What I like about it is this: it clearly explains why human beings like Dave Parker belong in a very elite category of good baseball players, but why human beings with stats like Dave Parker do not belong in what should be the most elite category of baseball players... the Hall of Fame. I feel like I'd always said to myself that Dave Parker didn't belong in the HOF thanks to his measly 339 career home runs. Now I have proof that I was not discriminating against you, Dave Parker, or any of the other borderline candidates for the Hall.
Dave Parker had this to say in 2006:
"There were a couple of years where my numbers probably weren't what they should have been. But for the majority of those 10 years, from 1975 to '80, I was probably the best player in the game.... I should be in the Hall of Fame. Ain't no doubt about it."
Dave, Michael Hoban and I do have doubts about it. Congratulations on your 1978 NL MVP and all, but your status as window-gazer places you exactly where you belong. Why you ever got as much as 24% of the vote baffles me.
This article, also by Mr. Hoban, lays out an argument about Derek Jeter's fielding. It is calmly laid out, supported at every turn with factual and statistical analysis, and makes the obvious case that the Gold Glove awards (in particular Jeter's 2004 prize) are meaningless.
The article quotes Derek Jeter: "
But I couldn't really care less what some mathematical equation comes out with." "How do you rank defensive shortstops?" Jeter said. "I don't see how a formula can evaluate how somebody plays.
I'm sure Derek understands how formulas evaluate how people play: his batting average routinely evaluates some aspect of his performance. He's just happy because he's quite good at a performance-evaluating category that people can understand (well, it only involves one math operation) and that people are so pleased with his performance in that category that they award him things in other categories.The larger point is: Michael Hoban, PhD and 35-year professor of mathematics, is better at writing a simple and effective argument than the vast majority of those who are paid - most likely more than a professor - to do exactly that. The problem with baseball journalism is that it can be produced by people in other occupations in their spare time (for example, Michael Hoban)... and the quality of their journalism is as good, and often better, than that of the men who are paid to analyze and report on the game.
i doubt that sports journalists make more than professors, dan
ReplyDeletei know exactly how dave parker feels. for the majority of the last 10 years of my life, from '02 to '06, ive been really really well behaved but still havent gotten a pony for christmas.
ReplyDeleteas the son of a professor, i feel qualified to make that statement. i think it stands.
ReplyDeleteas someone who has access to google, i feel qualified to say you're crazy:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.collegejournal.com/salarydata/journalism/
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos066.htm
Graduates in 2004 who majored in journalism and mass communications received a median annual salary of $27,800, according to a survey from the Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Georgia in Athens. They received the following in median annual salary according to the type of media organization they joined:
# Daily newspapers: $26,000
# Weekly newspapers: $24,000
# Radio: $23,000
# Television: $23,500
# Cable television: $30,000
# Advertising: $28,000
# Public relations: $28,500
# Consumer magazines: $27,000
# Newsletters, trade publications: $28,000
# Web sites: $32,000
Median annual earnings of all postsecondary teachers in May 2004 were $51,800. The middle 50 percent earned between $36,590 and $72,490. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $25,460, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $99,980.
Earnings for college faculty vary according to rank and type of institution, geographic area, and field. According to a 2004-05 survey by the American Association of University Professors, salaries for full-time faculty averaged $68,505. By rank, the average was $91,548 for professors, $65,113 for associate professors, $54,571 for assistant professors, $39,899 for instructors, and $45,647 for lecturers. Faculty in 4-year institutions earn higher salaries, on average, than do those in 2-year schools. In 2004-05, faculty salaries averaged $79,342 in private independent institutions, $66,851 in public institutions, and $61,103 in religiously affiliated private colleges and universities. In fields with high-paying nonacademic alternatives—medicine, law, engineering, and business, among others—earnings exceed these averages. In others fields—such as the humanities and education—they are lower.
1. i applaud your research, which makes a lot of sense and exposes a lack of effort on my part. thank you for reminding me not to rely on anecdotal evidence.
ReplyDelete2. your research isn't particularly applicable. you compare first-year-graduate salaries for journalists (generally 22-23 years old) with salaries of professors... normally one doesn't acheive that rank till mid-30s.
the difference in experiece could very well account for the disparity in salaries. i'm not going to go so far as to ask our biggest fan jp for his salary, but i bet his experience in the industry has raised his salary above that 32,000 mark for recent graduates.
also, since you generally have to have the postgraduate degree to teach in postsecondary institutions, it could very well be that the disparity you note comes from the relative education levels. what about people with masters degrees in journalism? bet their salary is higher than those figures too.
also, the author in question is a professor of mathematics, which as you note is a lower-paying field.
we graduated from college 12 months ago, you boring ninnies. knock it off.
ReplyDelete:-/
ReplyDelete