baseball playoffs

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

I agree with this fully. Sure it's less than ideal to make compromises for a potential game 5, but when facing elimination you have to put all focus on the next game, plain and simple.

I think metrics also tend to ignore human considerations, and these guys are all very human. I remember a 19-20 year old Rick Ankiel being thrust into the post season spot light as a rookie, throwing 4-5 wild pitches and never recovering as a pitcher. Some guys can handle it (Bumgarner went 8 shutout innings in the WS his rookie year at age 20), some guys maybe need a little more seasoning. All of that (and more) and the numbers factor into these guys' decisions.

(NOTE: typed the above hours ago then lost internet on a plane... just finished game. Wow. Even as a Giants fan, I must say that was a manly showing by Kershaw)

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)

[itjclarke]

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.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Now you, too, fear the Indians of Cleveland. (see my first post on thread)

Yep. I don't know if it's Cleveland's pitching or if the Jays are in a slump, or maybe a combination of both but at this point, I'd say the Jays are done and are likely going to ge swept.

They look off in every which way, hitting, fielding, everything. Something is up with that club, definitely not playing like they are capable of.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

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.

Why stop there, Watson could also replace the catcher and select the best pitch and location for each situation.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

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.

appeal to tradition logical fallacy


the new stats are simply better, and trying to go all flat earth about it doesn't change anything. one needs to either evolve or die.

I want a manager who can at least formulate a lineup and use the bullpen based on the best possible result via available information rather than "gut"

also, you aren't going to like this, but IMO, anything that can't be measured or shown to have direct influence can be ignored as without the ability to prove something, it becomes religion

[tschock]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

appeal to tradition logical fallacy


the new stats are simply better, and trying to go all flat earth about it doesn't change anything. one needs to either evolve or die.

I want a manager who can at least formulate a lineup and use the bullpen based on the best possible result via available information rather than "gut"

also, you aren't going to like this, but IMO, anything that can't be measured or shown to have direct influence can be ignored as without the ability to prove something, it becomes religion

What is it that they say in investing? Past performance does not guarantee future results. Same with stats. You can use the odds, or can ignore them when you deem appropriate. I don't think Ian is saying any different (though I know he can speak for himself).

[tschock]

Oh, and of course metrics ignore the human side. To say they can account for this FULLY is FOLLY. Please show me the metrics for pitchers performance after being injured by a drone.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by tschock

Oh, and of course metrics ignore the human side. To say they can account for this FULLY is FOLLY. Please show me the metrics for pitchers performance after being injured by a drone.

no numbers can account for the human side, nobody is arguing this, but it's intellectually dishonest to make claims of how important the "intangibles" are when it's impossible to post any evidence to back up said claim. I'm sure these intangibles exist and make a small impact, but being that there "optimizations" that can be made, wouldn't you prefer a mgr who understands them and utilizes them as much as possible?

[tschock]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

no numbers can account for the human side, nobody is arguing this, but it's intellectually dishonest to make claims of how important the "intangibles" are when it's impossible to post any evidence to back up said claim.

As it is also to dismiss the "intangibles" when it's impossible to post any evidence to back up said claim, right?