention in my fantasy league (friendly $10 bet per person) for the first time ever. I’m a horrible fantasy player, usually, but SSPS-inspired pickups like Pettitte, Patterson, and Griffey have really paid off.

    I hope it comes out next year BEFORE the draft. Would have saved me from selecting some real SSPS-predicted stinkers.

  2. JC says:

    Wow! Glad to hear it. :)

  3. Adam says:

    I just wish Levitt had followed through on his promise to point out some of the problems he sees with current sabrmetric debate and thinking. But, it seems like he’s been beaten into submission by the clamoring hoards.

  4. J. Cross says:

    Levitt went a long ways from suggesting that he had a very good understanding of sabermetrics to now saying that he knows nothing about baseball. I don’t think that the A’s recent success proves his previous argument wrong (I would have thought he was wrong even if the A’s flopped, afterall) but I was impressed that he conceded even if he went a little overboard in his concession.

    Also, while a good scientist shouldn’t be interested in being right, a good scientist should also realize that an interest in being right is inevitable and be aware of their own expectations instead of denying them. I think history shows that the best and most respected scientists are sometimes the most stubborn in their refusal to admit when they’re wrong simply because they have so much invested in their theories.

    Anyway, I’m impressed that Levitt conceded this debate but doesn’t this also vindicate those who “gave him a hard time?”