Maximizing Runs, A Long-Term Approach
by greenpaddedgloves on Mar 14, 2010 9:38 AM PST
90 comments
Although it is rare, every AN reader can agree that the '10 A's may struggle to score runs. I have convinced myself that simply applying one rule of strategy can have an unlimited impact on any given game.
We MUST bunt, every time, when we have runners on first and second with no outs.
When there is no bunt, many outcomes of the hitter are unbecoming. Any infield ground ball can be a double play. A fly ball is still an out. Yet if we bunt successfully(to the third baseman and advance the runners) these same negative outcomes turn positive. Ground ball can not be double play, and can drive run in. Fly ball can be an out, but can drive in run.
I have experience in university statistics and regression, but need help from the statistical wizards on AN to reliably determine the run differential between the two scenarios, over the course of the season.
Concurrently, There is a psychological boost to hitters and pitchers when the team scores runs. But we can't measure that, players can just tell us. When we're down three in the sixth inning, I believe it energizes the team tremendously if we can score at least that one run instead of gambling that we can score two or more runs in the inning. Getting that one run is a small lift in momentum versus a likely disappointment from failing to get even that one run. If we are going t o score 3.xx runs a game, how many crooked innings are there going to be? What do you all think?
0 recs |
90 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
My guess is you'll have a rough time proving this one.
What you don’t account for is all of the positive outcomes from hitting away, compared to the negative ones of the bunt (the out from the bunt, along with possible IBB to load the bases and reproduce double-play possibility, this time inning-ender). If there’s no bunt and then a double-play leaving runner on 3rd, at least a single still brings him home. Oh, and I didn’t mention that hated outcome of all baseball fans: the failed bunt.
But I expect you’ll hear from folks who can back up all the reasons why giving up an out is a bad idea.
A Ballade [for the Angels Fan], by Eustache Deschamps: "We are cowardly, ill-formed and weak / Aged, envious and evil-spoken. / I see only fools and sots / Truly the end is nigh / All goes ill."
He also doesn't seem to account for all the negatives that come with attempting a bunt
In fact, he assumes the bunt will be successful every time. That’s a problem.
IF you could guarantee a successful sac bunt, removing bunting failures (and, I suppose, the other things like an infield single, errors, etc.), bunting in this situation might be a good thing. But there’s just no way it’s ALWAYS the right move, for game theory reasons if nothing else.
www.zekeishungry.com
"Always" is rarely a recipe for success anyway.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Paris is right.
Those run differentials have already been calculated. When you have runners on first and second with no outs, the average team (these numbers are taken from almost 10,000 games over 4 years) scores 1.573 runs. After a successful sacrifice bunt? When you have runners on second and third with one out? 1.467. The average successful sacrifice bunt costs you 0.1-ish runs every time, and you’re not successful every time. The average failed sac bunt will cost you around 0.6 runs.
Furthermore, if you do that every time, the infield will cheat and place themselves in excellent positions to field any bunt, making your bunt success rate extremely low. And inversely, if you never bunt, the defense will never worry about it, and they’ll place themselves in a position to optimally field regular batted balls. The correct strategy is to bunt as little as possible—but enough to keep the defense honest.
Taken down with hearts alive, our hearts alive.
Interesting stuff.
The other possibility is to be Jack Cust: bunt very rarely, but surprise the other team so much that the pitcher’s head explodes and the A’s win by forfeit.
Actually, hitters who have the lefty shift should almost certainly be bunting more
It can be argued they should bunt until they’re no longer playing a shift against him.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Mar 14, 2010 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Does anyone remember, or know how to find stats for, Cust's bunt attempts?
I want to say he was three for three last year in bunting for a hit, but I’m probably wrong.
3 attempts is not enough though
especially since he is clearly good enough to get one down the third base line in a halfway decent manner.
www.zekeishungry.com
he's been successful in good part because of the shift
and that the opposing team hasn’t been expecting him to bunt.
Right, but they're still shifting and still being surprised
Which means he’s not doing it enough. He should be doing it until there is no more shift/surprise, especially since he’s actually able to get a bunt down.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Mar 14, 2010 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions 7 recs
Please please please please AN
turn the above comment green.
"The rich people want what the poor peoples got, and the poor people want what the rich peoples got. You can never please anybody in this world"- The Shaggs, "Philosophy Of The World," 1968
by Gaijin_Suketto on Mar 14, 2010 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions
I think it would be awesome if he obstinately bunted until they removed the shift.
sock puppets have never successfully defended castles. -nm
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 14, 2010 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
He should. I mean, perhaps not every single at bat. But why not once a game if he has the opportunity?
After about a week of bunt singles (if that long), teams would be wary about shifting him.
www.zekeishungry.com
Wouldn't they just shift the third baseman back to near his normal spot
while still keeping the shortstop and second baseman way over toward the first base side?
I mean, it’s better, but it’s still going to lower his hit rate.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
Eventually...
but there are a lot of bunt singles between point a and point b.
"Mammals are drippy. Deal with it!" - Me, earlier today
by Gaijin_Suketto on Mar 15, 2010 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions
Bunt it to "shortstop"
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Do that and it will usually be fielded by the pitcher...
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
Bunt it over the fence!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Bat Cust second
100% Athletics, 100% Baseball. 2009 Athletics, 40% Baseball.
if the goal is to move the runner at 1st over to second
we should also add the hit and run along with hitting the ball to the right field side. Also, if you have a good base stealer on first we should add giving him a chance to try to steal.
Everything I've seen suggests the hit and run is almost always a really dumb play to use
www.zekeishungry.com
I'm okay with it situationally
like 3 and 2 with an extreme groundball pitcher. It’s probably a good idea for teams to start the runner in that situation against Ziegler, for instance, esp since he’s very unlikely to get a K with anything other than the frisbee slider, which has got to be a touch pitch for the catcher on a SB attempt.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
I don't like ever putting a hitter in a situation where he feels like he has to swing
www.zekeishungry.com
I didn't explain this enough
3 and 2 is different, since most hitters (Cust is an exception) are not swinging at pitches they think are balls. Still, I don’t want to start any runner who can’t steal the base. Just doesn’t seem worth it.
www.zekeishungry.com
Yeah, if you've got Powell at 1B it's not a good idea, unless they're playing behind him and he gets a 15 foot lead
But let’s say it’s 1 and 3rd, 1 out, 3 and 2 with an average runner at 1B (Kouzmanoff or Ellis) against an extreme GB pitcher. In a tie or 1-run game, I think it’s a pretty easy choice to send the runner, depending to some extent on the hitter, as well (selectivity, speed to 1st). Even if it’s not a 1-run game, a GB very likely means no runs at all, whereas sending the runner only definitely hoses you if there’s a liner right at an infielder (which is very rare, and could have been a DP even without the hit-and-run) or if sending the runner is the thing that makes the hitter swing at ball four, (though if the hitter K’s you might still get the SB to keep the inning alive). All other outcomes (a hit, a popup, a fly out) are no worse with hit-and-run.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
I like the hit-and-run only when
the batter actually has bat control and can use a “right side hole,” and then I like it. Do it with O. Cabrera (last year) or Sweeney/Barton/Suzuki this year, but never with guys who just randomly hit the ball and often don’t.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
the hit and run, bunt, and letting a good base stealer get a chance
are all skills that ballplayers should at least have some proficiency with. There are situations where they are extra weapons to have available. Clearly the A’s aren’t expected to succeed at scoring enough runs by getting one or two hitters to walk and then wait for a HR.
Those are "extra weapons"
in the sense that having a Colt .45 is having an “extra weapon” in a US-Russia thermonuclear war.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
I don't agree
even if they are not used alot it’s certainly better for the other side to know that they might be used than they will never be used by the A’s.
Why?
If the other team is smart, they will WANT the A’s to use them, because those strategies suck.
I’d actually rather the team didn’t even have the hit-and-run in the playbook, because the odds of it being misused are far higher than the odds of it ever being used correctly.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
I wasn't referring only to the hit and run
but to all the “small ball” strategies, including hit and run.
It may have made sense for the A’s to ignore those strategies in the days when you could get a few walks and then a couple of HR threats, but that is not the A’s of today.
If opposing teams know that there’s a chance that the A’s baserunner might attempt a steal, if the batter could bunt, or they could hit and run, could squeeze – and that the defense might have to adjust accordingly since the A’s have demonstrated that they have some players who can execute those plays – it may help in certain situations. Predictability won’t exactly help the A’s as they are presently constituted.
Baseball has been about "getting a few walks and then a couple of HR threats" since the 1920s
and it always will be about same.
I hate to break it to you, but the game is not radically different now than it was 10 years ago. Getting on base and hitting for power are still the overwhelmingly important features of a major league offense.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
What do you want to break to me?
I’ve been a baseball fan for a long time. Baseball is and has been about alot more than walks and home runs. Maybe that’s what you enjoy most, but that’s certainly not all that happens, nor all that the offences do.
by OaklandSi on Mar 15, 2010 5:13 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
You're right, PT's wrong on this one
The hit-and-run is fine, if used judiciously and sparingly.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Mar 15, 2010 7:24 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I've never seen any evidence that it's "fine," even used sparingly
The ONLY possible reason for it is a game theory reason, and I think the play is generally so terrible that it’s not even worth it. You may as well straight steal a little more often if you want to keep teams on their toes.
www.zekeishungry.com
One benefit is that if the hitter is in a count
where he’s likely to swing/hit the ball anyway, by starting the runner you turn a lot of “single, runner to second” into “single, runner to third” — even on base hits to LF and CF.
And if the hitter actually has bat control and can exploit a vacated side of the diamond, then it can be a very good “maximize the BABIP” play.
Finally, against a sinkerballer who gets tons of grounders and doesn’t miss bats, it can be a real tool.
Example: You have Bengie Molina at bat against Cahill in a DP situation and the count is 2-1.
Yes I know: The better strategy is not to let Bengie Molina play on your team. I get that.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
1. We know this. Obviously it doesn’t fail 100% of the time or no one would consider it. It’s still a terrible play when you run the numbers.
2. Hitters don’t have that kind of bat control. The direction of a batted ball is a highly unpredictable interaction between a round bat and a round ball. A half-inch difference in swing plane makes the difference between a ball pulled to third base and one hit on a fly to right field.
3. If you literally have Bengie Molina at the plate against a sinkerballer and don’t have a guy who can steal second on first, then yes, I suppose it’s not that bad. But the combination of “slow hitter who makes lots of contact and hits lots of grounders with slow runner on first, groundball pitcher and 0 or 1 out in the inning” is so unlikely that it’s not worth bothering with.
It’s like trying to find the situation when it would make sense to evaluate clutch hitting when signing a free agent. The odds of it making a difference are so remote, because the effect is so small, that it doesn’t warrant the investment of mental energy.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
I didn't say I enjoy it most
I just don’t make the mistake of confusing what I enjoy with what is good strategy. Hit-and-runs are an awful, stupid strategy that makes you score fewer runs. They have no part in any baseball team’s playbook.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
Makes me think of this game...
"People need to get over the concept of TMI. Mammals are drippy. Deal with it." ~Gaijin_Suketto
That's the SuperBug, IIRC
A very nasty, extra-deadly outcome that you can get when you spin the result of a nuclear attack on the game’s spinner.
That was a fun game, though kinda grim. I’ve got it around the house somewhere (it’s not on the shelf next to my Ace of Aces books, which is where I thought I’d find it…)
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
The A's assistant gm was on fitz and brooks friday
He agreed with fitz that bunting is a waste of time unless you only need 1 run.
by gambler on Mar 14, 2010 12:29 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
the A's lost around 23 one run games last year.
so about 1/4 of the games the A’s lost, it is not a waste of time.
"Gratuitous gesticulating together sounds even better"
That doesn't necessarily prove the point
If the A’s lost a game 5-4 and hit a 3-run HR, then using a lot of small-ball might have turned it into a 5-2 or 5-3 loss. It needs to be a 1-run game, in the late innings, in a situation in which you judge that it’s worthwhile to sacrifice a lot of the chance to score a 2nd or 3rd or 4th run in order to increase the chance of scoring 1 run a bit.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
Listening (and talking) to Fitz and Brooks is a waste of time
BEER IS GOOD. BEER IS GOOD. BEER IS GOOD, AND STUFF.
avg team = avg power and/or avg runs scored. Does that .1ish run stay the same for all types of teams?
the A’s have below avg power and will probably score less runs than avg.
even though on “average” it is better to not bunt, for a team like the A’s it could be. teams that have alot of power probably make the not bunting avg look better?
I think the best thing about bunting alot is that players should get better at it over the course of a season if they are bunting alot. Then if they get to the playoffs they are better at it than other teams when bunting and one run games seem to come into play more.
Personally, I would force Raj
to bunt once a game for the rest of spring training and the first month of the year and then reasess the situation.
if he turns his speed into a weapon even half as much as Ichiro he becomes a gold mine. If teams know he is going to bunt alot and creep up on him, he gets more singles past them. Stress the Defense as much as possible.
"Gratuitous gesticulating together sounds even better"
Only bunt
When one run is key. I would add when the opposing pitcher has already proven, that game, to be on his game.
What people often fail to factor in is how often, when swinging away, the batter gets the runner(s) over anyway. The batter gets full maximum potential by not having to bunt and a ground ball to most of the infield and many fly balls, among the more misc things that can happen, all get the runner over anyway.
That’s what gets me. It will be early innings, the opposing pitcher is nothing special and/or hasn’t proven to be “on it” that day, and you’ll see major league managers, players and frontoffices happy that one of their big hitters purposefully “just got the ball to the right side” to move the runner(s) up or in.
Sure, if it’s one of your weak hitters or the pitcher is on that day. But to be happy, and to call it “playing the game the right way” to have your good hitters “give themselves up,” let alone sacrifice officially, when MANY REGULAR OUTS gotten through swinging away and letting your good hitters be good hitters will still get that same job done anyway (AND bunting can many times fail, 4 out of 10 i think it is!?)
Since I was a kid the odds on this thing all these “baseball people” do so obviously wrongly…it’s always seemed insane to me.
by supersugarCrisp on Mar 14, 2010 5:28 PM PDT reply actions
And to expound on that
I would bunt sometimes. One run game, late, opposing pitcher good and “on” that game. At least near as good a hitter coming up to hit with the runners supposedly moved up.
Also, just to keep both the other teams guessing and my players capable of getting a good bunt down, I would call for one here and there but i would use it to get a guy in a long cold streak “going,” or maybe some other place where both the situation could use it and it did something for my team vibe or a players situation.
But overall, bunting is still used way too much. This is one of those areas where the stat geeks are simply correct and “baseball people” are uniformly wrong. Not every instance, but overall.
by supersugarCrisp on Mar 14, 2010 5:48 PM PDT reply actions
Bunting, specifically, is all about game theory
It’s usually a good play when the defense is back and you have a good bunter at the plate, and usually a bad play when the situation is reversed. The key is having a high enough likelihood of a good thing (single, throwing error) to cancel out not only the bad things (double play, foul ball, popout without advancing the runner) but also the slight negative tilt from the “conventional outcome” (batter out, runner advances).
The problem is that baseball teams are, for some weird reason, much more intelligent game theoreticians on defense than they are on offense. In other words, the defense positions itself in about the right place most of the time, but the hitters then bunt way too often.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
I meant to say sacrificing, not bunting
And also intentional non-direct sacrifices like trying to hit the ball to the right side with a good hitter in said scenarios.
Should have been specific there, strategic bunting is a different subject while related.
by supersugarCrisp on Mar 15, 2010 12:29 AM PDT up reply actions
Well, that post only covered sacrifice situations
Bunting for a base hit when no one is on is usually a fairly neutral proposition, because it doesn’t depend nearly as much on game context. The defense sets up how they’re going to set up, and most of the time it’s in about the right place, so the hitter bunts often enough to pose a credible threat but rarely enough for it to be unpredictable. But if the defense is in exactly the right place, he could then bunt 100% of the time or 0% of the time and it wouldn’t matter.
It’s basically the “I cut, you choose” game, baseball version.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
how about 30 seasons worth of data?
I have experience in university statistics and regression, but need help from the statistical wizards on AN to reliably determine the run differential between the two scenarios, over the course of the season.
Win Expectancy Finder
http://winexp.walkoffbalk.com/expectancy/search
i’m assuming you mean a successful (not guaranteed as other have said) sacrifice bunt, which would mean
1st and 2nd, 0 outs —> 2nd and 3rd, 1 out
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones."
-BB 07/27/05
in any case this is a silly idea for many reasons
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones."
-BB 07/27/05
Whole Picture
I respect those numbers, yet the distribution of those numbers is more important to the second half of my point: Psychological lift from getting a run while still being down by one or two. It seems like it cannot be measured, so the .1 run given up from a successful bunt, could make up the loss to an increase. Also, a bunter should get two tries, and then can swing away when he accumulates two strikes. How can the numbers account for team momentum swings?
by greenpaddedgloves on Mar 15, 2010 2:10 PM PDT reply actions
the number totally accound for momentum swings
they are mythical so the value is 0.
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - danmerqury
Dualistic Nature
Baseball players are humans. (we’ve had this discussion before) If they were a simulation on a computer, things like momentum do not matter. However, humans are subject tot emotions, like momentum. I like how scoring one run, instead of gambling for three, really fires up the pitchers to go get a hold. I would argue that each and every run is precious, not just the run that ties the game or takes the lead. How many runs per game are the A’s projected to score this year? not many.
by greenpaddedgloves on Mar 16, 2010 8:26 AM PDT reply actions
This post leaves me scratching my head.
Also, when has momentum been an emotion?
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Mar 16, 2010 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions
Momentum might be a group of emotions...
Positive momentum = confidence, feeling fated to win, feeling like you kick ass and the other team sucks
Negative momentum= lack of confidence, feeling fated to lose, feeling snakebit, feeling like you suck and the other team is better.
For robots and hardcore leftbrainers who don’t feel emotion, this is a bunch of silly gibberish. For real competitive athletes and gaming enthusiasts, it’s not.
"Cheese is the fruit juice nature intended."- The Reverend Billy Lard
by Gaijin_Suketto on Mar 16, 2010 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions
No disrespect intended but you're engaging in a heavy, heavy dose of projection and fundamental attribution error here.
I do, however, enjoy the not so subtle inflection that I, and other stat minded posters, am some sort of emotionless basement dweller or “hardcore leftbrainer”. Woe is me for not being capable of experiencing the highs and lows of humanity. Of course, this assumption that I’m some sort of robot based on my particular views in one narrow subject area (baseball) is another attribution error. Which of course, just goes to show how our clouded our perceptions really are.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Mar 16, 2010 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions
I didn't call you a robot.
I just feel that arguments based on simulations and projections don’t take the emotional/human factor very seriously, and that’s a mistake.
"Cheese is the fruit juice nature intended."- The Reverend Billy Lard
by Gaijin_Suketto on Mar 16, 2010 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions
You haven't read many G_S posts, have you
Whatever, it’s just one more thing to file away in my folder of “posts that show the profound hypocrisy [not to mention projection] of people accusing saber-types of arrogance.”
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
Lighten up, doctor.
I apologize if my “robots and hardcore leftbrainers” remark was taken as provocation. I didn’t mean it as such.
What I meant was “The emotional component of the game would mean little to nothing if it were played exclusively by emotionless beings and/or highly rational anti-emotion Vulcanesque beings.”
I think that confidence is the x-factor that can turn also-rans into studs.
Confidence and momentum are bound together. Momentum is confidence for a group of people.
And to clarify, I don’t hate saber people or their numbers. I dislike it when blanket statements are made that disrespect the softer, more mystical, less expicable side of baseball, and I try to positively rebut in a non-argumentative way. However, I wasn’t careful enough in my choice of words and left a statement out there that could be misinterpreted as a dig on saber people, rather than as an observation on the necessity not to discount the emotional state and preparations of the major league baseball player.
Anyway, doctor, if you feel like arguing, let’s argue something abstract. I’ve got some ideas…
Who would you rather be locked in a pitch-black 6×6 storage unit with for 24 hours, Leopold_Bloom or Evil Don?
You argue “Winter Olympics Rock Because Of ________” and I argue “I hate frozen water (except in a glass)”
Johnny Cash or Hank Williams Sr.?
What would you rather reincarnate as: A Bavarian prostitute or a sign shop owner in Florida?
stuff like that…
"Cheese is the fruit juice nature intended."- The Reverend Billy Lard
by Gaijin_Suketto on Mar 16, 2010 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions
And despite how players feel
They perform like they don’t feel momentum. Players who are on a hot streak don’t perform better than they would normally. The same is true of teams.
It doesn’t matter if a team feels like they kick ass if they don’t follow up and kick ass.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
Yeah, but you gotta feel like you can kick ass first.
You can’t kick ass if you don’t feel like kicking ass.
"Cheese is the fruit juice nature intended."- The Reverend Billy Lard
by Gaijin_Suketto on Mar 16, 2010 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Of course, feeling like kicking ass doesn't guarantee that ass will be kicked,
but it’s a prerequisite.
"Cheese is the fruit juice nature intended."- The Reverend Billy Lard
by Gaijin_Suketto on Mar 16, 2010 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Even if it is
Maybe all it takes is one or two lucky breaks and that feeling develops. Emotions are fickle and ever changing. It’s what makes them impossible to predict and in the long run, ignorable in projections.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
Is that what we're arguing about?
Of course it’s worthless in projections. Damn, I hope people don’t think I meant THAT.
"Cheese is the fruit juice nature intended."- The Reverend Billy Lard
by Gaijin_Suketto on Mar 16, 2010 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions
My theory is that essentially everyone who doesn't already believe in their own awesomeness has already been selected out by the minors
In fact, one could make an argument that that’s the primary purpose of the minors. Net result is that, like bad BABIP skill, that sort of mental makeup has essentially been adversely selected out of the population of players and can thus be safely ignored as between major leaguers.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
I guess Barry Zito needed to spend some more time in the minors!
Seriously, though, the fact that Zito stands out as a guy who’s spent, what, 6 or 7 years talking about FITS and needing to have confidence in his pitches highlights how rare it is to hear major leaguers, even bad ones, talk about this stuff. Maybe they’re thinking it but not saying it; but, on the other hand, maybe they’re more like Crosby — convinced, even against clear evidence, that they’re talented and just need a chance to play.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
I think that many of them are thinking it and not saying it.
Sparky Lyle talked about it a lot in his books, “The Bronx Zoo” and “The Year I Owned The Yankees.”
My guess is that there’s a much larger difference between the least confident MLB player and the most confident MLB player than there is between the worst MLB athlete (fat control pitchers don’t count) and the best MLB athlete.
"Cheese is the fruit juice nature intended."- The Reverend Billy Lard
by Gaijin_Suketto on Mar 17, 2010 6:53 AM PDT up reply actions
Fearless In The Sink?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
You know...
this is very interesting. When issues of confidence come up, I always think back to Giambi’s famous quote. Sure, his self confidence may have been roid fueled, but when in his prime with the A’s, he said he felt “sexy” coming up to the plate in a tight game situation. His success seemed more an attribute of his “mental edge” than his roid inspired physique. If roids do give a player an edge, I’d wager that the mental edge inspired by a supreme sense of chemical self confidence far outweighed the muscular advantage directly linked to the roids.
What was it? “Party like a Rock Star, Hammer like a Porn Star, hit like an All-Star”.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
Also, I'm talking ONLY baseball here.
Because of a particular flow that other sports (basketball and hockey come to mind) have, there is a such thing as in-game momentum, I think. Baseball is a series of individual players engaging in individual events.
And you can’t even try to argue that game-to-game momentum exists. It doesn’t. It’s been proven.
www.zekeishungry.com
Channeling the wise iglew:
Just because something can’t be proven doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
No, but it does mean that anyone making a positive claim that it DOES exist is completely full of shit
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
Not so Paul.
Some experiences are subjective in nature and cannot be broken down into rational components. Certainly players themselves will describe “momentum”. Now, the fact that it can’t be measured doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It most certainly does, even if it’s merely a subjective event in the mind of the individual. They believe it exists and what’s more, they believe it affects their performance. So the question becomes psychological doesn’t it? Does a players “mindset” alter their performance? I would think it does.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
Of COURSE it does
Duh.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
When I said "it",
I did not mean “momentum as a metaphysical concept,” I meant “a nonrandom impact upon baseball games imposed by momentum.”
That cannot be proven to exist from current studies. Anyone who claims it exists and refuses to present evidence of original research backing that claim up is full of shit.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
I'm not striving for an ontological argument here PT.
I love statistical analysis because it shines a light in some very dark corners. It provides a rational approach to roster construction and a sound philosophical direction to organizational management. That being said, it does however have its limits just like everything else in life.
You know as well as I do that players are not automatons. That “momentum” exists is indisputable although I readily concede that it’s not quantifiable. Even if it exists soley in the mind, it nonetheless exists and has an effect on a given game. Perhaps psychology can offer a rational explanation? I would love to hear some others chime in with an opinion. It’s an interesting topic. Maybe some enterprising soul will take on the role of Hari Seldon.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
This is where you're wrong:
“Anyone who claims it exists and refuses to present evidence of original research backing that claim up is full of shit.”
Some things that are real are also not provable through “evidence” and “research,” and IMO if you ever accept/understand that you will double your level of baseball acumen.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I can't even prove to myself that I actually even exist,
and I hate looking stuff up. I like the old days where you could just make stuff up in arguments and force a stalemate because nobody could prove anything.
Momentum is pretty much useless to sabermetricians, but a lot of players believe in it, and perceived changes in “momentum” can affect player confidence and mood.
Maybe “momentum” is an emotional placebo. A couple of positive or negative results in a row, and fears and or confidence levels rise, changing the emotional balances of the players, therefore having a subtle effect on physical outcomes.
"Cheese is the fruit juice nature intended."- The Reverend Billy Lard
by Gaijin_Suketto on Mar 18, 2010 6:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Can someone who exists please verify this thesis?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Assuming your own conclusion sure does make arguments easier, doesn't it
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
from BP, for 2005
… which is not now, but i don’t feel like putting research into this when i have papers to write.
0 / 12- : 1.4693
1 / -23: 1.4144
it’s here and the run environment has indeed changed … but. there’s almost no difference on a five year old average.
"The hard... is what makes it great."
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
