Quote:
Originally Posted by bravos4evr
Metrics do not ignore "the human side" any more than batting avg, era or RBI's do. It's just a better, more accurate representation of statistics than the old baseball card stats. That's it. They are just stats. And just because something gives you a better chance at winning doesn't mean the results will pan out, but I would always prefer to increase my overall % rather than decrease it if given the opportunity (which is why I loathe so many mgrs who manage with their "gut" instead of data)
|
I wasn't comparing advanced metrics to traditional stats when commenting on the human side of the game, and the influence it can have on managerial decisions. I was just drawing a line between stats and the very human elements that effect the game (confidence, anxiety, etc). I think any manager who's worth a sh*t in baseball takes everything into consideration, stats (advanced or other) and his own gut instincts about his players.
Not to get off track, but I also think as various technologies improve, we'll learn more and more that what often influences our "gut" may be as quantifiable or measurable than any advanced baseball statistical metric could ever be. Softwares that record and analyze the most subtle facial and non verbal characteristics are continually being developed to better determine a person's mood or state of mind. This has been considered for things like long space missions (monitoring mental health/acuity of astronauts), and expect could become applicable in countless applications (baseball??).
I think the human brain is able to detect many of these markers (small twitches, a blink, posture, tone of voice, etc) that the camera catches/records and make "gut" determinations in real time, even if a person cannot fully explain why. Over time with the help of technology, we may learn how to do this more scientifically than anecdotally. I think some people, good baseball managers included, are just generally better (many far better) than others at gauging those around them. I think many great natural leaders have this incredible empathy towards others, combined with confidence, clearness or purpose, charisma, etc, which make them good at what they do. I think just because we haven't yet developed a WAR-like metric to measure these intangibles doesn't mean they don't hold very high, although as yet un-quantifiable value.
I don't dismiss advanced metrics, but I also don't think they are the end all be all, especially above and beyond any/all notion of human intuition. I think all information needs to be taken in its totality, carefully considered and then weighted accordingly when making decisions. I'd consider an old "baseball man's" opinion as well as considering the stats. I respect Moneyball but I get annoyed when people dismiss human intuition/leadership skills and ALL traditional stats (remember-- it's hard to get a base hit).
I'm sure you could teach the computer Watson to manage a baseball team. He could set the lineup and manage all in game decisions based purely on analytics (not letting him consider human emotion). Using statistical analysis, I'm sure it could even scout, draft, promote and demote players, etc. Do you think that would work though? Do you think if it made the correct statistical move at every step (while of course ignoring any human consideration) the team would meet it's Pythagorean win total? I'd love to see crazy owner and GM try it for a full season. Would love to see how a computer manages via metrics while ignoring any clashing personalities, any tension and conflict in the club house, a slumping player who's lost his job and confidence, etc.
... I know I'm rambling, but I feel like this stat movement (new is better than old) is way overdone and it sort of irks me. Baseball is still baseball, let's watch it and enjoy it.