http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2007/04/april-2/ Economic Thinking about Baseball Sun, 09 Jan 2011 17:16:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2007/04/april-2/comment-page-1/#comment-43215 JC Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:46:16 +0000 http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2007/04/april-2/#comment-43215 It's on the op-ed page. There is no way that I can <em>prove</em> this to be the case anymore than I can prove Eve wasn't made from the rib of Adam via divine intervention. I think that point is obvious. The evidence (which includes more than what I presented in the article) indicates to me that expansion played a big role in home run hitting and that steroids haven't been nearly as important. That is merely my opinion, and I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me. It’s on the op-ed page. There is no way that I can prove this to be the case anymore than I can prove Eve wasn’t made from the rib of Adam via divine intervention. I think that point is obvious. The evidence (which includes more than what I presented in the article) indicates to me that expansion played a big role in home run hitting and that steroids haven’t been nearly as important. That is merely my opinion, and I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me.

]]> http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2007/04/april-2/comment-page-1/#comment-43209 JRM Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:25:19 +0000 http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2007/04/april-2/#comment-43209 I am surprised that in the NY Times article, you actually suggest that there is some way to know the "true" culprit of what ruined baseball. An interesting alternative explanation, yes; but to assert that it is truth is preposterous. The number of other potential explanations is vast. You do a disservice to economics as a field by suggesting that we can truly know the cause of something as general as what ruined baseball. I am surprised that in the NY Times article, you actually suggest that there is some way to know the “true” culprit of what ruined baseball. An interesting alternative explanation, yes; but to assert that it is truth is preposterous. The number of other potential explanations is vast. You do a disservice to economics as a field by suggesting that we can truly know the cause of something as general as what ruined baseball.

]]>