Filter posts by...
MLB_Management
Friday, December 09, 2011
As an assumption of fact, I would say that if Albert Pujols was 42 years old, and some team offered him a 3 year, 60MM$ deal, and the Cardinals offered him 1 year, 10MM$, then no fan will begrudge him in taking the better deal. That’s because Pujols will have outlived his usefulness to the Cardinals fan.
As an assumption of fact, I would say that if Albert Pujols signed the 10 year, 220MM$ deal with the Cardinals today, and then got injured, and ended up being a shadow of the player he was within two years, the Cardinals fan would lament the albatross of a contract. That’s because Pujols will have outlived his usefulness to the Cardinals fan.
The Cardinals fan is not hurt because Pujols left a huge deal, only to take an even huger deal. The Cardinals fan is not hurt because of Pujols apparent hypocrisy of being a Cardinals-for-life.
No. The Cardinals fan is hurt because they know that Pujols still has plenty of joy to give, and as long as he has that joy to give, the Cardinals fan is the one who feels entitled to it, regardless of what Pujols wants. Pujols has not yet outlived his usefulness to the Cardinals fan. And when he does, it’s the fan, not Pujols, that has to make the first cut of the umbilical cord. The fan wants to come to grips with it first.
Pedro Martinez was traded after winning his Cy Young. Expos fans came to grips with it quickly enough, because, we knew that he was going to go eventually.
It doesn’t matter if Pujols pulled an in-your-face Lebron, or if Pujols was traded for the current day Gretzky-deal of three big-time prospects and a 100MM$. The fans had banked on their player, claimed an ownership on another human being, and they are going to express that disappointment to another human being, be it directly onto the player, or onto the owner who let him get away.
It’s an irrational despondency.
But, as has been pointed out to me, sports itself is irrational. Pujols made, and will make, his millions based on people simply watching him do something. They don’t get any direct value of a product or service. All they can do is live in the moment, of channeling their energies onto something they see, and hope for an outcome that is what they want.
Sports is not art, that touches you on a deep level. Sports requires a visceral reaction, that depends on you first making a stake as to what you expect. You can’t just watch a soccer match for the first time in your life, and start cheering as if something has affected you. You need context, you need a setup, you need to know the extent of what a person can accomplish. And then, when that thing happens, when that outcome matches or exceeds your expectation, you cheer. I was a moderate soccer fan, but watching Zidane against Italy and Brazil provoked an irrational reaction in me. Had I not been a soccer fan at all, Zidane’s stellar performance would have meant nothing at all.
The sports fan is expressiong irrational despondency when “his” (as if he owns him) star player leaves. He can feel whatever he wants to feel, because that’s how he has invested his energies, and that’s how the superstar player gets paid, by, if not preying, at least tapping, into those energies. But, despondency does not have to lead to hate or disgust or long-term depression.
Just grieve, and, eventually, move on:
1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance
The Cardinals lost one of the best players of all-time, but after getting two World Series out of it. Edmonton lost an even better player, and got more Stanley Cups. And both players left their towns with a championship won in their last season.
Montreal lost an entire team. The Expos gave Montreal a lifetime of memories, as did Pujols give to the Cardinals fans. That should be enough.
Irrational despondency can lead to rational grief.
Tuesday, December 06, 2011
High school football player celebrates early, gets flagged for taunting, nullifying the touchdown. But, everyone agrees: the rule is the rule is the rule. George Orwell couldn’t have predicted this state of affairs actually becoming reality.
How about we apply this to baseball. That Kirk Gibson fist pump? HR rendered obsolete. Carlton Fisk jumping up and down, waving his hands, only to finally hold them up in triumph? That’s an out. Dave Henderson doing his piroutte? Back to the dugout. Prince Fielder calling his teammates over so he can use them as bowling pins? Another out.
And why not. If the rule is the rule is the rule, then these players are going to learn… the hard way… that you don’t celebrate until after you score, and you do so in a respectful manner.
Monday, December 05, 2011
I love Dirk Hayhurst. Great insight, wonderful writing. Which stands in direct contrast to his latest blog post:
But there is more to victory then payroll size, production, and the quantifiable. There is the metaphysical, the emotional, and the delicate art of producing good team chemistry.
...
The great teams know how to manipulate this formula to the advantage of the players, and the proper mix can allow a spreadsheet laughing stock to triumph over a payroll powerhouse.
Yes, I agree with Dirk. Let’s call this the Willie Ballgame theory. Willie Bloomquist, every year, defines replacement level. He’s lucky to get a job when he does (though this year, he seems to have upped the ante). But a player that is a replacement level has very very limited MLB shelf life remaining. If you are a replacement level player today, and you are already in your mid 20s, you have a year or two left. But Willie Ballgame busts that trend. Rather than aging, letting his physical drop result in decreased production, he maintains the same level of production every year. Craig Counsell, John McDonald, to name a few, are other players (not necessarily replacement-level in the case of Counsell for his career), who maintain the same level of talent every year.
And, if you want to argue that the reason for that, that the reason that these guys can buck their forecasts and produce above expectation, is that there’s some intangible aspect to them, I can totally buy it.
And, if you want to argue that there’s some players who go the other way, who simply don’t learn, don’t try enough, and who are out of baseball far earlier than they should, that they always perform below expectation because there’s some intangible aspect to them, I can totally buy that too.
Indeed, if this is something real, then it would be a tremendous benefit to know that, to be able to identify such players. Indeed, it’s very possible a seasoned scout can look at two 20-yr old ballplayers, who put up the same production numbers, and come out with a far different evaluation because he can establish that one player is much more likely to adapt, while the other is more likely to die (metaphorically). I can certainly accept this premise.
By the time he was 30 years old, Counsell had come to bat a total of 961 times, albeit with a 4.5 WAR (average of 3.3 WAR per 700 PA). So, two things:
1. Why was he not given the chance earlier
2. Given that he was already 30 years old, and nowhere to go but down, the likelihood is we could expect out of him is another 7-8 wins for his career. But, he got another 16 wins, according to Fangraphs, and 15 wins according to Baseball-Reference.
And so, I was eager to hear from the insights of Dirk Hayhurst, as someone who was in the lion’s den, and could shed light here. Maybe provide evidence, even anecdotal. Some insight.
Instead, he presented his summary opinion with no evidence. It was disappointing to say the least that someone in the position to possibly know about how team chemistry affects a team, and perhaps know how to identify players that contributes to team chemistry, gave us nothing of the sort. And instead, he relied on the tried-but-true arguments from the mainstream media.
You can do better than that Dirk.
Friday, December 02, 2011
Baseball is more fun on the sports page, than the business page.
Thursday, December 01, 2011
By , 11:55 PM
http://www.nesn.com/2011/12/bobby-valentine-plans-blending-sabermetrics-with-baseball-experience-to-make-decisions-with-red-sox.html
I could end up being wrong, but I have a feeling that Bobby V may be the first manager we will see that actually uses correct sabermetric principles. I think that the only reason Boston would hire such a controversial manager is for that reason - they finally found a manager who is astute and progressive enough not to think that he knows everything about baseball and is willing to throw away half of what he thinks he knows. I have a feeling that he is going to work very closely with James, Tippett, and the rest of the Sox’ sabermetric department, and that we will see (or not see) things that we have never seen on a baseball field, other than fake noses and glasses…
As I linked to the other day, the Cardinals are one of the teams that qualifies for the lottery pick. The qualification is to either have a low-revenue team or a small-market team. Revenue is easy enough to calculate, and the Cardinals are comfortably in the top-half there (not bottom 10 as required). That implies they are considered a small-market team. We see from this old Zumsteg article that the Cards are 7th smallest in terms of “MSA”. But what we really care about is the size of the population times the affinity for that product or service. That’s the true market. Keith Woolner came up with one such method, and the Cards came out to an obvious non-small-market team.
We can also use a simple method I have here, that calculates the “base attendance” for each team (attendance you’d expect if the team played .500). It’s based on its past attendance. Theoretically, we can derive an “affinity index” by comparing the attendance to its population size, so that we can do what Woolner does: multiply the affinity index by the population index. In any case, I have the Cards as the 8th largest baseball market.
So, it’s quite surprising that:
a. the CBA has been negotiated to allow the Cards to be considered a small market
b. the other teams not griping about this
One interesting one in comparing Woolner’s to my list is the Diamondbacks. Arizona has attracted plenty of people to their park, but Woolner considers them a very small market. Since Zumsteg has them at just below-average in market size, Woolner must have given them a below-average affinity index in order to get them as a small-market.
In any case, I would have hoped that something more than simply population size would have been used, and given the creativity MLB and MLBPA have shown in other facets, it’s odd that it was left as it was. I’m all in favor of the sniff test, and the Cardinals as a small market is not one that passes that test.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Rangers, Mets, Lotte Marines, and now his fourth team, the Redsox. A compilation of reactions can be found here.
***
Anyway, I found this story:
“Ichiro is a mathematical genius,’’ he told me. “Because of that, he can read the angles of the field better than everyone else. When he runs to a spot in right field to make a catch, and the ball is there, waiting for him, it’s because he can see the angles better than anyone. I was in an elevator with him once. It was about a 40-floor hotel. He looked at the right side of the elevator, the even numbers, and added them up in his head in, like, two seconds.’’
There’s a little trick I like to play. It looks mighty impressive, even if it’s not. I can divide any number by 7, and get the answer to six decimal places. The trick is that the sequence after the decimal is always of the pattern 142857, and it loops back. So, 1/7 is .142857 and repeats. For 2/7, you start with the second smallest digit, and follow the same pattern: .285714. 3/7 starts with 4 (the third smallest digit), so you get .428571. And so on.
Even remembering the 6-digit sequence is easy enough. Double 7 (14), double that (28), double that and add 1 (57). So, once you have that 142857 sequence, you can divide any number by 7. Cute, right?
***
We know about adding all the numbers in sequence starting from 1, which is just n*(n+1)/2. The (n+1)/2 is simply the average of a sequence from 1 to n. And n is the count of numbers from 1 to n.
The Ichiro trick limits us to just the even numbers. In that case, instead of “n” in the above equation, we have “n/2”. That gives us the count. And instead of “n+1” over 2, it’s “n+2” over 2, which is the average between the maximum number and 2. So, we have n/2 * (n+2)/2.
We can further expand that to (n/2 * n/2) + n/2.
For odd numbers, it’s even easier (where n is the largest even number). The count remains at n/2, and the average is n-1 (to get your max odd number) plus 1, divided by 2, or n/2. So, simply n/2 squared.
To recap: adding up the odd numbers is n/2 squared. Adding up the even numbers is n/2 squared, plus n/2.
Therefore, adding up 1 through 40 is: 40*41/2 = 820
Limiting to odd numbers: 40/2 squared = 400
And to even numbers: 40/2 squared + 40/2 = 420
So, next time you see Bobby V in an elevator, you’ll know how to break the ice.
***
Are there little numeric “tricks” that you guys enjoy doing? I’d love to hear them.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
I don’t see it. All the players care about is that a fair share of the pie goes to the players. They don’t care if it’s big market or small market.
So, the problem is the splitting of revenue between large and small market. The small market is going to demand more from the large market. The players aren’t going to care. Why would the large market teams lockout the players? To beg the players to allow them to give more money to small market teams?
I do agree that it’s never about “competitive balance”. That’s just something that people say so the media can dutifully repeat it.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Great stuff from Matt generally speaking, and with a couple of little good nuggets too. Love these kinds of articles.
As for Matt’s conclusion: I think it was not about getting rid of the tax, but reshaping it so that it was more equitably distributed (i.e., not hitting a bunch of relievers). Someone had a good article on it a week or two ago that I linked to, showing the huge bias against relievers.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Murray channels his inner-FJM to go after Bobby V. Fun, if kind of pointless. Welcome to the blogging world Murray… you fit right in.
I was amused by this:
Earlier in the season, McRae said, “He’s not a typical manager. He does weird and goofy things. . . . I’m not saying he’s right or wrong. He’s a different type manager and it’s our job to adjust to what he’s doing.”
Felipe Alou was once asked who he hated managing against, and he said Bobby V. He said it’s not because he was the best or the worst, but because he was so unconventional, that it was hard to manage against him. So, I found it amusing to read Brian McRae say practically the same thing that Alou said.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Jeff Passan is reporting:
The draft pools start this season with the Houston Astros – who pick No. 1 overall – set to receive $11.5 million to spend in the first 10 rounds. They end with the New York Yankees having a $4.5 million budget over 10 rounds
Does it make sense?
Check out the WAR for players (through age 29) drafted in the June draft, for 1965-1999, for the top 300 picks, grouped by “order”, where order=1 is the 1st, 31st, 61st, etc picks:
WAR order
100% 1
72% 2
64% 3
59% 4
67% 5
60% 6
64% 7
48% 8
74% 9
70% 10
38% 11
47% 12
54% 13
44% 14
32% 15
69% 16
46% 17
40% 18
69% 19
62% 20
23% 21
46% 22
44% 23
38% 24
56% 25
46% 26
32% 27
37% 28
45% 29
56% 30
I indexed it relative to order=1. As you can see, if you are slotted to pick 2nd through around 10th, you get 64% of the value of picking 1st (with not much difference between picking 2nd through 10th). Picking 11th through 30th gets you 46% of picking 1st.
MLB is giving the first team to pick 11.5MM$ to play with, while the 30th place team is getting 4.5MM$ (or 39% of the first team). That seems pretty reasonable.
Presumably MLB has a sliding scale for each spot. In my case, I have spots 11 through 30 to be at 46%. Presumably, MLB has those spots at something like 53% down to 39% (so that they too will come out to average my 46%).
Using the above data, this is my recommended pool money for each slot (note that things get a bit complicated with the extra lottery picks that I have not modeled here; but, someone can take my above chart, and work it out):
WAR Tango pick
100% 100% 1
72% 72% 2
64% 70% 3
59% 68% 4
67% 66% 5
60% 64% 6
64% 62% 7
48% 60% 8
74% 58% 9
70% 57% 10
38% 56% 11
47% 55% 12
54% 54% 13
44% 53% 14
32% 52% 15
69% 51% 16
46% 50% 17
40% 49% 18
69% 48% 19
62% 47% 20
23% 46% 21
46% 45% 22
44% 44% 23
38% 43% 24
56% 42% 25
46% 41% 26
32% 40% 27
37% 39% 28
45% 38% 29
56% 37% 30
If MLB ends up having a scale anything close to what I’m proposing, then hats off to whoever at MLB worked it out. You did a great job!
You can certainly make the case.
I’m wondering how many inter-league games we need so that we can treat everything as one league and two conferences, like the NHL, NBA, and NFL do, with one award winner for the league. Those leagues have 20%-25% of inter-conference games.
MLB, currently, has 11% inter-league games. If they bump it up to 30 games from 18, to put it at 18.5% inter-league games, can we FINALLY treat it as 18.5% inter-conference games, and doing away with the two league designations? And, finally, allowing Halladay and Verlander to compete for the same award?
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Interesting stuff all-around, especially the compensation system.
Great job by tigerdog1 in not only giving us the highlights, but also the impact. This is what blogging is all about.
Monday, November 21, 2011
What a fantastic idea at Zappos:
Such benefits helped land Zappos on Fortune Magazine’s list of top 10 companies to work for.
But sometimes, even that’s not enough for a would-be Zappos employee. At the end of each new employee training session, Zappos offers new employees $4,000 to quit. Hsieh said that about two to three percent of trainees accept that offer each year.
“We don’t want employees that are there just for a paycheck,” Hsieh said.
Normally, buyout options are exercised AFTER you’ve been on the job for a certain period of time. And it’s usually on option exercised by the employer. Or, if they want to downsize, they’ll offer packages to whoever wants it.
But, to have an “upsize” package, instead of downsize, and at the start, not the end, of the person’s career? It simply flips the whole dynamic on its ear.
I just love the idea, that a person will decide how much it’s worth to them to have a job at a place that presumably people love to work at. And, as it’s been pointed out:
The vast majority of trainees turn down the offer during training – resisting the temptation to take the money and run. Then almost no one quits in the initial months after training because they’d feel like fools to quit for nothing when they could have quit for money. The cognitive dissonance would be too great. This is the power of resisted temptation.
Just love it. The above article notes you can apply this to colleges, as a way to get rid of people who don’t really want to be there, but feel they need to stick it out, by reimbursing a portion of their tuition.
I’d like to hear from the Straight Arrow readers on different applications, as it applies to the sports world.
Friday, November 18, 2011
When did this happen? Gretzky is now going to be part of the group (for the second time by the way, after his 10% interest in the Coyotes). We had Mario Lemieux (who parlayed his not getting paid by the bankrupt Penguins into an ownership stake). Michael Jordan (I guess, I don’t know, presumably was not a majority owner). Nolan Ryan? There were recent bids fronted by former stars. How far back does it go, and is this the new wave?
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Here’s your chance. No idea if anyone over there knows me, so I don’t know if it’ll help or hurt if you mention this blog.
The Applications Developer will be responsible for developing, maintaining, testing and implementing web based and/or packaged applications to support the operation of the Internet, Intranet and Extranet applications using the latest Microsoft tools and technologies.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Article:
As part of the interview process, they also had to meet with the media afterward. Each man was asked some version of the question: How do you balance statistical analysis against going with your gut?
Philadelphia Phillies bench coach Pete Mackanin said “bring it on” (after a wandering explanation in which he mentioned “leveraged indexes” and “replacement value”).
So, Leverage Index is part of the discussion? That’s fun to read!
Milwaukee Brewers hitting coach Dale Sveum has been portrayed in the media as someone who understands data and uses spray charts, but he seemed to downplay that idea (which could just be part of his low-key public persona).
Doesn’t give us enough to comment.
Texas Rangers pitching coach Mike Maddux already works for another young Ivy League executive (general manager Jon Daniels, Cornell University, class of 1999).
“Statistics (are) art,” Maddux said. “You can make some things out of them, but there’s a lot of real stuff to them also. … Bad numbers can be a little deceptive, but good numbers don’t lie. So you use all the information that you can, but when it comes down to it, you got to trust yourself and trust your players.”
I agree about bad numbers being deceptive. The matchup numbers being front-and-center there.
Cleveland Indians bench coach Sandy Alomar Jr. – whose big-league career stretched from 1988 to 2007 – witnessed firsthand the information explosion.
“It doesn’t tell the whole story,” Alomar said. “There (are) also a lot of gut-feeling decisions you’ve got to make. But if you have a stat (that’s) a flashy number (where) you think: ‘Oh, this guy is doing very good against this other guy,’ you can use that during the game in a key situation.
“But we cannot just depend on stats alone. … I don’t like to become a fantasy manager. I want players to be able to manager themselves. The goal for a good manager is to have players that are able to manage themselves on the field and be team baseball players, not fantasy baseball players.”
Hmmm… a bit over the place. Not sure what to make of his comments.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
There’s got to be more to this story:
Indeed, the richer clubs have the means to play it smarter. The New York Yankees recently hired 21 statisticians, Beane marvels
Rest of the article is great. Fun read of Beane and Lewis.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Tell ‘em you heard it from Tango.
Data_Architect.pdf
Quantitative_Analyst.pdf
Apply thru here.
Monday, November 07, 2011
In soccer, they would, and have, banished teams from the upper leagues to the lower leagues for serious infractions (including game-fixing). College has that as well. The Olympics also has team penalties for individual infractions.
In major pro sports in North America though? They all talk the talk, but when it comes time to walk that walk, they all stand in a spot shuffling their feet. Imagine a steroid test that would retroactively count as a forfeit all games played by that player. Or simply deducting 10 wins. Too draconian? Ok, how about one measly win? And then a second positive test for any player on that team is two additional wins. And so on. Too harsh? Well, I guess it’s not that big a deal.
How about in addition to that, losing draft picks, or forcing them to pick last in each round. Even the NHL has made a team forfeit its entire draft on a violation (talking to opponent already under contract). Isn’t steroids worse than that? Too harsh? Well, I guess it’s not that big a deal.
from Amazon
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 4 of 342 pages « First < 2 3 4 5 6 > Last »Complete Archive – By Category
Complete Archive – By Date