AN Book Club, Topic 1 - Are the playoffs a crapshoot?
by baseballgirl on Oct 16, 2005 11:17 PM PDT
Email
Print[EDITOR'S NOTE: This is a great diary and I wanted to make it the front page story. BBG took her time to write something great and I think it's a fantastic idea. I might even ask her to post it on the front page of the site, if she's interested. - Blez]
Okay, so after taking the weekend to digest the big news, I realized I don't want to talk about it anymore. Moot point. It is what it is and we need to get ready for 2006. It should also be noted that I'm going to put a hiatus on my best AN quotes for the offseason, since about 80% of them were taken from the game threads. It's only fair.
So...instead, can we discuss a good book? It's going to be a long off-season, and I want a reason to keep coming back to AN, and I really, really want to dissect some of the less traditional thoughts about baseball. If I'm going to be drinking the KoolAid with the rest of you this season, I want to know more.
My search took me back to a copy of "The Sinister First Baseman" by Eric Walker, which is the precursor to "Moneyball", and for the first time, I think I may have a glimpse into what the heck Mr. Walker is talking about. I hesitate to say that I understand or agree with it all, because he points out that as soon as you think you know all there is to know about baseball, that's when you are useless to the sport.
If you haven't read it, the highlights of the book include:
- The precursor to OBP, described as not only looking at a player's batting average, but factoring in how many times said player got on base, a far more valuable measure of worth; heady stuff for 1982
- The overrated statistic of RBI
- The myth of how important defense is to a team; how a single good offensive player can help a team win more games over a season than an entire defensive team upgrade
- The flaw of using errors to measure anything about a defensive player
- The most interesting idea that a batting lineup does matter after all
- The statistically proven myth of "clutch hitting"
- A complete and accurate analysis of why Joe Morgan would hate "Moneyball", eerily written twenty years before "Moneyball" was fully introduced to the baseball world
- The greatest baseball quote EVER
- One of the most irritating of remarks, the true fingernail on the blackboard, is from the cretin who observes [a play during the game] and says, "See? That's what I mean about baseball-it's so dull; nothing's ever happening." In a truly civilized society, such people would be taken out and shot. In our own less-than-perfect world, we have to just grit our teeth and put up with them.
- How, over the course of a season, playing for one run might win that one game right then and there, but ultimately will lose more games than it will win. Conversely, playing for "the big inning" will ultimately win significantly more games than the one run approach, even counting the 1-0 games you will lose by not playing the dreaded Small Ball. Ladies and gentlemen, your Oakland Athletics.
- And today's topic: The playoffs are a crapshoot; there is in fact a whole chapter entitled "The October Crapshoot".
- This is the book that truly revolutionized the baseball world, which put anyone who was willing to concede a different way of looking at baseball in the middle of the fight between players of The Game and Billy Beane and Co. In fact, the Oakland A's hired Walker as a consultant to put together an analysis based on some of the ideas he broached in his 1982 book.
I'd love to discuss this book and some of these points with you guys during the off-season. I'm so curious what AN agrees and disagrees with. Let me know if there's an interest in talking about this book and I can start up a weekly (bi-weekly?) diary, complete with some quotes from the book (since this book is really hard to find, but so worth reading and knowing about). If not, well, um...go Chargers?
So the playoffs. Now keep in mind, I never wanted to buy into this because I like the Wild Card. I like that my team has two chances to make it to the postseason. But if I believe that the playoffs are a crapshoot, then what I'm really saying is that instead of my team rolling the dice and winning once (one series), they will have to win three times in a row (three series). As a result, anyone can win in the postseason. Small sample size at its finest. For some reason, knowing that, the four consecutive game 5 exits for the A's don't hurt as much. We have company in the Atlanta Braves, and now the New York Yankees. Despite what the New York papers are trying to sell us, I don't think the Yankees are October chokers. I think there is no such thing as a magical, mystical October team, and the law of averages (and some average pitching) finally caught up to New York.
Don't get Walker wrong; he knows the playoffs are what link casual fans to the game, what bridges the gap, and makes the money for the sport, so it is important in that sense. Walker also talks about how the ring is the only thing that matters in baseball; that the division flag is meaningless, yet, ironically, that division flag is the true measure of how good a team is. Really? Why? What's wrong with putting all the importance and bragging rights onto the World Series?
There is, I hesitantly regret to point out, a small flaw in the situation. It is the assumption that the World Series proves something. It doesn't. If you look on the Series as an opportunity to see two quite good baseball teams playing the game as intensely as they know how, well and good.Usually, not always but usually, it's fine and exciting baseball. That however, is all it is. It doesn't prove a thing.
He goes on to talk about the sample size of 162 games, which mathematically works out a one game spread in W-L totals, a difference of .006, under 1%. The breaks will even out, the talent will be spread consistently; all teams have a fair chance to represent themselves. However, in a seven game series (and that's not even talking about the five game series that we keep getting kicked out of!):
We say normally the best team in the game will have a .600 win percentage and the worst a .400. I don't know about you, but I would certainly not call that a huge spread-and that's from very best to very worse. I think we may very reasonably conclude that the ability spread between two teams in the World Series will be rather less.I would say that if any two teams who face each other in a Series could instead play a long string of one-on-one games, say a full hundred games, it would virtually never happen that either team would end up winning so many as five games more than the other (that is, that .550 vs. .450 would be the outside limit of inherent ability differences).
What do you suppose the corresponding gap would be over a mere seven-game series? Small--very small; in fact it is equal to a fraction of a game.
...what this means is that the Series is generally a virtual coin toss.
He goes on to take the average of the W/L numbers from all the World Series' from 1903 to 1981 and then flips a coin as many times, and comes up with pretty scarily close numbers.
Compare the teams all you want. But when you put your money down, you're gambling in the purest sense of the word. The Series losers need not, if they but understood, feel broken, nor the winners triumphant. But they neither of them do understand, and, in some ways, that may be for the best after all.This is in just about direct contradiction to...well...everything held in the mystique of baseball.
What do you guys think? Agree? Disagree?
Update [2005-10-17 19:28:35 by baseballgirl]: Next week: The Myth of Clutch Hitting
(Just thought I'd let everyone prepare arguments now. :)
223 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
That's topic number 3 ;)
by baseballgirl on Oct 16, 2005 11:28 PM PDT up reply actions
ah
I will then say as I brush my teeth: gurglrgurglespit, yes, the playoffs are a crapshoot and straightforward calculations can show that the odds of the better team winning a 5 game series is not very decisive at all and the odds of winning a 7 game series is not as high as you would like given all the moralizing about character that comes out of it.
Numbers tomorrow if necessary. Sleep now.
Is this a Pascal's Triangle problem?
yes, here's the calculation in slow motion
Then the odds of a one game series result is (from A's view):
a (W) b (L)
What happens after the left result? A could win or lose. List the results...
a*a (WW) a*b (WL) b*a (LW) b*b (LL)
or since order doesn't matter...
a*a (2-0) 2*a*b (1-1) b*b (0-2)
You can imagine branches off each possibility going the left if it's a Win for A and to the right for a loss. Each left path has odds of a and rightward has odds of b. That leaves two groups of possibilities, listed as one row where A wins and the next row where A loses:
a*a*a (3-0) 2*a*b*a (2-1) b*b*a(1-2)
+ a*a*b (2-1) 2*a*b*b (1-2) b*b*b (0-3)
which gives
a^3 (3-0) 3*a^2*b (2-1) 3*b^2*a(1-2) b^3 (0-3)
So you can see to find the odds of having a 2-1 outcome in three games, you multiply a^2 and b^1 and multiply by 3 (which comes from adding the "2" in the 1-1 outcome and the "1" in the 2-0 outcome). If you strip away the a and b part, these coefficients can be found by making Pascal's triangle where each number is the number above it and to the left (in my picture):
1 1
1 2 1
1 3 3 1
1 4 6 4 1
1 5 10 10 5 1
1 6 15 20 15 6 1
1 7 21 35 35 21 7 1
1 8 28 56 70 56 28 8 1
1 9 36 84 126 126 84 36 9 1
The kth number (starting your count from 0) in the nth row is called C(n,k) or n choose k. The odds of team A winning k games out of n are equal to C(n,k)(a^k)(b^(n-k))
Let's try this with numbers. Suppose a=60% which is pretty generous towards A. Let's play a 3-game series.
Calculation. The odds for two-game results are:
(2-0) a*a=.36 A WINS SERIES
(1-1) 2*a*b = .48
(0-2) b*b = .16 (numbers add to 1? yes!) B WINS
Odds after (1-1):
(2-1) = 2*a*b*a = .288 A WINS
(1-2) = 2*a*b*b = .192 B WINS
Odds A wins 3-game series: .36 + .288 = .648.
If you try it, you actually get the exact same result by adding the odds of A winning 3 out of 3 and 2 out of 3. So using that shortcut we find the odds of winning for A are:
3 Game Series = 64.8%
5 Game Series = 68.3%
7 Game Series = 71.0%
9 Game Series = 73.3%
11 Games Series = 75.3%
So in a 7 game series, about 3 times out of 10 the clearly inferior team wins the whole series. The odds of a "correct" result are better than that of a 5 game series, but not by much.
also
Game Series Length
WPct 3 5 7
.500 .501 .500 .500
.510 .515 .519 .522
.520 .530 .538 .544
.530 .545 .557 .566
.540 .560 .575 .587
.550 .575 .593 .608
.560 .589 .611 .629
.570 .604 .629 .651
.580 .618 .648 .671
.590 .634 .665 .690
.600 .648 .683 .710
This was done by computer modeling and trial and error, not theoretical calculations. You can see that they got the same odds as we did using paper (last row).
Interesting
- why are the odds of winning a third game (at 1-1) different from winning the first? Why would the odds of winning any one game be different than any other single game?
- if the teams from the AL and NL come into the WS with identical records, how would the initial odds be set? or even, say, if one has a winning percentage of .586 and the other at .593 (95 and 96 wins, respectively)?
clarification
But it only goes to 1-1 part (48%) of the time. That's why the overall odds of A winning 2-1 are .48 * .6 = .288.
(I think that's what you were asking, right?)
2. No one knows the complete answer to this question. The Diamond Mind article argues that you can approximate the odds of Team A beating Team B by finding the difference in their win percentages and adding that to .500. So in your example, the odds the second team beats the first is approx. .507. This approximation, when compared to history, overstates the winning chances, and the overstatement gets worse as the gap between teams gets bigger. But it's a reasonable first-guess.
The punchline is that even the biggest recent mismatch of STL (.617) v SD (.506) gave STL a .611 (rule of thumb) chance of winning. The Diamond Mind article argues that in historical mismatches of that magnitude, the better team really only wins at a .596 clip. (cf. my example gave Team A a .600 chance of winning)
That's why it's so important to play several round
Observe: while the Padres had roughly a 35% chance of winning one 5 game series, they would only have a 3% chance of winning a 5 gamer and 2 7 gamers against foes who outmatch them as badly as the Cards did.
well after this and amazon's 2 reviews...
Playoffs are like a Crapshoot for the A's...
I just came back from the craps table in Vegas and it mirrored the A's in the playoffs during the past few seasons. I went to the craps table with high expectations, won my first couple bets, lost the rest, left the craps table a loser.
And hopefully like the A's, i'm going back again next year and i'm going to win!
by Instant Replay Umpire on Oct 17, 2005 2:41 AM PDT reply actions
My interest is piqued...
by FormerHuntsvilleStar on Oct 17, 2005 8:33 AM PDT reply actions
I would love to get the book
by china bob on Oct 17, 2005 8:56 AM PDT reply actions
Fascinating subject
1. More games.
Pros: Larger sample size, harder to keep up hot streaks, hopefully the winner will truly have the skill it takes to be the best.
Cons: Season goes on even longer. That may not be a bad thing to some, but we don't want to increase the injury risk even more if our team is playing, and the offseason becomes more uneven (those out of it get more time to rest vs. those still playing, who will be more tired come the following year. But maybe that's an equalizing factor)
2. No postseason at all (or just one big postseason). Merge everybody into one league with no divisions, and whoever's the best at the end of the regular season wins.
Pros: Larger sample size. More recovery time after the season's over. Favors how the A's are constructed (in Beane's own words).
Cons: Less baseball. No longer a "World Series", per se, more like a NASCAR season. Winner could be determined before season is over.
3. Change the current post-season so it's not a single-elimination tournament. Just make it a smaller regular season and make everyone play all the other playoff teams, with the team with the best record getting the trophy.
Pros: Fewer streaky winners. More chances to show off what a team can do. Shifts optimum strategy to one more similar to regular season.
Cons: Would take much longer -- wouldn't be such a problem if there were still only 4 divisions, but with 8 playoff teams, it could drag. Not sure how to resolve AL v. NL (just do away with leagues in post-season, or still have one final 7-game series?). Also not sure how to resolve ties.
Like I said, I'm still a bit affected at the moment, so this might all seem ridiculous, in which case I claim that the booze did it.
Oh, and "Go Chargers"? Chargers? Chargers?!?!
Bah. ;)
by spal on Oct 17, 2005 9:06 AM PDT reply actions
It all comes down to momentum....
Or, have we have seen so many times, who gets hot at the right time. The White Sox were very weak around Labor Day, only to turn it on when it looked like Cleveland was going surpass them. That momentum carried them through the ALDS, and then when it looked like they had run out of luck, they get the controversial win in game 2 against the Angels that pretty much sealed the deal. I would imagine this team is higher than a kite right now.
Momentum can be broken, though; and this is where manufacturing runs can have an advantage over waiting for the big inning. The problem with waiting is that you have less control over the outcome. The A's are going to need to realize this eventually, and perhaps it will take losing a crucial game or two because some overweight baserunner decides to steal the first base of his career. It does happen.
Joe Morgan would love to see a world of nothing but bunters and base stealers. He'll never have it, but that's not to say that "small ball" has it's place from time to time.
But I stand by Mr. Beane: The playoffs are a crapshoot. How many World Series titles have the Yankees payroll bought them in the last five years?
by Rob @ Athletics Nation on Oct 17, 2005 9:35 AM PDT reply actions
Crapshoot Schmapshoot
This is a quote from your original diary, and I think it is particularly relevant to the Beane "playoffs are a crapshoot" philosophy.
Yes, the playoffs are a crapshoot. Just like any individual game is a crapshoot, just like any three-game series is a crapshoot... just like the Super Bowl, the NCAA tournament, the NBA Finals are all crapshoots. This is not an excuse for losing so much as it is a fact of life in every sport -- there is no "best" team in the abstract sense, but only a best team on the day that the game is played.
But, the above quoted section says "playing for one run might win that one game right then and there." This is valuable information. Even those who say that smallball doesn't work over the course of a season admit that smallball does have its place in baseball, and I think this is something that must be considered in building a team.
The A's seem to have decided that, because smallball isn't the way to win 55-60% of the games during the year, they don't need to have smallball type players. That's wrong.
The correct way to use this information in the team-building process would be to build a team's roster such that most of the guys get on-base and move people over (i.e., focus on OBP and SLG), but to fill the bench with buys who are role players. Beane's bench has always been crowded with guys who are just less good at the things the starters do -- we have guys like Swisher, Kotsay and Payton, why do we also need Bobby Kielty? We have guys like Mark Ellis and Bobby Crosby, why do we also need Marco Scutaro?
My thinking would be that, if you have the "Moneyball" type players in your lineup, you fill your bench (or at least dedicate 2-3 bench spots) with guys who can allow you to play smallball in those certain situations in which it is to your advantage to play smallball. You don't need a smallball lineup in order to take advantage of those situations, you just need one Dave Roberts to come in a steal a bag every once in a while... In other words, you don't hurt your team by filling your roster with speed guys who don't get on base, but you allocate certain percentages of your roster to specific abilities (speed, defensive specialist, a left-handed hitter, or whatever).
Smallball has its place. It may not be the way to win a division, but even the biggest OPS advocates among us should be willing to admit that there are times when playing for one run is a better strategy than waiting for an extra-base hit...
I emphatically agree
Exactly--I mean, isn't that why we love sports? We may be able to predict this and that based on past performance and what we've documented on paper, but the game is decided on the field! It is always surprising--and in microseconds, one player's a hero and another's a goat, one team comes up clutch and the other team chokes. It can be heartbreaking. It can make me scream out loud and raise my hands in the air when I didn't even realize I cared who was going to win.
The essence of this is that USC/Notre Dame game last Saturday. How unbelievable was that? Crapshoot? Positively. Did that game convince ANYBODY that Notre Dame was the superior team for eternity, the more deserving team, the metaphysically better team? No, but the important thing is who was better on that day, and USC was, by a few inches, and god it was unbelievable to watch.
by rubin sierra on Oct 17, 2005 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree
by H3liCat on Oct 17, 2005 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Thank you
It does sound like an interesting book, but "clutch hitting" is overrated? Think the White Sox would make the Crede/McCarthy for Chavez trade right now? They wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole and rightfully so (and no, I'm not revisiting the whole Chavez debate, this is merely a comment on the series Crede had). Any person that says there is no such thing as "clutch hitting" severely underestimates the mental side of hitting. The fact is late in the game the pressure increases, and some players have the ability to perform under pressure, and some have yet to develop it.
by IndianaAsfan on Oct 17, 2005 5:32 PM PDT up reply actions
Good review baseballgirl
A Moo Point
Sorry, I had to!
by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Oct 17, 2005 10:01 AM PDT reply actions
The funny part is...
I ALWAYS call things a 'moo' point!
by baseballgirl on Oct 17, 2005 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions
Book Reviews
I think something you mentioned that was very important was the concept that as soon as you think you know all there is to know about baseball, that's when you are useless to the sport. For this, I am hoping that by doing the reviews, you are talking about all kinds of baseball books. I would love the oportunity to learn more and more about the sport. That is part of the reason I encouraged Alameda Greg to do his Rules 101 threads, so we can all learn a little something during the off season. Heck, the players are all learning a new pitch, a new technique, a new Yoga position, all to improve their game, why shouldn't we all learn something new during the off season to improve our love of the game?
So yes, I would totally encourage you to do more book reviews, maybe you could even say at the end of the weeks thread what book you will be covering in the next review so we have an opportunity to read the book before hand. Kinda like an Oprah Book Club, but for baseball! That would be fun, I think!
Anyway, random question, in the Athletics Magazine, they mentioned an A's Cookbook would be coming out soon. Does anyone know when or have any information on this?
by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Oct 17, 2005 10:52 AM PDT reply actions
Excellent idea.
This book is REALLY hard to find, that's why I'm trying to get everyone some exposure to it since I do have it.
I will totally take recommendations for another book after this one has been discussed, and hopefully that book is not out of print so everyone can read it!
by baseballgirl on Oct 17, 2005 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions
Is Eric Walker back with the A's?
I only ask because you mention that he was hired by Billy, and I find that very interesting if it's true.
To clarify:
Probably not by Billy, although I do know how important the research he did for the A's was to the "Moneyball" concept.
by baseballgirl on Oct 17, 2005 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Sorry Sharon...
by baseballgirl on Oct 17, 2005 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions
no problem
I wondered if Billy had hired him and managed to keep it a secret or something.
Very interesting stuff, though. I'd love for this book club to continue. Thanks for the info.
I really enjoyed Ty Cobb's Autobiography:
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Oct 17, 2005 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions
See??
Baseballgirl, you no doubt should have contacted Amazon before making this diary and worked in a % of sales deal from the fans on AN. I for one have never heard of this book and am buying it today (oops, I just saw your post where you said it's VERY hard to find).
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
by Alameda Greg on Oct 17, 2005 11:07 AM PDT reply actions
future topics
The Sinister First Baseman
Maybe Blez can work something out with Eric Walker? He seems magic. :)
http://www.abaa.org/dbp/detailindex.php?booknr=218193005&membernr=1365&ordernr=27492&sou rce=froogle
Bizzaro!
by Alameda Greg on Oct 17, 2005 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions
Borders
by oaklandbbfan on Oct 17, 2005 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions
The Playoffs are cool...
Speaking of, I might get to watch the NLCS game tonight on TV...I'm very excited. :D
Of course it is ...
It's exciting, high pressure baseball. Who could ask for more? That being said, it doesn't accurately determine which team is the best - it only accurately determines which team is the first to win 4 in the World Series.
yes....I suppose
playoffs are fun
I do have a problem with all the crazy after-the-fact moralizing and psychoanalysis done. Like A-Rod is a soft loser choker, etc.
Conventional baseball wisdom has a terrible time accepting that a lot of baseball is random. People feel a burning urge to ascribe results to character flaws or superiority. It would be like people playing blackjack (with a standard sensible strategy) and someone goes on a losing streak, and for commentators to say, oh the Dealer clearly WANTED IT MORE, or oh, you can play the odds with small stakes, but at the $10 Table, that stuff doesn't work any more.
Baseball isn't quite THAT random, but it is pretty darn random. What do you make of a sport where a team can lose almost 4 out of every 10 games and still be the runaway regular season champion?
It really is hard to believe that...
by baseballgirl on Oct 17, 2005 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions
I cannot prove this
(1) Games with a high precision to effort ratio are more random. So playing games like basketball, football and hockey, there is a lot of sheer athleticism and energy used just keeping up and working through pain, and you gain a LOT through morale, energy and passion. In baseball and golf, you don't play better the more angry you are.
(2) Games with more teamwork are less random. Baseball generally requires a lot less teamwork than the three sports mentioned above. The more teamwork involved, the more space for different coaching strategies and motivational skills, and the more leeway for good chemistry carrying over into results.
Can't prove it, but AN is not a refereed journal, so...
Excellent, EXCELLENT point...
You just can't will your team to win a baseball game. It's just not like football or basketball, where the "intangibles" work like that...and I think that's what people have such a hard time with. It's hard to admit it's more like playing a hand of cards.
by baseballgirl on Oct 17, 2005 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh Boy!!!
Sure works for Randy Johnson. And I am sure that Swish was thinking happy thoughts after Christenson dusted him back.
As a hitter I always hit better when I was cussing out that SOB on the mound in my mind, calling him a PU** a* B**...
Don't fool yourselves into thinking this is Disney on Ice out there.
Oh Yeah, I forgot, winning the most intense games, to most of the people on this board, is a crap shoot where intangibles and motivation and team work are not as important as in basketball, where it is pretty much a one on one sport now.
Let's see in baseball. I would like to see apitcher go one on one with a batter!!! LMAO!!! he needs his catcher to catch the friggin ball.
Baseball and Golf? Come on Ape???
BTW: Great topic BBG. I would expect nothing less!!! ;)
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Oct 17, 2005 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Swish
by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Oct 17, 2005 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Okay, so what you are saying...
I don't think there is a player out there who would agree with this. Alex Rodriguez is one of the best players that baseball has ever seen. He fails to get a base hit over 60% of the time, sometimes at really inopportune times. Is it because he wasn't mad? Jeter, everyone's pick for Mr. October, fails in the postseason too. A lot. In fact, way more than he succeeds. Is anyone going to question his determination to win?
Randy Johnson was PISSED the last game he started. There were articles written about how he was going to dominate that night. He didn't. Was it because he didn't try hard enough; wasn't angry enough? No. He left the ball up. The Angels hit it. Simple.
See, the thing is with baseball, we remember moments like Swisher getting pissed and smacking one out. We remember angry pitchers dominating. We remember Jeter getting hits when it 'counts'. But if we look at the data, we see that players fail way more than we remember. Our memories are fallible. That's the problem.
Love you, saint! ;)
by baseballgirl on Oct 17, 2005 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions
No silly's: :P & ;P
The extreme would be to say in a miopic way, Randy Johnson was mad, as usual and since he failed, being mad does not work.
Well, it has worked for him for years. Clemens too.
Other players, like A-Rod, have immense talent and play with no passion.
While the Swish's have far less talent, BUT play with passion. Imagine if A-Rod had Swish's heart?
The greatest hitter of our time hates the opposition as well. But then again, that may have just been his HGH acting up.
Beane was just a basket case that never figured out how to play the game at this level, and in my opinion he still has not learned how to win at this level.
Crapshoot...Excuses, excuses, excuses.
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Oct 17, 2005 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions
Just one question:
If he had Swisher's heart, what does that mean? How can a player like A-Rod be better than he is? Would he hit .400 with 60 homeruns next season with Swisher's heart? Would Swisher's heart not change his numbers, but instead switch around the order of his hits?
This I do not understand. How can A-Rod be a better player than he already is? He is an elite talent who gets on base almost four out of ten times at bat and has awesome power. Please tell me how having a heart like Swisher will make him better that these numbers already are?
Because having the correct baseball heart certainly didn't work for Swisher himself this season.
by baseballgirl on Oct 17, 2005 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm not being snarky at all, by the way...
by baseballgirl on Oct 17, 2005 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Wow, his playoff numbers are A-Mazing!!!
Where were we??? ;)
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Oct 17, 2005 5:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Compare thier talent levels:
I'm checking that out right now.
So, heart does not exist now?
man, the life is being sucked out of baseball by the second. Numbers, numbers, pundits!?!?!
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Oct 17, 2005 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Heart exists
I love you too :)
by baseballgirl on Oct 17, 2005 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Peas Out!!!
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Oct 17, 2005 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Thank god it exists:
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Oct 17, 2005 5:08 PM PDT up reply actions
I'll save you the trouble ;)
by baseballgirl on Oct 17, 2005 5:10 PM PDT up reply actions
A-Rod has plenty of heart
As I started bashing him I started to think about:
* Idea for Blez's interviews
"What is going through your mind when you are hitting? Are you the clear your head type or the F** Y** SOB type"
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Oct 17, 2005 5:10 PM PDT up reply actions
But that one bad series...
I'm glad his previous postseason numbers have been brought up. You'd think he was never in the playoffs before judging by what a big chunk of the sports media has been saying.
by FormerHuntsvilleStar on Oct 17, 2005 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions
But wait...there's more.
WHY DOES NO ONE REMEMBER THIS?!!?!?!?!?!?
(P.S. I'm not mad at you. I love everyone tonight.)
by baseballgirl on Oct 17, 2005 5:22 PM PDT up reply actions
D'oh!
But then, New York is the ultimate "what have you done for me lately" town. The same Yankee "fans" who booed Jeter early last year for an 0-for-thirty-something slump. The same "fans" who booed Mariano Rivera earlier this year -- THIS year -- for blowing a couple of saves against the Red Sox. Insane.
by FormerHuntsvilleStar on Oct 17, 2005 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions
two words
One more thing:
by baseballgirl on Oct 17, 2005 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions
PU** a* B**
Heh heh. Hey, when I play games and sports and I get into it, I GET INTO IT. Games that don't reward intense effort and getting pissed annoy me to play. In fact, that's what annoys me about baseball. You think the A's didn't want to beat down Kenny Rogers in that last "let me play you" game? I was pissed and hoping our boys would chase him out. Nope.
I don't think pointing out a couple of anecdotes is going to settle this. All I know is that a lot of the hitting coaches that I read interviewed say that the key to hitting is staying focused and NOT too emotional.
I guess otherwise, Beane would have hit .400...
So I can't say I can prove this, but I don't think you've prove the opposite either.
Memory
Oh, and as for pitcher vs. batter, I'll vote for Huddy vs. Eckstein in the undercard, cast y'alls votes for the middleweight, welterweight and heavyweight action.
God Bless You!!!!
It's actually not just conventional baseball wisdom, but human nature to some degree to try to ascribe a cause to something people see as an effect, when many times, an outcome is just random variation from a mean that can't be known.
by rsquared on Oct 17, 2005 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions
So what would be
by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Oct 17, 2005 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions
all the moneyball stuff people hate
So I'd say the analogy is all the stuff about trusting stats. By doing that, you are guaranteed to miss out on some great chances. But you hope in the long run it you'll come out ahead.
(Sidenote. It surprises me that people talk about Moneyball as avoiding the human aspect, when the funniest part of that whole book is when they are putting Milos on people and there's also that part when they talk about Billy admiring Dykstra and Swisher types who quickly bounce back from adversity. )
Couldn't it be said...
Moneyball takes it to a new level and says, "ok, while you are focusing on that, I am going to focus on something that you may have missed that makes a player equally, if not more valuable to the game." It is not about OBP persay, it is more about realizing the quality in a player that is not being valued in the current market and putting a value on it.
To me, when they were talking about how all the scouts could LOOK at a player and say, he is a good ball player, that was the human aspect of the game that Moneyball is taking advantage of to succeed. So it isn't avoiding humanity, it is simply spinning it to fit our current needs. But that is just how I saw it. Am I way off here?
by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Oct 17, 2005 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree
We will also have a better chance fending off zombies by cooperating.
68 % Baby!
by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Oct 17, 2005 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions
You're exactly right
thank you
by china bob on Oct 17, 2005 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions
taking advantage of the human element
by Cutthemullet on Oct 18, 2005 1:12 AM PDT up reply actions
Point to be made here:
Long run vs short run
Playoffs = Short Run
Reg Season = Long Run
Isn't it insanity to think that one will win you the other. That would take Luck.
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Oct 18, 2005 9:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Over the long haul would it be:
If so, the Yankees have been really lucky over the long haul. The Athletics and Cards also to a lesser degree.
This subject is making my brain explode more than the Raiders not rushing the punter down by 13 yesterday with 4 1/2 minutes left and him punting from his own end zone?!?!?
The 1988 A's were a better team than the Dodgers. The 90 team was also better than the Reds, yet they lost.
Maybe there should be a losers bracket in the baseball playoffs?
Now that makes my head hurt worse than doing a face plant leaving the Naughty by Nature concert in Sac on Friday?!?!?!
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Oct 17, 2005 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions
in theory
The Yankees had such an unfair advantage in talent (and acquiring talent from small fry clubs) in the middle of the 20th century that they surely deserved all those championships back then.
plus
by Cutthemullet on Oct 17, 2005 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions
In the long run, to quote a famous man
The best lucky team wins the most
Theoretically, if it were a perfect system of discerning superior talent, the more talented team, regardless of much more talented they are, would win 100% of the time. If we assume that the typical matchup pits teams with a .050 difference in winning percentage against one another, the better team, historically, has won 61% of the time. As such, ONLY 11% of the outcome can be properly attributed to the difference in talent, while 39% should be attributed to luck and/or the natural randomness of independent events. Of course, as I alluded to earlier, a much greater portion of the 50% baseline each team earned by making the Series can be properly attributed to talent.
If you read the Diamond Minds article Apricot links, at the bottom, it tells us that between 1947 and 1997 the A's, Yanks and Cards all won more Championships than they theoretically should have - though, not by that much (for instance, the A's won 4, when, theoretically, we only should have won 3 [rounded].).
I don't know:
Mediocre offenses can catch fire and are more streaky than solid starting pitching.
Pitching and defense seem to win out.
Hersheiser in 88
Schilling and RJ in 2001
Beckett in 2003
Schill, Pedro and Lowe in 2004
Clemens, Oswalt in 2005 NLDS
The whole White Sox starting staff in 2005.
The thing that pisses me off about Billy Beanes lack of cahones and not taking losing like a man is that the A's had great starting pitching in our 4 series and lost them all.
The reason we lost is baserunning and the lack of adjustments on offense, but, he'll never admit that.
The things we do not stress, cost us those series.
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Oct 17, 2005 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions
And terible coaching decisions:
No wonder you spent your entire career at or below the Mendoza line.
You just couldn't put it together.
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Oct 17, 2005 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah
Those 4 examples of dominant pitching definitely played a huge role in their teams' WS victories ... of course, there were 13 ... err 12, sorry, simple substraction strikes out ... other championships won over that period - some of which involved dominant pitching, others dominant hitting, others both ... and probably a couple involved neither.
Well, I don't know if we've adjusted our lack of adjustments ... but our teams has definitely become a much better baserunning team over the last couple of years (stolen bases not withstanding).
We did go first to third finally!!!
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Oct 17, 2005 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Other factors
And injuries and poor performances from our dominant starting pitching.
Precisely:
Put the onus on T-Bone dropping the ball, Miggi being the "Bobble Head".
Give Musina credit for beating Zito!!!
Give the Yanks props for doing tne little things it took to beat you!!!
But, that would be completely denouncing his strategy in public.
I guess in his perspective it was better to just say, the playoffs are a crapshoot and therefor take credit for playing station to station with great pitching and win in the regular season.
Like I've said before, I HOPE HE HAS LEARNED HIS LESSONS!!!
And the draft of 2005 sure looks like it.
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Oct 18, 2005 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions
I want to read this book, too
But I agree it would be good to do other books as well. Off the top of my head I would suggest "Slouching Towards Fargo", "Dock Ellis and the Country of Baseball", and Mark Harris's Henry Wiggen novels.
This is great, BBgirl
by Alien @ Athletics Nation on Oct 17, 2005 2:23 PM PDT reply actions
Okay, first of all....
If you hit that percentage of free throws, you suck at basketball or you are Shaquille O'Neil. If you catch 30% of all passes thrown to you in football, you suck. Similarly, if you only complete 30% of all passes thrown, you suck also.
People get better and better at free throws as they practice. Little kids shoot countless free throws. Great NBA players can have free throw percentages in the 90% bracket. But as a baseball player, you can take batting practice every day for your entire life and you will never get a base hit more than 3 times out of 10.
That's the medium we are dealing with here. Baseball cannot be compared to another sport. Period.
Amen Sister!!
by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Oct 17, 2005 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Not quite
Same for a soccer forward.
*Amendment*
:)
by baseballgirl on Oct 17, 2005 6:42 PM PDT up reply actions
hockey is an interesting case
That indicates to me there is something fundamentally different with the terrain of that sport.
winning %
if a football team goes 12-4, they are a very good team, but that happens every year
it's hard to compare winning % between sports, let alone find a correlation between regular season winning % and playoff winning
by The Game on Oct 19, 2005 2:58 AM PDT up reply actions
your argument feels circular
To get out of this, you need to put forward a way to tell which team is better without seeing the results of the series.
This is the same issue I have with people talking about 'character'. They always talk about character after the series is over. And guess what... it's always the winner that has character! Before 03 Bonds had no character and always choked. Then he suddenly got character because he did well in the playoffs for a year.
So... how can you tell which team was really "better" besides looking at the playoff series result?
You are STILL missing his point!
What if team B goes 81-81 on the season?
What if they meet in a five game series?
What if team B wins three games before team A does?
You are announcing to everyone that team B is better than team A, which simply is not true!
By your logic, the DevilRays are better than the Yankees, since they played a series with the Yankees, and won the series. They are better?
Are you kidding?
by baseballgirl on Oct 17, 2005 8:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Exactly, Baseballgirl
Likewise, the best team would win a lot more than 62% of its games. Think about it: In the best MLB season ever, the Mariners only won 71.6% of their games.
It's not that the Royals have no chance
You were kind of vague initially about what the superior team was going to win 99% of the time - but have since definitely cleared it up that you meant series, not game.
If it were really true that clearly inferior teams have no chance in a playoff series - how do you explain the Royals sweeping the Yanks on 5/31-6/2? It's just a three game series - but they took it 3-0, which is the same as sweeping a five game set. Or how about when they took 2 of 3 from us before taking 2 of 3 from the Red Sox? (8/19-25)
I figure a team like the Royals, matched up against a true championship caliber team would win a 7 game series about 15-20% of the time.
And you should remember that it's not just luck. Most of it is actually the result of randomness. A baseball game is made up of between 52 plays (27 outs + 24 outs + 1 run) and about 100 plays. Even if we throw out the randomness of player performance (whether you go 1/3, 1/4, 1/3 or 0/3, 3/4, 0/3 to earn your .300 ba), just changing the order of one or two plays can completely change the outcome of the game.
While it might be fun and inspiring to talk about a player's heart and ability to come through in the clutch (and while these things do exist to a limited extent) the fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of events attributed to these traits (or lack of them) are simply the random distribution of mostly independent events.
No worries
As I said elsewhere, the term crapshoot is certainly an exageration. It's not a crapshoot, skill plays a significant role.
What makes it random is the distribution of events. If you throw me up there, I'll hit 0 homeruns in 10 at bats, since the outcome is predetermined, the result is not random, I go 0 for 10 and there is no way my 0 for 10 could produce different results if the individual events are distributed differently.
When you have two players with Major League talent, there are more possible outcomes. The batter could win, the pitcher could win or it could rain ...
The batter wins about 35% of the time. The pitcher wins about 65% of the time. Since we can assume that in virtually all instances (Livan Hernandez being a notable exception), both the pitcher and the hitter are trying equally hard to win. (In crunch time they may both increase their efforts - in blow outs they may both decrease their efforts, but in general it will always be at roughly the same level)
Since their relative talent levels are established (35% v 65%) and their effort levels are equal - what determines the outcome of any particular event? The play cannot possibly result in 35% of a hit/walk and 65% of an out. We know (or at least can approximate) that, when given sufficient at bats, these will be the success rates that each player achieves - but, unless you really believe that the player who wins the individual events (each at bat) was simply the guy who wanted it more and that unless the opposing player increases their desire (heart/balls/clutch ability/whatever) or the player in question decreases his, he will NEVER lose the individual event then you need to account for the distribution of these events.
If you match up Albert Pujols and Roger Clemens and both execute perfectly - who wins?
Hmm ...
Now do it a hundred times. Did you get the same winner every single time?
Of course not ...
Was something different the times you got a different result?
No, every variable was held constant, only the result changed ...
Could those events have happened in a different order?
Of course.
Do the order in which events happen affect the outcome of a game?
Most definitely.
Then the distribution of events, such as the the mythical Beast v Rocket matchup plays a large role, plays a huge role in determining the outcome of games/series'.
I think skill had a heck of a lot to do with the Yanks' prowess in the mid-late 90s. They were clearly the superior team in all of those matchups. They had the talent and they got the breaks. I think randomness which benefitted them probably meant that they went 16-1 instead of, I dunno, 16-6.
No one, except you and Saint are suggesting that anyone believes that talent is not a huge factor in determining the outcome of games.
I don't think the playoffs are like flipping a coin. When you flip a coin, you know with 100% certainty that the odds of each result are 50-50 and that nothing will happen in the course of flipping the coing to change that.
In the playoffs, you don't know what the odds actually are and anything can and often will happen to add unforseeable variables into the matchup.
Randomness did not cause any of our dearly departed's 2003 foibles. But Eric Byrnes scored 64 runs that year, Miggie reached base 243 times, and I'd guess that wasn't Huddy's first trip to a pub on the road. It was random(at least partially) that those events happened at a time which caused such a significant effect on the course of our season.
Randomness is not about the outcome of individual events but about their distribution and its affect on the larger events.
But Even If It Were ...
Lax is arguing an impossibly flawed point -- especially for baseball.
In a sport where the worst team wins more than a third of the time and the best team loses about a third of time, the worst team beats the best team about three-out-of-ten times. Since the two teams in a playoff series are much closer in talent than the worst and best teams in the league, the better team only wins about 55-60 percent of the time. How, on Earth do you come up with 99 percent? It's wrong.
I'd argue that the best team in baseball DID NOT win the World Series in AT LEAST three of the last four years. The 2003 Marlins? The 2002 Angels? The 2001 Diamondbacks?
The playoffs aren't as random as as a coin flip, but there is a huge difference between 60 percent and 99 percent! If you were right, Vegas would be out of business!
If the best team wins 70 percent of its games against the entire league -- including the last-place teams, how can you possibly say it will win 99 percent of its series against the top 8 teams?
So well said.
by baseballgirl on Oct 18, 2005 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions
very well said ...
You don't have to agree.
There are too many factors that go into the regular season.
The point of The Sinister First Baseman's chapter on the playoffs was to show that over the course of 162 games, more things even out, randomness is spread out evenly and the best team will win the most games over the long haul, based on statistical evidence.
Walker is simply showing that the playoffs are only a fraction of this randomness and far too small of a sample size to conclude anything about the overall makeup of a team.
In a way, it makes the playoffs much more fun because anyone can be the first to win 3 or 4 games, meaning that there are no 'virtual locks' on a series!
by baseballgirl on Oct 18, 2005 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions
Dude, You've Got It Backwards
A coin might flip to heads three times in a row, but it's less likely to flip to heads 162 in a row.
Just basic math, my friend.
There are just as many
What if Colon had been able to pitch? Might that have affected the outcome of the series? What if Darin Erstad had gotten injured and Mike Scioscia was forced, kicking and screaming, to play the superior player? Could that have changed something?
Over the course of the season, those things mostly (though not at all entirely) even out.
Were the Yankees healthy?
Where luck comes in in my mind is a case like Hudson having to pitch game #162 in 2000 and was limited to one appearance in the Yankee Series.
Whereas the Yanks were rested.
Where idiocy comes into play is when Mr. Small Sample Size has Heredia pitch game #5 over the Grape Ape.
I know that I am agenius, BUT, it does not take one to see that Ape was the better overall pitcher that year.
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Oct 18, 2005 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions
"Rough Comparisons"
My point about the 90% free throw shooting is simply to show that it is possible to shoot 90% of free throws, and you absolutely can get better with practice. There is no way any baseball player is ever going to hit over .400 for a career, no matter how much practice and hard work he puts into it. One hundred years of baseball has proven this impossible.
Winning is the same way. No baseball team will ever win more than 75% of their games, no matter how good they are. And in a series, they will almost never play a team that is under .500, and usually the other team will have won at least 60% of their games. A fifteen percent swing (and usually it's MUCH smaller) in a small sample series of seven games is a RANDOM PREDICTOR of who will win the series. It is not clear who the better baseball team is judging by the outcome of that one series. The clear mark is the 162 games previous.
Of course you think the better team won the series if you believe that the series defines the better team!
by baseballgirl on Oct 17, 2005 6:56 PM PDT up reply actions
You are comparing apples to oranges.
The point of Eric Walker's book, and my entire premise for these diaries is that baseball actually compares better to a game of Texas Hold 'Em than it does to basketball or football.
That's why there is an issue!
Long ago I had to man up and admit when I played poorly and my team lost that we lost to a superior opponent that day. If it happens over and over again, it is not random chance.
On this, you could NOT be more right. However, a seven game playoff series does not allow for it to happen 'over and over' again. It is possible to have a better ballclub and still lose one baseball game, two baseball games, three baseball games, even four baseball games. However, by the time you play 162, you hope all the external factors have evened out and you see how good team is. But you simply cannot tell this in the small sample size of a series.
by baseballgirl on Oct 17, 2005 8:16 PM PDT up reply actions
And for the record...
by baseballgirl on Oct 17, 2005 8:18 PM PDT up reply actions
what is the line?
Do you agree that sometimes the "better team does not win in a one-game series? Of course you do, because most series involve more than one team winning.
Do you agree that sometimes the "better" team does not win in a two game series? ...?
... three-game series? Yes, because teams split series in a season all the time.
But for you all of a sudden at a five game series or a seven game series, the better team wins by definition. I can't agree with that. The better team THAT DAY won. That I could agree with, though that's pretty much by definition.
it's too late for me to get into this
by Cutthemullet on Oct 18, 2005 1:58 AM PDT up reply actions
I should also mention
by Cutthemullet on Oct 18, 2005 2:08 AM PDT up reply actions
Here's the core of it:
This sentence applies to every sport except baseball. You would NEVER say this about a game of cards, right? Well, if you think about baseball as a game of poker, this might make more sense to you.
What is a lackluster game in baseball? You are honestly telling me that because the Yankees lost the ALDS, they had a 'lackluster' series? They didn't play hard enough, or try hard enough, or have players with enough heart?
No, what really happened was that their players (who get hits during certain percentages of their ABs) did not happen to get their hits when they would have driven in runs. A-rod is a career .307 hitter. He usually gets a hit every three or four ABs. This series, the hits didn't happen to come when the Yankees would have liked them to. Period.
A-rod had a 30% chance to get a hit in the ninth inning of Game 5 based on his career averages. Why is anyone surprised that the 70% won out in that situation? Pujols had a 33% percent chance of getting a hit last night and he beat the odds. But it has nothing at all to do with their 'intangibles', UNLIKE a football or basketball player, and believe me, I KNOW this is hard to understand!
by baseballgirl on Oct 18, 2005 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions
Again, let me try:
I'm crazy?! Here's what's crazy. If A-rod had just one different at bat, i.e. a homerun in the 9th with a man on base, and the Yankees had won that series, here's what you would have written above: Did you hear me call the Angels "lackluster?" They got beat by the better team. They did not play as well as the Yankees. And beat them 3-2. The better team won."
You CANNOT call a team the "better team" when ONE SINGLE AT-BAT could have changed the course of a series. That's not the Angels being better, that's the Yankees making the last out before one of their players got another hit. And that has an element of randomness. If another five games were played, the Yankees would probably win three of them. In a small sample size, you just can't tell who the better team is, you only know who won three games before the other team did, which means nothing!
by baseballgirl on Oct 18, 2005 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm going to poach...
THIS is what we're talking about:
devo
As I said elsewhere, the term crapshoot is certainly an exageration. It's not a crapshoot, skill plays a significant role.
What makes it random is the distribution of events. If you throw me up there, I'll hit 0 homeruns in 10 at bats, since the outcome is predetermined, the result is not random, I go 0 for 10 and there is no way my 0 for 10 could produce different results if the individual events are distributed differently.
When you have two players with Major League talent, there are more possible outcomes. The batter could win, the pitcher could win or it could rain ...
The batter wins about 35% of the time. The pitcher wins about 65% of the time. Since we can assume that in virtually all instances (Livan Hernandez being a notable exception), both the pitcher and the hitter are trying equally hard to win. (In crunch time they may both increase their efforts - in blow outs they may both decrease their efforts, but in general it will always be at roughly the same level)
Since their relative talent levels are established (35% v 65%) and their effort levels are equal - what determines the outcome of any particular event? The play cannot possibly result in 35% of a hit/walk and 65% of an out. We know (or at least can approximate) that, when given sufficient at bats, these will be the success rates that each player achieves - but, unless you really believe that the player who wins the individual events (each at bat) was simply the guy who wanted it more and that unless the opposing player increases their desire (heart/balls/clutch ability/whatever) or the player in question decreases his, he will NEVER lose the individual event then you need to account for the distribution of these events.
If you match up Albert Pujols and Roger Clemens and both execute perfectly - who wins?
Hmm ...
Now do it a hundred times. Did you get the same winner every single time?
Of course not ...
Was something different the times you got a different result?
No, every variable was held constant, only the result changed ...
Could those events have happened in a different order?
Of course.
Do the order in which events happen affect the outcome of a game?
Most definitely.
Then the distribution of events, such as the the mythical Beast v Rocket matchup plays a large role, plays a huge role in determining the outcome of games/series'.
I think skill had a heck of a lot to do with the Yanks' prowess in the mid-late 90s. They were clearly the superior team in all of those matchups. They had the talent and they got the breaks. I think randomness which benefitted them probably meant that they went 16-1 instead of, I dunno, 16-6.
No one, except you and Saint are suggesting that anyone believes that talent is not a huge factor in determining the outcome of games.
I don't think the playoffs are like flipping a coin. When you flip a coin, you know with 100% certainty that the odds of each result are 50-50 and that nothing will happen in the course of flipping the coing to change that.
In the playoffs, you don't know what the odds actually are and anything can and often will happen to add unforseeable variables into the matchup.
Randomness did not cause any of our dearly departed's 2003 foibles. But Eric Byrnes scored 64 runs that year, Miggie reached base 243 times, and I'd guess that wasn't Huddy's first trip to a pub on the road. It was random(at least partially) that those events happened at a time which caused such a significant effect on the course of our season.
Randomness is not about the outcome of individual events but about their distribution and its affect on the larger events.
Eck
But Even If It Were about individual events, each event will have a greater impact on a shorter series (5 or 7 games) than a longer one (162 games.) Events are much more likely to occur at their average percentages over longer periods of time. (I know you know this ain't rocket science, Lax.) That's why we always whine about small sample size.
Lax is arguing an impossibly flawed point -- especially for baseball.
In a sport where the worst team wins more than a third of the time and the best team loses about a third of time, the worst team beats the best team about three-out-of-ten times. Since the two teams in a playoff series are much closer in talent than the worst and best teams in the league, the better team only wins about 55-60 percent of the time. How, on Earth do you come up with 99 percent? It's wrong.
I'd argue that the best team in baseball DID NOT win the World Series in AT LEAST three of the last four years. The 2003 Marlins? The 2002 Angels? The 2001 Diamondbacks?
The playoffs aren't as random as as a coin flip, but there is a huge difference between 60 percent and 99 percent! If you were right, Vegas would be out of business!
If the best team wins 70 percent of its games against the entire league -- including the last-place teams, how can you possibly say it will win 99 percent of its series against the top 8 teams?
Can't wait until next week's topic, "The Myth of Clutch Hitting". At least you and I will be on the same side!!!
by baseballgirl on Oct 18, 2005 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Now I'm just too embarassed to keep going ...
That being said, I agree with the rest of your post and I think this very excellent diary has pretty much run its course. If we weren't repeating the same arguments before now ...
Wait until next week...
by baseballgirl on Oct 18, 2005 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions
Or he could take it as a compliment
See, during the regular season, top players post great stats mostly by beating up on average players. It's not an insult, mathematically speaking it's impossible to avoid - most of their opponents will be average. During the post season, when the "average" player improves quite a bit, most top players will find themselves much closer to average. The players who can continue to excel might be thought to really be the best of the best.
Now I'm no Derek Jeter fan or apologist, so it probably won't come from me, but that sounds like a pretty fun argument to make.
Maybe in late 2008 after Daric Barton carries us to our third consecutive WS Title, with a career postseason OPS of 1.130 I'll get the chance to flush it out. Or maybe I'll just chalk it up to small sample size ... we'll just have to wait and see.
set the record straight
1. "You say it is random he got up in the 9th."
She didn't say that. What she said was that there was an "element of randomness" to the fact that Game 5, and therefore the Series, could be altered completely by a single at-bat. Then, you bring up Finley's opportunity to put the Yankees away in Game 4. Given that both aren't Barry Bonds and therefore are expected to make an out, who's expected to make the out less, the guy with the ~.400 OBP or a 40-year-old washed-up CF who had an atrocious season this year. Even if A-Rod doesn't hit a home run, but instead gets on base, well, that's going to happen about 40% of the time. Then, the guy after him gets a hit to drive in a run, well, that'll happen around 30% of the time (don't know who was hitting behind A-Rod that game). So, according to averages accumulated over the course of a season (hell, a career for the Yankees, they're all proven, consistent veterans), the Yankees had about a 12% chance to tie or win when A-Rod was at the plate. Of course, that's not factoring in the pitcher, if you take K-Rod's stats into account, you probably lower that figure a bit. So, their chances at that point may have been bleak, but, check out a win expectancy graph sometime, probability of winning does not exist solely in the 9th inning, it shifts on every single play. Like everything else in life, it's by degrees, not black and white, like you're making it out to be. When every single event in a long series of events impacts the total outcome, you can't really conclude, "that team is better, this team is better", when changing any of the small events (ie out here instead of a hit there, foul ball here instead of a double down the line there, etc) could change the whole outcome. If the Yankees lost every game 8-0, that would be one thing. In that case, you could say the Angels were the better team in the series. But when it gets to game 5 and games are close, not only can you not say that the winner of the series is the better team overall, but you really can't even say they were the better team for the series. Not definitively, anyway. The further you analyze, the more you realize how oversimplified accepted truths are.
2. " 'statistics are for losers and assistant coaches.'"
"Again, I believe in stats."
I'm glad you think an old-school Alabama football coach's uneducated opinion on statistics is worth taking to heart and repeating. But you definitely seem to treat that quote as your golden rule, and I've seen little evidence to support the latter.
by Cutthemullet on Oct 18, 2005 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions
let's keep adding skinny columns of posts
by Cutthemullet on Oct 18, 2005 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Love you!
by baseballgirl on Oct 18, 2005 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions
I just did a bit of research...
Lincoln does not have it.
Omaha does not have it.
KC does not have it.
I was intrigued, so...
New York does not have it.
LA does.
Chicago does not.
Boston does.
For you Bay Area folk...
San Fransisco has it.
Oakland does not.
The ISBN, if you're wondering, is 0890873356. That makes searching for it a little simpler.
My god!
Don't open the hatch!
that explains his lack of PT
am i supposed to laugh at that?
?
How about Alameda?
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Oct 17, 2005 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions
San Jose, not
Good point re the Padres
As for one of your larger points -- the dissociation of statistical analysis from the personal/individual struggle to compete at a high level that must in fact disregard statistics in order to maintain competitive fervor -- I think you've identified precisely what it is about the Moneyball approach that upsets not merely traditionalists, but insiders of every stripe.
Regarding the Padres...
by baseballgirl on Oct 18, 2005 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh my gosh!
Take the worst team in the league (Team A). Let's say their winning % is .400. Take the best team in the league with a .600 (Team B) That means that in a ten game span, the worst team is STILL GOING TO WIN FOUR GAMES! What if those four games happened to come at the beginning of a playoff series?! Then the better team DOES NOT WIN THE SERIES.
by baseballgirl on Oct 18, 2005 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Of COURSE you bet on the Cardinals!
Regarding the Cards/Astros? The Cards have a slightly higher chance of winning, but not much!
The Angels/Yankees? A virtual coin toss.
by baseballgirl on Oct 18, 2005 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions
99%? Then how did the Angels
- Would you care to offer any evidence? As best as I can tell, you're basing your argument on the idea that the best team almost always wins the championship because the champion is the best team. I see your logic, but I'd like a little more to back it up before I'm convinced.
- You're saying two things. You're right that the Padres were not all that good of a team - but keep in mind that this was written long before the advent of smaller divisions. I'd still agree with you that winning percentage tells you more about which team is best than hoisting a flag.
3. See #1 again. We care because we want to win a championship. All that winning a championship proves is that the team in question won a championship. While your superior athleticism sure makes you seem all high and mighty, as someone who was something of an athlete in my day, I agree, as an athlete I couldn't have cared less about being the best if I didn't win the championship. Knowing that I was the fast swimmer in the 50 Free my senior year only made me all the more upset when I missed my turn and blew the race.
That said, as an observer of the game of Major League Baseball (sadly, my playing career never amounted to more than Little League - and I can tell you assuredly - this had everything to do with talent, luck played no part), I find questions like which team is actually better interesting and worth discussing.
- Sure, injuries, personal issues, league disparities, etc affect the "proper" relative winning percentage. They also are difficult, if not impossible, to accurately calculate. That's beside the point. The point is the better team (both on any given day or absolutely) does not always win.
- No, but it tells you something about the importance of the talent of the coin. Heads used "smartball" to win 97 games this year, while tails took its low payroll, take and rake approach to an equally good 97 win season. In fact, both teams gave up and scored the exact same number of runs and both teams were equally rested coming in. Despite being as equal as can be "talent"-wise, Heads swept Tails. So did Heads have more heart or did it just get lucky?
- So will you give me 7 to 1 if I take the NL team?
- See what a nice guy I am? I didn't end with the #6 and I did it all for you.
50 Free!
by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Oct 17, 2005 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions
I was a freestyle sprinter
I also dabbled in fly and back - though my back was subpar - we just didn't really have anyone decent to swim the leg of the medley.
My coach
by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Oct 17, 2005 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions
I loved IM
I'd usually have a decent lead after fly, it would disappear on back, I'd drop several spots on breast and then I'd retake a couple of them on freestyle.
Ok, so where did you go to school
by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Oct 17, 2005 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Oakland Tech
Oh ok
by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Oct 17, 2005 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions
ah, swim team..
no kick? hmm ...
I used to wish my coach would have done that. My freshman year I was one of top half dozen or so flyers in the league. The next year my coach decided that my stroke needed work - that I was pretty fast, but had pretty much maxed out how fast I could go without fixing my stroke (I was all arms). It took a full two years before I could match the times I put up as a freshman, though I ultimately did become faster. But today I definitely have a much prettier stroke.
easy way out...
then he's a smart coach
Here's my attempt at an answer....
The best team wins 99% of the time. Period.
Wrong. Dead wrong. It's a pretty common opinion held by A's fans that the 1988 A's were a better team than the Dodgers, and the 1990 team was better that the Reds. Both lost. You know who was the best team in the NL this year? The Cardinals, without question. Are they going to make it to the World Series? Probably not. Does that mean they are suddenly not the best team in the NL?
In baseball this year, the best team (the Cardinals) won 100 games, which means they won 62% of their games in the regular season. Some years, it's higher, some lower, but 60%-65% is pretty accurate for the best record in baseball. If the 2005 Cardinals could only manage to win that percentage of games in the regular season, how does their winning percentage increase to 99% in the playoffs? That makes no sense! They are a 62% winning team and unfortunately for them in this seven game series, those percentages probably are not going to get them into the World Series this year.
One of the stupidest things in sports is this whole "crapshoot" idea. The basic definition of crapshoot is "something that has an unpredictable outcome." If anyone has played sports you know how utterly ridiculous that is. SPORTS ARE THE FURTHEST THING FROM A CRAPSHOOT.
Yes, "sports" are far from a crapshoot. But baseball is more like playing cards than it is like football or basketball. It really is.
One of the points you stated was that "instead of my team rolling the dice and winning once (one series), they will have to win three times in a row (three series). As a result, anyone can win in the postseason." This is similar to the lay up analogy. If I do everything correctly the ball will go in. Once in a 100 it may take a bad bounce because of some random factor and bounce out. But if some teams does everything correctly in a game, they will win 99% of the time.
It is possible to be a 99% free throw shooter. It is NOT possible to bat .900, even if you are doing everything correctly!
You have to make the playoffs, win three first DS games, four LCS games, and four World Series games. In the playoffs, the winning team must win 11 games. That is a heck of a lot of games to win against very good teams. You must play well enough to win those games. Winning 11 games out of 19 (assuming all three series go all the way, and when does that happen?) against quality opponents is tough to do. The better team, like it or not, almost always wins out.
So the Astros are a better team than the Cardinals? Really? The 1988 Dodgers were better than the A's? Again, really?
Regarding all the division talk: Eric Walker thinks there should be NO Wild Card. If baseball was the AL and the NL, the San Diego Padres are in the middle of the pack in the NL and going nowhere. Think about this. Divisions really do ruin the playoffs, and I have STRUGGLED to accept this fact. If you win a flag from the AL by having the best record out of 162 games, you are the best team, same with the NL, and then the World Series becomes the crapshoot.
If that was true, then no one on this site would care about losing four times in the first round because it wouldn't matter since we lost by chance.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, but WE DID! Chance!
To steal a line from my boy Herm Edwards (Head Coach NY Jets), "We play to win the game." Did Mr. Walker ever play professional sports? Collegiate sports? Heck, high school sports? Any athlete would look at that statement and immediately vomit like I did.
And the Yankees lost because they didn't try to win. The Angels weren't outpitched by the White Sox; they didn't try to win. Of course.
"He goes on to take the average of the W/L numbers from all the World Series' from 1903 to 1981 and then flips a coin as many times, and comes up with pretty scarily close numbers." Do I even need to talk about this? I'm actually curious to see those numbers, but I have a coin. Heads is Red Sox. Tales is Cardinals. I flip it four and it comes up heads all four times. Weird and random sure but it says nothing about the talent and players in the World Series. That proves squat.
Actually, here's what it proves. I flip a coin. Five times. Tails, heads, heads, heads, heads. That's the White Sox/Angels series. That's exactly what happened. Of course, looking deeper you see the injuries to Colon and Vlad, and the amazing run of starting pitching by the White Sox. But all those events ARE as random as a coin flip. That's the point!
And bottom line: You CANNOT compare any other sport to baseball. You can't. I know people love to hear the inspirational talks like in football of how all you need is grit and heart, but in baseball, you need the numbers on your side. And sometimes, you roll snake eyes, and that doesn't mean you're a bad team; it means you got unlucky.
so when you boil it down
Therefore there is no argument or data that could possibly convince you that a lot of the time the best team doesn't win, or SHOULD convince you because of your definition of best team.
So what are we arguing about? If you don't have a circular definition, we can try to convince each other. Otherwise, it's logically impossible to convince you.
Let me put this challenge: name one time when the best team lost a series that it should have won, and tell us why you thought it was the best team anyway.
bbg...
Some of the posts in this diary...
Awesome book review BBG. I have to go rent it now. When I grow up, I want to have your baseball knowledge and Mychael Urban's job. :)
The average fan
The single most accurate description of baseball was creditied to Casey Stengel during the times of 154 games in a season
" in every season there are 50 games you will lose no matter what, 50 games you will win no matter what, its those other 50 that make the difference"
I have always found that to be the most enlightening quote about the game of baseball
by eastcoaster on Oct 17, 2005 4:05 PM PDT reply actions
That is exactly it.
by baseballgirl on Oct 17, 2005 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Perhaps billy is making it a crapshoot:
He plays exclusively station to station which is supposed to win more games over the long haul in comarison to playing exclusively small ball.
Then his long haul team loses in what he deems a "Crapshoot".
No wonder Chavy is so soft. Afterall who can blame the team for failing at craps?!?!
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Oct 17, 2005 4:47 PM PDT reply actions
Sportsmanship
It's just bad sportsmanship. The graceful way to take a loss in any sport is to say, "The better team won." To participate in a sport is to take on the risk that someone else will be judged better than you by the merciless judge of a scorecard. To participate is to invest oneself in that judgement--to strive for victory is to admit that one buys into that judgement. Practicers of good sportsmanship continue to buy into that judgement after a loss. I hate how Billy has resisted that, and I don't see why we're all so interested in debating the merits of his argument. What conclusion if we agree with him--should we refuse or forfeit any future playoff series? Should we all practice shrugging and not-caring if we get into one? "ALDS Game 1 Oakland v. New York Open Thread--Remember Not To Care, It's Only a Crapshoot"
I sure as hell would be disappointed if that's the attitude my team took into a playoff series. They're supposed to give it their all, act like it's important, act like they give a shit. Those are the kind of competitors I want to watch, competitors who are entirely uninterested in debating whether the best team really won the game--because they're too spent having tried so hard to win the game.
While the issue's distasteful to me when raised by the loser of a game in his postgame comments, it can be interesting in other contexts--like deciding which sport has the best postseason. What is the best way to recognize an annual champion? How do you balance the competing considerations of 1) ensuring that the champion is deserving; and 2) ensuring that the championship games are exciting?
I'll limit my comments here to baseball; personally, I don't much like the wild card. I think baseball is unique for its 162-game season and its pennant races. Pennant races can be magnificent. But they've been de-valued by this additional round of playoffs; the races down the stretch are now for wild-card slots, and lesser teams are involved in them.
And then the playoffs, and the over-analyzing of individual moments in games, do get a bit ridiculous. Like I said, participants should be invested in the outcome of games, but it could be argued that these games are over-invested in by the media, particularly when it villifies certain players or coaches based on one bad game. See Rodriguez, Alex. Incidentally, A-Rod is a good example also of how to deal with losing in that environment. He has gotten so much shit for his postseason failures, and you'd almost expect him to say, "give me a break--I had only 15 at-bats, it's a small sample size!" Props to him for not saying that. Nobody wants to hear it, except a losing team's greatest apologists.
Going one further:
I'd say the over under is about 2 minutes!!!
Beane has no cahones and cannot handle losing.
Is this the real reason he did not take the Boston job?
I am so ticked at him. This topic has brought up bad memories of his "Coin toss, crap shoot comments"
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Oct 17, 2005 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions
different tempers for different jobs
BUT. For a general manager, you have to have different skills. I'll take someone who's able to see the reality under the ideology. And the fact is that the playoffs are random, and some performance is random and I don't want the GM doing panic moves.
Which is why...
by FormerHuntsvilleStar on Oct 17, 2005 5:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Exactly
Eric Walker agrees with you.
I agree, NOW; I didn't used to.
by baseballgirl on Oct 17, 2005 7:50 PM PDT up reply actions
personally I disagree
no no no :)
by baseballgirl on Oct 17, 2005 8:49 PM PDT up reply actions
The best team
Team A is the best team. In order to be the best team, you must be better than all the other teams.
So (by your logic) in game 1, against team B, team A would win 99% of the time, because it's the better team. Same goes for any game against teams C, D, E, etc. etc. because the other teams are ALL inferior.
Thus, team A would have a 99% chance of winning every game.
Thus, over the course of the season, team A would likely have about a 99% winning percentage.
No major league baseball team ever has a 99% winning percentage for the season. ever.
This year, the Cardinals won more games than any other team (aka, they were the best team, because they won the most): 100 wins. That is a 62% win percentage. Not even close to 99%.
Now, obviously, it's not quite that simple, teams don't usually stay "the best" throughout the whole year, as watching the 2005 A's could tell you. However, the point is to average it out, because at the end of the year, it's important who won the most games, not who had the longest win streak.
Baseball is not like football, where it's conceivable to win only two games on the season. Bad teams beat good teams all the time. Look at the devil rays owning the yankees for quite a while this year, and tell me with a straight face that the devil rays are a better team than the yankees. But if you only saw yankee-devil ray games this year, you might not realize who was the better team. That's all the playoffs are, another series, one that just happens to be at the end of the season and have high emotional attachment for some people.
Obvoiusly people are working with different definitions of "best" here. Best to me means "wins the most", which would seem logical. "Best" to other people apparently means "wants it more", which firstly can't be told from watching them on the field and secondly isn't really important, because probably the life dream of all these guys is to win a ring. So 'desire' is cancelled out, because the other team wants it just as bad.
by DavisAs on Oct 17, 2005 6:42 PM PDT reply actions
Read your response again:
I think the White Sox were a better team than the Angels. They won the series. The better team won.
You are not hearing what we are saying. DavisAs just told you that the DevilRays owned the Yankees this year. In series after series. It is entirely possible that in a seven game series, the Yankees could have lost four games to the Rays. Does that make the DevilRays the better team?
HELL NO. But some of their wins on the season came against the Yankees in a small sample size. If they played 100 games against each other, the numbers would start to look more like what we know; the Yankees would probably win 55 or 60 percent of those games. But in a small sample size, or a seven game series, four of the DevilRays wins could have come grouped together.
And that does NOT make them the better team!
by baseballgirl on Oct 17, 2005 7:48 PM PDT up reply actions
for those directly involved...
if the A's lose, it is because they did not score as many runs as the other team, it's as infinitely complicated as that.
Here what I think part of the issue is...
Texas Hold 'Em takes considerable skill to play well, just watch the finals on ESPN! A player can do absolutely everything right when setting up a hand, using the right cards, and betting (and bluffing) the right amount. Yet if the River card sucks, who in their right mind would ever say, "Man, that player sure sucks!"?
Baseball is a combination of skill (represented by how much talent you have on your team) and luck (where those 3 hits out of 10 ABs happen to take place). And that's hard to accept sometimes.
No no, we're all good!
This is probably why the A's need people in the front office who are NON-sports related. This is tough stuff to hear, to process, and to believe, because you don't really want to.
Poor Joe Morgan.
by baseballgirl on Oct 17, 2005 8:34 PM PDT up reply actions
But Houston's still the better team? ;)
by baseballgirl on Oct 17, 2005 8:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Seriously, though.
by baseballgirl on Oct 17, 2005 8:50 PM PDT up reply actions
But don't you see?
The Cardinals have already proven that they are eleven games better than Houston over a reasonable sample size.
Not as dramatic, I must admit, but such an interesting idea....
by baseballgirl on Oct 17, 2005 10:17 PM PDT up reply actions
that'd be "the better team"
by baseballgirl on Oct 17, 2005 10:17 PM PDT up reply actions
It's good that
In backgammon, if player A is significantly more skilled at the game than player B, player B will still win some games. Over a series of several games it will average out, and A will have some percentage of wins that is more than 50% but less than 100%. In chess, if player A is significantly more skilled at the game than player B, player A will win every single time. Player B will never win.
What if baseball were like chess? That would be boring. There'd be no point in watching the Royals play because they'd be guaranteed to lose. As it is, they still lose a lot, but at least it's still a game.
It's the same game that's played in the post-season. It has to be part crapshoot, or else it would be stupid as a specatator sport. We'd all know who is going to win the series 4-0 right from the get-go. What fun would there be in watching?
By the way, you can define "the better team" any way you like, but if you define it in such a way so that "the better team" wins 99% of the time, then you've reduced it to meaninglessness.
By that definition you'd have to say that today the A's are the better team, but then tomorrow the Angels are the better team and the next day too, but then the day after that the A's are the better team again. Except that we didn't actually know who was the better team on which days until after the game was over.
It's not that such a definition of "the better team" is correct or incorrect; it's just that it makes the concept useless for any meaningful discussion.
hah
Can I add since someone's given me an opening, that I think the doubling cube of backgammon is the best feature of any game I know? What other game gives you the ability to force the other player to truly assess what's happening in the game and not just what they HOPE is happening? And to force them to either give up realistically or suffer crushing consequences if they play hot-headedly? I sometimes use backgammon as biofeedback for stress... if I play calm and focused, I kick butt; if I play mad, I start losing bad.
I suspect the front office has to go through similar feelings on a much larger scale and stage.
Sharing!
Well, I wouldn't go quite so far as
The thing about backgammon is that, like baseball or poker, it can never be about just one game. To play it right, you have to have a running contest with several games/hands. What the doubling cube does is prevent you from wasting a lot of time on a game where one player is 90% sure to win. It essentially forces a concession. Without the cube, the guy with the 10% chance is going to stick it out as long as hope is alive -- and that would be boring, because you'd spend half your time on games that aren't close.
With the cube, as soon as you have a significant lead, you're going to push the cube and collect your win. And if your opponent refuses to give up, he's going to pay in the long run. Of course the question is how far a head do you have to be for it to be a "significant lead". That's what every player has to decide for himself.
excellent points
One cruel and fascinating aspect of the doubling cube is that it is to your advantage to take it even when you are likely to lose the game (in fact basically when you are more than 25% likely to win). So to play effectively, you have to deal with and play out a lot of heartbreak while your luck catches up to you. I think it's been good training for following the Beane A's.
That is also an excellent point.
by baseballgirl on Oct 18, 2005 8:50 AM PDT up reply actions
The better team
Sharon...
"I said, `You've got to go meet with him so you understand what we're trying to do here,' " Alderson recalls. "Almost immediately, it was hook, line and sinker."
While Walker left the A's sometime in the last decade and is now believed to be living in Canada
Replying to keep a link this thread
I want to keep it in my personal "file" so I can refer to it later.
Thanks to all contributers!
by Ducts on the Pawn on Oct 23, 2005 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions
I guess that, when the game within the game:
You can call Bucky Dent's HR a random event because he didn't hit very many in his career.
You can also know that he was known as a bunter who was grooved pitch with a short distance to carry in LF.
Nothing random about that!
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Oct 18, 2005 10:22 AM PDT reply actions
True ...
Skill allows him to hit one homerun per 110 at bats. The situation increases the chance to one in ten.
Now what accounts for the fact that he hit the homerun in that at bat and not another one? Unless you are saying that, if you fully know the talent level of the player, you know the situation and you know everything that affects the player (heart, etc) you can predict the exact outcome then there is a degree of randomness.
When we're talking about events that occur only one in ever ten or one in every hundred chances, randomness is a huge factor in it whenever it occurs.
My brain hurts:
The key is consistency with your swing.
Also having a pitch to hit.
Tossing a coin or playing craps is completely random.
You cannot practice throwing 7's or 11's every time. you play the odds on a random occurance.
Baseball is VERY far from this.
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Oct 18, 2005 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions
For example:
I can take 1000 swings in BP and that will have an effect on me making contact. Otherwise they wouldn't do it.
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Oct 18, 2005 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, you can practice all you want
Generally speaking the first swing you take in at bat number one does not affect the second swing and neither affects the swing you take in at bat number two. (of course, over the course of the game you can learn things about a pitcher that change your odds but that's a seperate discussion - you might also completely change your mindset) Generally speaking, just like flipping a coin, these are independent events with certain odds that various outcomes will occur.
If you have a perfectly consistent swing. If you do everything right. Even if you're Barry Bonds. You will not hit a homerun every at bat.
Of course not:
If hitting a baseball is a random occurence than any one of us on this board would be just as likely to hit a Roger Clemens breaker as Barry Bonds.
We can all randomly throw a 7 or toss a coin to heads, but, I doubt many on this board could even see Brad Lidge's fastball let alone hit it.
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Oct 18, 2005 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions
And another thing:
Random is random...
Of course there is some randomness in baseball. That bird that RJ hit was pretty random, but comparing it to craps is complete and utter garbage.
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Oct 18, 2005 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions
Comparing it to Craps
Yeah, that is my whole point:
Damn lassez fair management!!!
Good thing I root for the name on the front because this stuff would have me being a fan of another team for sure.
The A's approach to handling players reminds me of the powder puff football games in comparison to the NFL.
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Oct 18, 2005 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions
Of course they do.
It's not perfectly random - it's based on odds. My odds of hitting a homerun off of Roger Clemens are zero in seventeen trillion. If I practiced every day for five years, they would improve to zero in 473 billion. Mr. Bonds' odds are significantly better.
You're saying that I'm saying that if you flip a coin 99 times, 33 will be heads, 33 will be tails and 33 will be spades.
If Barry Bonds swings at the exact same pitch ten times (it's a good but hittable pitch) 3 will end up in the seats, 2 will end up as hits in the outfield, 1 will whiff, 2 will be ground outs and 2 will be fly outs. If I swung at the same pitch ten times 0 would end up in the seats, 0 would end up as hits, 9 would end up as whiff, 0 would end up as ground outs or fly outs and 1 would knick the bat and trickle away in foul territory.
Those correction are what eliminate randomness:
These pitchers AND hitters have been making these adjustments since they were 10 years old. In order to be better able to make contact with the ball or avoid contact with the ball.
When Tom Glavine was on he used to say the he was off if he missed by an inch. One INCH!!! Nothing random about that.
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Oct 18, 2005 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions
saint...
Barry Bonds, the best homerun hitter in the whole game, still gets out. He of all players, who has the hitting thing figured out as best as any player can, still is not a perfect hitter.
Let's pretend that Barry hits a homerun once every ten at-bats. He doesn't control when those HRs come. He can get ten perfect pitches to hit over ten ABs and he will get a homerun ONE of those times. Only one. He doesn't have any more control than that, and even if he practiced his swing every waking hour, that is not going to change.
He's an established hitter with career statistics that say he is going to hit one homerun in X at-bats. Some of them come at awesome times. Others come in blow-outs. But he is going to hit one homerun over a certain number of ABs, according to his numbers, and it works out that way.
by baseballgirl on Oct 18, 2005 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions
Baseball is not craps:
And of course you can miss your pitch, and of course you can drive your pitch.
A line drive gets caught and a blooper falls.
But craps?!?!
I see that as an excuse for failure. Personally.
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Oct 18, 2005 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions
One more time...
No matter how good you are.
Forget craps. Think Texas Hold 'Em. That's a game that takes a ton of skill, and even intangibles, yet a good portion of it is decided by randomness.
by baseballgirl on Oct 18, 2005 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions
Exactlty!!!!!
I agree that there is a randomness to this game, but not as much as craps, BY FAR!!!
So, is baseball a crapshoot? I guess only if you are the Okland A's!!!
I mean, "Macha is good enough" to roll a 7 or heads!!! ;)
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Oct 18, 2005 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions
something for the anti-randomites to consider
It's the distribution of those events that has a significant degree of randomness, however.
You also have to consider the distribution of talent in MLB. As with any highly selective meritocratic system (Scott Hatteberg's previous contract extension notwithstanding), the distribution of talent is arrayed like the far end of a bell curve: the vast majority of MLB players being roughly equal in talent, with a healthy dose of very good players, and a small handful of elite players. With such a distribution of talent, most one-on-one confrontations (batter vs pitcher) and comparisons (batter vs batter, pitcher vs pitcher) are going to be roughlly equivalent. And, for the sake of respecting major leaguers, we can presume that every MLB player is trying hard (with the obvious exceptions of ManRam and A-Rod, both of whom suck and don't deserve to be within 150 miles of a MLB dugout</snark>).
Therefore, if everyone is trying hard, and the vast proportion of MLB players are roughly equivalent in skill level, the resulting outcomes of each confrontation will depend on a combination of infinitesimal differences that are so shrinkingly small and interconnected that they are indistinguishable from "luck."
The reason that the distribution of outcomes looks random is not because certain players suck or aren't trying hard: it's precisely because none of the players suck and all of them are trying equally hard. The random distribution of events and outcomes is not an insult to baseball players, but a testament to them.
(It also allows us to see the anomalies -- the A-Rods, the ManRams, the Bondses, the Pujols, the Clemenses, the Streets, the Hardens -- for the treasures they are.)
<standing ovation>
by baseballgirl on Oct 18, 2005 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions
Your shit smells particularly sweet today
Well put.
to clarify
Wherever you see the word "random" in there, read it as "probabilistically predictable."
and another thing to keep in mind ...
Which, again, is not to say that "the little things" and preparation and execution don't matter -- it's just the opposite, the same as my thesis with individual player skill and preparation: because all major league teams are comprised of skilled individuals competing hard, most games are toss-ups. As the aggregate skill levels on different teams vary, though, the consequential accumulation of game events advance the likelihood of superior teams' winning -- but not by a lot, odds-wise, since the cumulative differences are so small and subject to multifactorial and random (this time I mean "random"-random) variation.
So are you saying
All this discussion of statistics and numbers and talent bell curves, just makes me wonder if we have all forgotten a very important aspect of the game, the human spirit! Stats are important and they do mean a great deal, but sometimes, you have to admit, they just get lucky. I know that we have been arguing that "so-and-so just wanted it more" is an irrelivant argument, and in many cases that is true.
But, how do we really know if it is irrelivant? How do we measure personally drive? How do we measure faith? Where does talent stop and drive/luck begin?
For example; when Swisher goes to the plate, just before every pitch, he looks to the sky. I don't know if this is a nervous habbit, but my guess is he is looking to his Grandma for strength. How do we measure the strength he gets from her? (ok, so all you non-spiritual types, just follow me)
Now, the strength he gets from her, whether it is really from her, or just the idea and thought of her, is real to him. You can't deny that thinking of her gives him a little extra something when he goes to the plate. Sure, the numbers may not reflect that, but what about the times when it does work and he truly believes she was right there with him.
Every player that points to the sky after doing something good will tell you they had some kind of extra special help. Every player has a day when they say, "I just got lucky."
The reality is, whether we can point to it directly in the stats or not, the players believe in their own personally form of luck. So how can we say it isn't real if it is real to them?
by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Oct 18, 2005 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions
as with a lot of things ...
Plus, I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "luck": do you mean "random-ass happenstance," or "I'll get a clutch hit later tonight if I help this little old lady cross the road" or "I'll kiss my fingers and Point to the Man Upstairs when I homer, single, or get a ball called in any AB"?
Quite frankly, I'll take a virgins'-blood-drinking, under-ladders-walking, dog-kicking secular humanist who bats .280/.380/.500 over Saint Nick any day of the week (no disrespect intended to Gramma Swish).
Human Spirit
Obviously, there is a lot about baseball that we can measure and count and point to as a reason for this, that, or the other thing. But sometimes, it can also be pointed to Mind Over Matter. If Swish believes his grandma is helping him when he goes up to bat, maybe just believing it is helping him! If some guy needs to hit the bat to his shoes 15 times before he takes a swing, maybe for him, it helps. If Kotsay does the sign of the cross at every AB, maybe that helps him. How do we know that all their beliefs don't mean something?
I mean, how do we measure talent? They may be talented, but there has to be a certain amount of drive that enables them to use that talent to the best of its abilities. How do we say, 84.75% of what Kotsay did in the field was talent and 4% training and the rest was drive? We can't. There is no way to tell. So for us to sit back and say that everything they do on the field can be weighed and measured is just really hard for me to swallow.
Some of it does come from the power of the human spirit, and many times it is those moments that makes the game great. If the whole entire game could be counted and measured, it would be boring. I am not trying to say that baseball is all sappy and cheesy, heady stuff. I am just saying there is an eliment of that in the game whether we like it or not and for us to deny that part of the game is just wrong.
I am all about the stats and information that can be sucked from every play, but sometimes, the emotional rollercoaster and the drive of the spirit can be the most thrilling part. It is what makes the game so unpredictable. It is what makes the player defy the stats and show people that you can over come the odds. I just don't want us to say that all that doesn't matter, because it does.
by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Oct 18, 2005 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions
In case you want more
http://www.athleticsnation.com/story/2005/3/11/14483/8341#readmore
Can I recommend this diary twice?
great post from rauber23
I don't understand this notion that the playoffs are a crap shoot. Is it still a crap shoot if the A's are playing the Alameda County over 60 soft toss team?
My point being, what if the players on one team are clearly superior to the other?
But now that I think of it, in terms of the game of craps, maybe there is some bearing to the claim.
In those terms perhaps the better teams, the Yankees, Redsox, for instance, they are the 7's. They have the highest probably of being rolled, and the most combinations available to win.
Your weaker teams are your 2's or twelves, there is only one way to win, and if you don't get snake eyes or a couple sixes you lose.
So, to complete the analogy, it is in every teams best interest to get themselves as close to 7's as they can, so when they do go to the table to play, they have a better chance to win.
So, one could say it is a crapshoot, but obviously teams are never equals when they enter a series. The Marlins a few years ago, the Angels, both wildcard series winners, they were 2's or 12's, long shots, but they rolled their number numerous times and won. Which leads me to the question, what are the odds of rolling 3 12's in a row to take the series? Meaning, it is a lot more likely for a 7 to be rolled on the die, a 3-4,4-3,5-2,2-5,6-1,1-6,than for a a 12, a 6-6 roll only.
So anyways, to complete this rambling and at times incoherent blather, (I'm at work and very much more interested in this) It is a crapshoot, but not everyone goes in as an equal. The better teams have an advantage, the weaker teams a disadvantage, but still a chance. I just depends on how prepared you are going in, and where you place your bet.
We could delve even further into the structure of the playoffs, 5 games for the first series vs. 7, wildcard teams can get 2 home games compared to the number 1 who only gets 3, despite winning their division and often times obliterating the wildcard in season standings, yet now they are on a virtual level playing field.
Anywho, whatcha think?
to highlight one point
Heart, effort, courage, guts, hard work all exist. That's what gets players to the high school all-star game, college varsity, and if they are VERY VERY GOOD, the minors. That's what separates them from a shmoe like me. By the time you weed out everyone except the AAA and up players, you are looking at a VERY elite group of athletes. Out of millions of players, you'd picked out what, 2000 highly skilled athletes. Now out of those top players, you take the top 400 players. These players ALL have heart and guts. That's what got them to the majors.
Now in theory you could claim there are still huge differences in guts between the players. That is a religious belief. I support your right to your own religion. We cannot definitively settle this through data. However, all the data does point to the idea that a really solid chunk of what happens on the baseball field is random. We can argue about how much is random. But some of it is random. The most obvious examples are bloop hits and fouls just out of play and balls that don't quite leave the park and knucklers that go one way and not the other, etc. etc. Not everything that happens in a baseball field is earned by good character.
the more I think about it ...
In fact, I think that as the more statistically inclined among us would agree, quantifiable outcomes aren't "random" -- they're entirely predictable, given a large enough sample size. The deviations from the predictable in smaller sample sizes aren't "random" per se, in the sense of "player X did not reach base in plate appearance Y because a jet engine fell from the sky and killed him"-type randomness, but are subject to so many inute variables that we often can't identify the precise cause of the outcome (though F.S.M. knows we'll spend a lot of bandwidth debating our lack of knowledge).
"inute" = "minute"
not eskimo math?
There is also a rather deep philosophical debate over whether anything is really random or not. That's where religion comes in. Even Einstein chimed in with his famous "God does not play dice with the universe."
However, I think Einstein would agree with the idea that baseball outcomes are not under the full control of the will of any player.
There is a difference between things being random and being completely unpredictable. Random just means non-predictable to the limits our our knowledge. On the contrary, many many random events are very well understood. Flipping a coin for instance is quite well studied and there is a well-established theory for predicting what will happen as the number of flips increases. One can say with great precision what the distribution of outcomes will be (a bell curve). The outcomes of playoff series can be rather well modeled as random events with a similar distribution (see the diamondmind article about 200 posts up). That's either a colossal coincidence or signifies something about the important role of chance in baseball.
This gets down to religion. But I believe that a batter, swinging at the same pitch twenty times will not get the same results, and I don't think it's just because he was concentrating more on certain pitches.
Players don't believe it either. Remember all the times veteran hitters say they're just in a bad or unlucky patch and they have to work through it? Macha said don't get too high during the high point, too low during the low points. Players said, "we're not this bad" during May. They all know there are days when you smash a liner right at someone and days when you bloop a single. That's luck. I defy anyone to find me a quote from a pro player to the effect of "When I get out, it's just because I didn't hit it right."
Luck is part of the game. Somedays it's not your day and it's not due to personal character flaws.
Traditionalists and statistics
The "strong" statistical viewpoint -- that all behaviors are, if not deterministic, at least probabilistically predictable -- is seen as reducing (or, if you like -- though most don't -- "elevating") human endeavors to machine operations. The "strong" statistical viewpoint denies "heart."
The "weak" statistical viewpoint -- that all behaviors are, especially in small sample sizes, subject to random/unpredictable/irreducible variation -- is seen as insulting to free will and human effort. The "weak" statistical viewpoint denies "grit."
Urghh!!!
The Angels and Marlins were two of the hottest teams going in those years!!!
They were not two's!!!
Having only 8 of 32 teams in the playoffs eliminates the 2's.
It is not craps!!!
;)
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Oct 19, 2005 9:49 AM PDT up reply actions
You're right ... not 2's ...
HA-HA!!!
They were like the White Sox of 05 going in. They were hot at the right time.
The 6,7, or 8 in the regular season can be the 4 in the post season and the 4 in the regular season can be peaking and therefor the 6,7 or 8 in the post season.
But, THERE ARE NO BOX CARS or SNAKE EYES!!! Therefor not craps...
LMAO...;)
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Oct 19, 2005 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions
Agreement ...
saint...
They were hot at the right time.
Right, but does that make them the best team overall? Or just the best team that week?
That's the question. Is one week of games enough to determine the "best" baseball team? Statistics say 'no'. The DevilRays kicking the Yankees' ass during one week of the summer also says 'no'. They were not a better team. They may have played better that week, or got luckier calls that week. But not better overall.
by baseballgirl on Oct 19, 2005 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions
One hot week does not make you a top 8 team:
Given that there are 162 games you will need to have more than one hot week to reach the playoffs.
And another thing, the recipe for stopping a winning streak:
Great pitching!!!
Nothing random about having great pitching.
**Some pitchers may throw great games, Mike Warren's no-no for example, and not be great pitchers.
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Oct 19, 2005 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions
Whoa, talk about unintentional bolding?!?!
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Oct 19, 2005 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions
Mouths are open...but is anything coming out?
There are way too many factors and variables during the regular season and the playoffs to attribute outcomes of situations and games to numbers and randomness (is that even a word?). Baseball is random? No. Some of you are letting these numbers get to your head. I have never heard a player or manager who won a championship say that the playoffs were a crapshoot or that their team won b/c the numbers said they were due. Like someone said earlier, you hear this from losers. This argument is just plain stupid and a poor excuse. Games are decided on the field. Who made the plays they had to make to win each game and the series? That is what separates victors from losers. Competition will always come down to being the last man standing. Stats are overrated and overused. Games will always be won on the field and not in a computer or some Harvard math geek's head. In baseball, there are an infinite number of variables that affect an outcome of a particular game. This is not card counting. But, if it was blackjack, it would be with the deck shuffled after every hand.
By the way, excuse the long post. I seldom post but when I do I like to get my money's worth.
by ccha on Oct 19, 2005 10:41 PM PDT reply actions
Look around ...
While you're looking around, you might want to actually read some arguments that you're trying to answer because, my friend, nobody on the opposite side ever said anything that you're suggesting we said.
And, by the way, the law of averages has nothing to do with the tit for tat idea that you're assaulting. The law of averages is that, as sample sizes increase, aberrations will be smoothed over as the overwhelming majority of outcomes fall in line with their proper odds.
observe:
A batter whose true skill level is as a .300 hitter goes 8 for 10. Does the law of averages say that he is going to go 1 for his next 20 so it balances out? No - it says that he is going to go roughly 150 for his next 500, leaving him at 158/510 overall - a .310 batting average.
At the end, though, you do seem to start to grasp the concept. The key to wrapping your mind around all of this is that these are independent events - like shuffling the Black Jack deck after every hand. The distribution of these independent events is what we're talking about.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- David Wright and Terry Collins argue in dugout after Mets manager moves to protect his star
- The Juice: Mike Trout homers, Angels get 12 hits, coach Mickey Hatcher gets fired
- Brett Lawrie fires helmet at umpire before fan hurls beer in tantrum over strikes
- Carlos Lee runs into umpire, gets elbow in eye (VIDEO)
- Stephen Strasburg and ‘Hot Stuff’ ointment are apparently not a very good mix
