THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Statistical numbers? What the hell does that mean?!!!

I understand that most managers, even some of the good ones, don’t think like we do, but when a manager shows such a poor understanding of the dynamics of a sport, not to mention such a low degree of common sense and intelligence, how many mistakes is he going to make over the course of a season?  I submit that it will be many.

I am sorry to belabor the point, but you have to be somewhat of a complete idiot to think that, “The players with bad numbers (presumably the best players in baseball) do not play well in the post-season and that the poorer players do.”

Which is exactly what he said.

Not that I had any particular respect for him (as a manager), if only because I knew nothing much about him, but I have zero now.

As I have said in the past, there are “signature statements” by people that while they don’t define their competence in any one area, they are strong evidence of it.

It makes you wonder why he even bothered playing Wright, Reyes and Beltran in that final series when he had better players on the bench.

Maybe because it wasn’t officially the playoffs yet…

oh boy.

Looks like I might be in for another long season next yr.

I don’t think Manuel literally believes the position we would attribute to him; a man who uses a phrase like “statistical numbers” is a man who uses language like a blunt instrument. 

He’s simply trying to imitate a certain sort of noises, noises that he’s learned are rewarded with approval by a certain set of old-school baseball types.

I won’t argue with that (#6) because it is not really arguable.  I will say that if I were in charge of hiring and firing a manager, I would not want anyone to be an apologist for what the manager says. If he says something really stupid, and it is not just an “emotional utterance,” he owns it.

Dusty is too big for this thread…

At a glance I thought there was something sensible in there, in that he seemed to be saying that in the post-season, often someone unexpected ends up playing a huge part in the winning of a series.  This is often true: playoff series are far too short to ensure that the best players always perform the best.

Then I re-read the part before and after that.  Ugh… Paging David Eckstein, please report to New York…

Didn’t we have a thread a few months ago where we had to come to the conclusion that we cannot pay any attention at all to any manager or GM?  Let me see if I can find it…

http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/there_are_some_things_a_manager_does_that_should_get_him_fired_on_the_spot/#18

It looks like we did come to that conclusion, if by “we” I mean “I”.

I think we SHOULD pay some attention to what managers and GM’s say just like we have to pay attention to what candidates say in order to decide whether they are worthy of our vote.

If nothing else, if a manager or GM is willing to egregiously lie and say something that he does not believe just to placate the media or the fans, well, that tells me volumes about him.  I don’t for a minute, though, believe that Manuel does NOT believe what he said.  And that tells me volumes about his basic understanding of what it takes to win baseball games and to get into the post-season and win the world series.

It also tells me volumes about how he is likely to use in-game and other strategies throughout the season, just based on his baseball IQ alone.

When a manager says something a little goofy, especially if it is just a throwaway comment, like after a game, I can give him a pass.  When he says something ridiculous like Manuel said, in an actual interview, then, no pass.

Would you ignore what you hear from Hawk Harrelson on TV, and let him manager or be GM of your team?  Ir Harold Reynolds?  Joe Morgan?

All we know about these guys is what they say.

I don’t have the time or energy to sort out who is the truth teller from the deceiver.  So, it is easier to just ignore them.  This applies only when talking about players.

Remember, in baseball writer land, “short” is a synonym for “good.”

Manuel is stating the law of small sample sizes slightly less eloquently than he should.  In a short series, it is possible that people don’t perform the way that their numbers would indicate, i.e. “good” players tanking and “short” players having a good week.  The mistake that he’s making is that he seems willing to place his bets that this is going to be the case.

The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that’s the way to bet.

On SABR-L, John Thorn posted another Manuel quote (he said they it is from a 10/4 AP story but did not give a link):

“You get so many statistical people together, they put so many stats on paper, and they say, well, if you do this and you score this many runs, you do that many times, you’ll be in the playoffs,” he said.

“That’s not really how it works, and that’s what we have to get away from. And that’s going to have to be a different mind-set of the team in going forward. We must win and we must know how to win rather than win because we have statistical people. We have to win because we have baseball players that know and can understand the game.”

ugh at the above quote.

I wish they’d bring back Bobby V.

A friend of mine recently directed my attention to this paper

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Working.Papers/ext.samp.pdf

that shows that under certain conditions, the correlation between factor X and dependent variable Y can either go to zero or reverse sign if your sample size is only restricted to extreme values of Y.

This idea could be used to explain things like finding that among a group of top scientists, the most accomplished ones got the poorest grades in school. Or, that among baseball players that are starters on major league teams, there is a low correlation between height/build/musculature and success on the diamond. There are a number of potential examples in the paper.

Obviously I’m not defending Manuel’s statement. Obviously he’s wrong about “guys that have statistical numbers.” And obviously he’s thinking about David Eckstein, who is the only WS MVP in recent history to fit his description. I bring it up as an aside because it’s somewhat related to his comment on little guys and some people here may find the paper to be of interest.

(On a technical note, I find the paper to be interesting insofar as it demonstrates a reversal of correlation under certain distributions. But the second proposition, which shows that the correlation goes to zero under weaker conditions, I find to be less so. It seems that on a practical basis, you’ll often be slammed by small sample size before this effect really manifests.)

I’m also amused to think that Manuel is not dismissing statistics, but actually arguing that the hazard rate of baseball talent distribution strictly decreases in its upper tail. Clearly he spends too much time in the university library and not enough time in the dugout…

One thing he fails to understand, and many people do as well, is the concept that let’s say that you have a team of 15 players who are “eligible” to win a series MVP, and that only 2 of them are superstars.

It is very unlikely that one of the superstars will win the award and “the field” is going to be a large fave (against the superstars).  But, of course, the superstars are far more likely to win the award than any other individual player.

So people like Manuel think that some scrappy player is likely to shine in a short series and win an award rather than a superstar. And they would be right as long as there were 10 scrappy players, 2 superstars and the series were short!

It is the same concept that makes most people not choose all the favorites in a football contest where you don’t use the point spread and where you don’t need to avoid ties with another contestant (let’s say that the contest is that any or all persons who pick all 14 winners win $100,000).  By far and away the correct strategy is to choose all the favorite teams, but most people will not, saying, “All the favorites virtually never win in any one week.  There is always an upset.”

The answer of course is yes, that is true, but all the favorites winning is more likely to happen than any other combination of picks.

How about a contest that asks you to pick the highest OPS each week during the baseball season, before the season starts?  No one in their right mind will pick Pujols (or whoever has the highest projected OPS for the season) for every week, right (we are ignoring the chance in injury)?  Because that will never happen, right. Of course, that is the correct strategy and that is exactly what I would do!

One of the biggest reasons that the country and the world gets into the messes that they do, is that, by and large, people don’t know what the hell they are doing and don’t know the way things work in the world.  Baseball management is a microcosm for the world, especially governments.

And by and large governments are run by ignorant people (the same type of people who run baseball teams) and not intellectuals or scientists.  Now I am not saying that baseball teams or governments would be better off being run exclusively by scientists and intellectuals, but certainly they would both be much for the better if those kinds of people were on board.

I think that goverment (and baseball) are run by ignorant people that don’t know what the hell they are doing because allmost all people fit that description.

Even among the groups of intellectuals and scientists most are pretty much clueless most of the time.

In fact I would claim as a qualification for beeing a “true” intelectual person a realisation on at least some level that no matter how much you learn, the amount of knowledge that you don’t posses is always gona be infinatly larger than the amount of knowledge that you do posses.

Running a baseball franshise without major “messes” is probably in some sense within the realm of possibilty but one must remember that in many ways baseball is a very simple (almost trivial) buisness. At least compared to running a country or even a major corporation.

Where did I recently read about “an old Arabian proverb” that goes something like,

“A man who does not know what he does not know, or at least THAT he does not know, is a fool.”

(I took lots of liberties with that quote.)

I think that goverment (and baseball) are run by ignorant people that don’t know what the hell they are doing because allmost all people fit that description.

I agree wholeheartedly.  Why is it then that politicians are expected to know the solutions to all of our issues and problems before they even step into office, and they then end up giving stupid or vague responses to questions about them?

If I were a Presidential candidate and I were asked what I was going to do about the economy or health care or whatever, my honest response would be:

“How the hell would I know, at least at this point in time?  Do you realize how complex those issues are?  If I told that I had “a plan” I would be a fool. Any candidate that tells you that he has the solutions to those problems, or even a clue about them, a month or a year before he even gets into office is an idiot.  I am not an economist, a public health expert, a military strategist, etc.

But, if I am elected, I sure as hell as going to employ and consult with the two groups of people that can up with the best possible solutions to these problems.  One, the experts in their respective fields, and two, the people, like you.”

I would get .01% of the popular vote and zero electoral points.

Ditto MGL.

There’s no question that people want YOU to ACT like you are the expert, even though there’s no way in heck that you can be.

Perception is reality.

Just to add one more thing:  It is one thing to ask me my personal opinion on things that are “opinion-oriented” (how do I feel about gay marriage, abortion, etc.). It is another to ask me what I am going to do to address a complex issue that I have no competence in whatsoever and have not had the time to consult those who do.

For example, I am as big of a “peacenick” as one could be.  However, if you asked me what I would do about the Iraq situation, I would have absolutely no idea.  Talk about complex issues.

But, as a politician trying to get elected, I would be forced to say, “Get us out” or “stay the course,” depending on my party affiliation, even though those “strategies” are completely vacant in and of themselves.

Just like the recent banking bailout.  Does anyone seriously think that ANY of the politicians who voted for or against has ANY idea whether it is or is not “good” for the country?

The sad part is that 90% of them think that they do. As I said, “thinking that you know what it is that you don’t know is the province of the fool.”

Lock me in a room with at least 3 of the smartest economists in the world for a week and MAYBE I might have an opinion on it.

My history teacher once told me that most people that run for office is nothing more then a popularity contest. I agree.

On any given week, any of the 2 candidates running for office can win, especially in a close election.