Shouldn't this be "If I were the manager..."?

He can't seriously believe that any field manager would cede this much discretion. I would argue that even in the world's most statheaded organization, the division of responsibilities between the field manager and the "stat guys" that he describes still wouldn't make any sense. Certainly, it's not even going to be considered in any organization that has ever existed, or in all probability will ever exist.

####### is as ####### does.

I gotta say, I enjoyed "The Book", but I disagreed with a chunk of things in this post.

#2, for example, I do think hot and cold streaks do exist. And for #3, allowing managers to play with the lineup gives both the team and the public the illusion the manager is in control of the situation. Since it makes little to no difference, who cares?

I thought it was an interesting exercise - it would be interesting to see a manager at a lower level try to manage this way. It would probably be impractical to assemble all the data you'd need at the lower levels, but a manager could probably implement a few of these guidelines pretty easily. I mean, a lot of them are just common sense, but you don't see it emphasized enough. Of course players should run hard on hit-and-runs and pitchers shouldn't bat in crucial situations.

#2, for example, I do think hot and cold streaks do exist.

Unless you have some way of predicting when they're going to begin or end, you'll end up consistently behind. Is a 0-4 game the end of a hot streak, or just a blip in the middle of it? Without a means to predict when they start or end, you end up in a situation that's sort of akin to free agency - treating players not on what they'll probably do, but on what they did.

1) Tell the manager to throw away his batter/pitcher index cards, or book, or whatever it is that they use, and never look at another batter/pitcher historical result again. I’ll get to the alternative in a minute.

It worked for Earl Weaver. Why? Probably because it got his regulars some rest and kept his bench guys active.

#2, for example, I do think hot and cold streaks do exist.

Guys who play the horses deal with this all the time. I believe that it's called form cycle analysis.

Also, among other things, I would attempt a steal from time to time against a lefty, just to keep them honest.

I don't think the procedures here are meant to be as rigid as they come across. Remember, for the Bonds chart and a few other things, the options were "walk him, pitch to him, go with gut" ... there would still be many situations where the manager has to make a judgment call. It's just that the manager would have more relevant information and less irrelevant on which to base that decision.

Is a 0-4 game the end of a hot streak, or just a blip in the middle of it?

I don't know. Four line drive outs? Four Ks? Four weak grounders?

I don't know. Four line drive outs? Four Ks? Four weak grounders?

Let's say a strikeout, an infield popup, a ball to the warning track, and a hard line drive directly at the SS.

Is a 0-4 game the end of a hot streak, or just a blip in the middle of it?

How's the guy swinging? That's what I'd want to know.

I must say, I sure am glad that this guy does not run a team.

I thought that #7 was pretty interesting, especially in light of what is being said over at THT this morning. Here is what MGL wrote:

7) Tell the manager to tell the batters to not worry about getting called out on strikes on a 3-2 count, especially when a baserunner is important. IOW, we want the batter to take more on a close pitch with a 3-2 count and we want him to know that he won’t get chewed out for being called out on strikes some percentage of the time. In fact, anyone who doesn’t get called out on strikes with a 3-2 count is probably swinging at too many pitches.

And here is what Brattain had to say about the Jays:

The OBP is God faction will blast me for writing this however we cannot ignore that the Jays enjoy the second best OBP in the AL East, the lowest ERA, are solid defensively and yet are in last place. If you look at the situational stats in the first chart in the article you will not that their OBP is higher than their SLG in six of the 10 categories and the SLG is only three and 11 points higher in the OBP in two others. Again, this would suggest that in key situations the hitters are risk averse and are passing on hittable pitches in hopes of reaching base via the base on balls.

Of course, what Brattain is saying is not in direct opposition to MGL. Somebody previously mentioned that MGL's suggestions are not hard and fast rules that never should be questioned/broken.

I would study the pitch f/x data for a lot of things of course. One of them would be to tell each batter whether he should or should not swing at 2-0, 3-0, and 3-1 counts in the various situations, against various types of pitchers.

I would pay to be there to witness that conversation. Imagine MGL telling Manny or Jeter this?

[2] don’t ever look at how a batter is doing lately, either yours or the opponents’. That should have no bearing on any of your decisions

I have to think that that's real bad advice. It is obviously the best course to take when playing Strat-O-Matic. But in real life, if you don't have advance scouts telling you what the other guys are trying or have recently figured out, or if you do but don't act on the information, you are nuts.

It's completely reasonable to say that a true-talent .250 hitter has a 1 in 4 chance of getting a hit on the whole. Some weeks he will hit .350 and other weeks he'll hit .150, both in real life and in Strat; that's why Strat results look like baseball results. The difference is that in Strat it's really just how the dice fell. In real life, it's because the week he hit .150, they were getting him to chase sliders low and away. The next week, he laid off the sliders, started getting good counts, and laid into some fastballs. It might be useful to know that he hit .350 that week so you can start throwing the big looping curveball this week in hopes of bringing him back down to .250. Everyone's adjusting and counter-adjusting constantly, which keeps everyone in equilibrium around their true talent levels most of the time. But if you don't pay attention to what people have been doing lately, you are truly doomded, as Bruce Pearson would say.

(I actually suspect MGL would agree totally with this, but has phrased his point 2 there a little misleadingly.)

15) Tell them to tell their outfielders when to drop a foul ball with a runner on 1st and less than 2 outs (generally in a close game with 1 out and/or with 2 strikes on the batter, although I can get more specific than that).

I don't get this at all. Is it because the potential double play is a better bet than a sure out? But that can not be, as Bruce Pearson would also say. I understand dropping a foul ball in a close game with zero/one out and a runner on third, but I don't understand why you would ever pass up an out otherwise. I am sure I am missing something blindingly obvious.

Edit: and I see that GGC took four words to say what took me two paragraphs: How's the guy swinging? :)

I don't get this at all. Is it because the potential double play is a better bet than a sure out?

My guess is it's a typo and he meant runner on third. I brought up that point on the blog, but it has not been addressed yet.

Bob Dernier Ressort it sounds like the real difference between Strat and real life is that it's a lot easier to commit the post hoc fallacy in real life.

#2, for example, I do think hot and cold streaks do exist.

I love playing poker with guys like you...

6) Give him a guideline for estimating leverage in any situation. Give him a list of his pitcher’s projections and explain to him that he should put in his best pitchers (versus the upcoming batters) in high leverage and his worst pitchers in low leverage, as a general guideline. Along those lines, we would throw out the window the concept of the closer, set-up man, etc. Of course, we would explain that to the players before the season begins. We would explain that pitchers would still get the same number of saves overall, but that the “closer” might get a few less saves and the other pitchers might get a few more. We can still call the “best pitcher” the closer, and the next-best pitcher the “set-up man” if that will make everyone happy.

I like this one a lot.

I love playing poker with guys like you...

And bob gaj loves trading stocks with guys like you.

Tell the manager to throw away his batter/pitcher index cards, or book, or whatever it is that they use, and never look at another batter/pitcher historical result again. I’ll get to the alternative in a minute.

You mean Joe McEwing doesn't own Randy Johnson?

My guess is it's a typo and he meant runner on third

That makes sense. Outfielders (and infielders, for that matter) already do let foul balls drop in extreme situations (winning run on third with zero/one out); maybe MGL just wants to extend the practice into more grey-area situations.

We can still call the “best pitcher” the closer, and the next-best pitcher the “set-up man” if that will make everyone happy.

You may have to convince your closer you'll keep in mind his saves totals have been suppressed when it comes time to negotiate/go to arbitration.

You mean Joe McEwing doesn't own Randy Johnson?

.250/.244/.432

Decidedly not.

it's a lot easier to commit the post hoc fallacy in real life

:) Possibly. But the logical implication of (2) is that you should stop advance scouting, and maybe even stop holding pitcher-catcher meetings to go over the other guys' lineup (except just to remind folks that Cualquier Mendoza is an immutable .200 hitter whose weakness is perpetually a high fastball). And maybe you should, maybe that stuff is just superstition.

Possibly. But the logical implication of (2) is that you should stop advance scouting, and maybe even stop holding pitcher-catcher meetings to go over the other guys' lineup (except just to remind folks that Cualquier Mendoza is an immutable .200 hitter whose weakness is perpetually a high fastball). And maybe you should, maybe that stuff is just superstition.

I didn't get that at all. I just assumed it was along the lines of stopping managers from saying "Derrek Lee is hitting .488 over the last 7 games, so we should pitch around him."

It worked for Earl Weaver. Why? Probably because it got his regulars some rest and kept his bench guys active.

Leonard Koppett once theorized that Weaver really didn't think the matchups meant all that much, but that it gave him a certain level of control and power. He could justify any interest he had in benching a player for a day and spreading out his at bats. Then again, I think Koppett was projecting his own thoughts onto Weaver in that matter.

I just assumed it was along the lines of stopping managers from saying "Derrek Lee is hitting .488 over the last 7 games, so we should pitch around him."

Yes, I think that's probably what MGL intended. To the extent that a manager or pitching coach would ever say that in so many words, of course, it would be inane.

I don't know what goes on in pitcher/catcher meetings, maybe they just say "Pound that Budweiser." But what they probably do say at times is, "Derrek Lee has been murdering low fastballs this past week, any suggestions on how we can pitch to him?" and the resulting suggestions pull his average back down from .488 a bit.

MGL seems to be saying that human beings are machines, programmed to perform a certain way, and when they stray from that pre-programmed path, it represents random variation that doesn't really mean anything.

I can't imagine how anyone can be so wrong. it might also go a long way towards explainging why mGL has had so many interpersonal problems. He never considers the human element in anything.

People get on hot streaks. It's a fact. Anybody who plays sports knows that. You get in a groove. You don't have any nagging injuries and your conditioning is maximized.

I don't get this at all. Is it because the potential double play is a better bet than a sure out? But that can not be, as Bruce Pearson would also say. I understand dropping a foul ball in a close game with zero/one out and a runner on third, but I don't understand why you would ever pass up an out otherwise. I am sure I am missing something blindingly obvious.

I assume (if he meant first base) that the runner would advance to second on the play...meaning the choice was runner on first with no outs or runner on second with one out. It actually becomes effectively a sacrifice play in that situation...so the rules should be roughly the same as a sac bunt. If you have the choice to let your opponent sacrifice or not...do you let them? Always or almost always? If the batter is behind 0-2, I could imagine that it could be wise to drop the ball. I think I'd also want to know who is on-deck (etc)....so general guidelines wouldn't help much. That's true of a lot of the rules.

My issues start with #4 and #8 contradict #1 and #2.

Studying pitch f/x data is a good idea, but ho is it not always going to be small sample sizes around performance?

Often players do well historically against pitchers *because* of what he says in #4. There's acknowledgement that the GB/FB split is real, and that's one of the things that can cause historical pwnage. You shouldn't ignore that. there is also the matter of arm slot and a batter's eye. "I just don't pick up the ball out of Pitcher X's hand" is a real phenomenon, and it certainly should be considered.

And we already danced around the sac bunt, and MGL is saying things in there that he was asked about before and he retracted (he contradicts himself in that paragraph). Pitchers bunt - even when it is expected. they just have to bunt better. Luis Castillo and Endy Chavez should be bunting a LOT more. Almost pitcher like. Even when it is expected. Of course, they shouldn't be hitting second.

I don't know if hot/cold exists - or at least to the extent that it can be detected. MGL makes a good point about swing speeds - that could tell you why hitters are hot/cold, or if they have faced an inordinate number of *type* of pitchers.

the Ryan Howard batter card we saw the other day would lead me to reduce Howard's PAs (not using this year's only, but were it a trend) against overwhelming slider pitchers, or a pitcher that isn't going to throw his fastball much. Trends like that.

You don't have any nagging injuries and your conditioning is maximized.

As I've said, I believe in streaks. That said, I suspect part of MGL's point is that true short term improvements on performance (ie, health, conditioning, adjustsment in approach) are lost in the sea of random high performance periods.

That said, I'm still all over those.

And if a guy hits the ball hard in 2 ABs, and may have had good ABs in others, then he's doing fine in my book.

I assume (if he meant first base) that the runner would advance to second on the play

OK, I guess ... it would have to be a hell of a foul ball away off in a corner somewhere, of course, not just your average pop down the RF line, on which nobody in their right mind would tag up anyway.

Edit: and you would have to alert your infielders too, in that case: don't do that somersault into the third-base-line stands, lest the guy on first advance to second while you are fishing yourself out again.

of course, not just your average pop down the RF line, on which nobody in their right mind would tag up anyway.

Blue Moon Odom says "Hi".

Oh, wait, you said "in their right mind."

Nevermind.

We can still call the “best pitcher” the closer, and the next-best pitcher the “set-up man” if that will make everyone happy.

Change the statistics to something referring to getting out of jams. You could probably bring sponsorship into play. Have a "WD40 pitcher of the week" or something like that.

For pitcher who create jams, that is sponsored by Smuckers and he is the "Smuck of the Week".

#2, for example, I do think hot and cold streaks do exist. And for #3, allowing managers to play with the lineup gives both the team and the public the illusion the manager is in control of the situation. Since it makes little to no difference, who cares?

I think managers should have control over who hits where in the lineup. If I was the manager and a player has told me repeatedly that "I feel more comfortable hitting in X spot" and I was going to play that guy anyway (because he deserved to be playing), I'd put him in that spot.

You may have to convince your closer you'll keep in mind his saves totals have been suppressed when it comes time to negotiate/go to arbitration.

Again, we should be leveraging pitchers a little better, but sometimes if a player just isn't comfortable in a certain role, don't use him in it.

Somebody previously mentioned that MGL's suggestions are not hard and fast rules that never should be questioned/broken.

And, as mentioned (by Dayn Perry, if I'm not mistaken) in another thread, if that's what MGL means then he shouldn't be using hard and fast language around his rules. He seems to like the use of the word "never", but I don't think it means what he thinks it means.

I have read MGL say "never never do something" as a part of managing.

That I do agree with, sometimes you can catch somebody with their pants down.

People get on hot streaks. It's a fact. Anybody who plays sports knows that. You get in a groove. You don't have any nagging injuries and your conditioning is maximized.

One thing I'm curious about all the statistical research on hot streaks / slumps: are they aware that in other sports, like weightlifting and track and field for example, variation in physical performance and physiological state is not considered to be simply random variation? Are they aware that in sports like weightlifting and track and field, coaches and athletes keep in mind concepts like overtraining and overreaching? Are they aware of Addisonic and Basedowic overtraining, for example? And that things like BP, resting pulse, sleep requirements, body temperature, appetite are used to gauge whether an athlete is overtraining?

Nevermind that. rfloh. What about personal problems? I recall some players underperforming in years that they were going through divorces or other crises. Troy O'Leary comes to mind.

Nevermind that. rfloh. What about personal problems? I recall some players underperforming in years that they were going through divorces or other crises. Troy O'Leary comes to mind.

Jose Contreras got served with divorce papers on Opening Day last year and turned in by far his worst season as a White Sox.

I see an opening for some of the BTF lawyers to do performance-projection research for MLB teams.

JD Drew's kid had serious medical issues last year.

Mevermid that. rfloh. What about personal problems? I recall some players underperforming in years that they were going through divorces or other crises. Troy O'Leary comes to mind.

I ignored personal problems, because some, not me, would argue that elite pro athletes have the ability to not be affected by stuff like that.

JD Drew's kid had serious medical issues last year.

...ah, never mind.

I was reading something the other day about streaks in competitive horseshoes (I was previously unaware that there was competitive horseshoes but the point stands). I can't find the link right now but I'll get it later. Measuring in that environment is 100x easier as there's no luck or noise involved. If you throw it right, it's going to be successful every time unlike in baseball or even in basketball studies where there's plenty of confounding factors e.g. defense, spot on the floor, pace etc.

But a person who tosses a double ringer in an inning in turn #1 was significantly more likely to throw a double ringer in turn #2. If they got a double in turn #2, they were even more likely than in #2 to be successful in turn #3. Significantly so, I think it went from overall rate of like 45%, to 50% in turn #2 after a success, to 55+% if I remember right in turn #3 given that the previous two turns were doubles.

Conversely, when a "pitcher" failed to get a double ringer in turn #1, they were signficantly less likely to get a double in turn #2 following that.

The p-values were nearly non-existent and 4 groups showed identical nearly tendencies i.e. after -2 each and every studied group was the worst and got progressively better till after +2.

But I'm sure athletic performance in horseshoes where it's easy to measure without confounding factors has nothing to do with baseball or other physical activities...

I have no idea what competitive horse-shoeing is, but it just sounds like a really really White sport.

I have no idea what competitive horse-shoeing is, but it just sounds like a really really White sport.

Get yourself to York, Pa. in July for the World Horseshoe Pitching Tournament. My white father-in-law will be competing.

I ignored personal problems, because some, not me, would argue that elite pro athletes have the ability to not be affected by stuff like that.

Anybody who would argue that is batshit. Athletes are human beings and put their pants on one leg at a time like everyone else. they get affected by emotional problems just like other people.

I love playing poker with guys like you...


And bob gaj loves trading stocks with guys like you.

They aren't remotely related.

(Inspired to join in the thread by two seperate, unrelated mentions of pants in the thread)..

Smitty: If I worked for a team and was allowed to do whatever I wanted (and they actually listened)....

Here is a partial list of what I would do:

1) All players would be instructed to hate pants at all times.

2) All pre and post game interviews would be ended with "Oh, and don't you hate pants".

Athletes are human beings and put their pants on one leg at a time like everyone else.

Just like Bruce Dickinson

What's a horse shoe player called? A tosser?

What's a horse shoe player called? A tosser?

A pitcher.

Wok, your post could use a little more cowbell.

I don't care what MGL says, I'm still starting Mike Redmond against Tom Glavine

16) Tell them to keep a running database on each pitcher’s pitch speeds, each batter’s bat speeds (bat speeds need to be tested throughout the season, which they are not), and each player’s running speed. That can help to detect injuries and aging patterns, and the running speed can help me with the basestealing strategies (and baserunning) above.

I really like this. I would hope that MLB teams are already doing something like this, and not just for pitch speeds and bat speeds, and running speeds, but also a variety of other training records.

I have no idea what competitive horse-shoeing is, but it just sounds like a really really White sport.

It makes the ringers easier to pick out, that's for sure.

People get on hot streaks. It's a fact. Anybody who plays sports knows that. You get in a groove. You don't have any nagging injuries and your conditioning is maximized.

Of course they do. The issue is you never know when they're going to end. Streaks exist, they're just not predictive of anything.

If a guy's hurt, take that into account. It's a separate issue.

Dickinson will always be the front main for Iron Maiden to me.

I can't imagine how anyone can be so wrong. it might also go a long way towards explainging why mGL has had so many interpersonal problems.

What "interpersonal problems" has MGL had, kevin -- getting in arguments on the internet?

***

I do strongly suspect that the word "never" doesn't necessarily mean what MGL means. Last night the Angels stole three bases on John Danks, and stole them easily -- on two of them Pierzynski couldn't even get off a throw, and on the one he did, he still couldn't catch noted speedster and base-thief Garret Anderson.

Of course, basestealers came into the game 2-for-5 against Danks this year, but were 10-for-11 last year (he also had two pickoffs each year, which should probably count). Despite his being an LHP, guys have still been able to steal on him.

I think relating streaks in poker and streaks in baseball borders on... no, no, it doesn't border on anything. It's patently stupid.

Of course, I do think most of people who consider themselves "poker players" have inflated opinions of themselves.

Smitty* Posted: May 14, 2008 at 01:06 PM (#2780488)

(Inspired to join in the thread by two seperate, unrelated mentions of pants in the thread)..

Here is a partial list of what I would do:

1) All players would be instructed to hate pants at all times.

2) All pre and post game interviews would be ended with "Oh, and don't you hate pants".

- do you think this might could cause brad ausmus, grady sizemore and corey patterson (to name a few) pull those dratted pants right OFF for any celebration? like, say, getting a hit? or even taking a pitch for a ball?

oh yes YES YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

(and yeah there is gonna be a few guys not ALLOWED to pull off pants cc sabathia i'm talkin to you)

yes, chicks DO dig the long, uh, ball

ahem

I need to wash my eyes now.

What's a horse shoe player called? A tosser?

So's your mom.

Last night the Angels stole three bases on John Danks, and stole them easily -- on two of them Pierzynski couldn't even get off a throw

On the first one AJ was probably in shock that Mike Napoli was running. Those jumps were unreal though - the Angels knew exactly when Danks was going to first and going home. It's probably something he can correct at some point, and you won't see people steal on him so easily.

yes, chicks DO dig the long, uh, ball

The older the guy, the longer the ball...sack.

Am I the only one sick of the so's your mom thing already?

Am I the only one sick of the so's your mom thing already?

What are you talking about? I don't think that will ever get old.



In other words, no, you're not the only one, and I'm glad you brought it up.

Am I the only one sick of the so's your mom thing already?
So's your mom.

Am I the only one sick of the so's your mom thing already?

Are you the biggest idiot ever?

Behold!

It's a TRAP!


===

Yep, definitely getting old.

Okay, GGC, let's just switch to a tried-and-true classic. I'll start.

I need to wash my eyes now.

That's what she said.

What are you talking about?

That's what she said.

I don't think that will ever get old.

That's what she said.

#2, for example, I do think hot and cold streaks do exist.



I love playing poker with guys like you...

That is nonsense.
Of course a hot/cold streak in a card game is random. You can't control what kind of hands you are getting. You aren't some kind of genius for realizing that.

If we are playing in a real baseball game of course it is not necessarily random.
Players have control over how well they are playing. It isn't the luck of the draw that they get a hit, it is the product of a sound swing and mental approach. A player's hot/cold streak/slump could still be random but a manager can look at very specific things about a player to see if it has to do with skill or luck.

JD Drew's kid had serious medical issues last year.

Marcus Giles lost a kid, or maybe had it born with severe problems, in one of his early years where he was a big disappointment before he broke through.

The continuing insistence of obviously bright people that human factors can not affect how a human performs continues to baffle me.

Kevin Flora absolutely dropped off the face of the Earth when his wife died in a car accident. He went from hitting .330 in Vancouver of the PCL at age 24 to hitting a combined .179 the next year at High-A Lake Elsinore and Vancouver. He did bounce back the next year, and did make the majors, albeit briefly.

He wasn't going to be a star, most likely, but he may have had a shot to be a regular. Here's a story on him from 1996.

The continuing insistence of obviously bright people that human factors can not affect how a human performs continues to baffle me.

I think human factors like that are ignored (or overlooked) because (a) they're pretty rare all things considered and (b) there's no way to predict these things. Brett Favre lost his dad and went out and destoryed the Raiders. Other people might not have been capable of playing.

It's so unknowable that ignoring it is probably better than trying to guess at what will happen when personal problems arise.

If you are reading about it on the internet, sure.

If you are a coach part of your job is to have an idea about that kind of thing. Farve's teammates and coaches probably a had a good idea that if Farve looked like he was ready to own some Raiders he was going to own some Raiders

If we are playing in a real baseball game of course it is not necessarily random.
Players have control over how well they are playing. It isn't the luck of the draw that they get a hit, it is the product of a sound swing and mental approach. A player's hot/cold streak/slump could still be random but a manager can look at very specific things about a player to see if it has to do with skill or luck.

Absolutely right. The fact that luck often explains outcomes doesn't for an instant mean that an athlete brings the identical physical and mental capability to every game and every play.

If you are a coach part of your job is to have an idea about that kind of thing. Farve's teammates and coaches probably a had a good idea that if Farve looked like he was ready to own some Raiders he was going to own some Raiders

You're kind of missing the forrest for the trees. Favre is just one example, I'm sure given a little time I could think of other athletes who had troubled personal situations (including long-term ones) but who maintained or even improved their performance.

That's why I think you should ignore it. Because a guy going through, say, a divorce might be thinking "What's going to happen to the kids? And the money?" or he might be thinking "I'm going to show that ##### what she's giving up!" Or both, week-to-week. Guessing at it, even from within an organization, seems like a good way to screw things up even worse.

Is MGL a pseudonym for OJ Simpson?

That's why I think you should ignore it.

Who should ignore it? A fan/analyst trying to predict outcomes from an insulated distance, or a coach/manager who sees the athlete closely and knows him well?

I'd say that any manager, in baseball or in any human endeavor, who resolutely ignores fluctuations in physical/mental/emotional capacity in those he's managing is, to say the least, naive.

Who should ignore it? A fan/analyst trying to predict outcomes from an insulated distance, or a coach/manager who sees the athlete closely and knows him well?

The fan/analyst. You never hear "Player X is having trouble with his marriage, so don't expect him to hit/pitch very well for the next few weeks". It's always used as an excuse, "Player hit 50 points below his lifetime average, but that's because he was dealing with (insert problem here).

With Favre, I think most football fans "know" him well enough to expect that when bad things happen to him, he's going to take it out on the opposition. I've had Favre as my QB in fantasy about 90% of the time I've had teams, and it never occurred to me to bench him whenever he was going through personal adversity. Other players, I just have no idea how they will react to situations like that and I doubt there would be a noticeable net negative effect if we tried to track it.

The fan/analyst.

Fine, and agreed.

But that's not what MGL is saying here. He's saying that a team's manager/coach should adopt exactly the same agnosticism:

don’t ever look at how a batter is doing lately, either yours or the opponents’. That should have no bearing on any of your decisions.

And while there's obviously very good reason for a manager/coach to keep an eye on the big picture and not get too distracted by short-term phenomena, it simply doesn't justify the "don't ever/no bearing" language and tone. Not only should a manager/coach be sensitive to picking up the difference between random day-to-day noise and actual fluctuations in capacity to perform, if he fails to act on knowledge/insight he has from his vantage point that the fan/analyst doesn't have from this vantage point, then he's not doing his job.

Note that MGL's "don’t ever look at how a batter is doing lately, either yours or the opponents’" doesn't contradict anything anyone has been saying, if we take his "how a batter is doing lately" as a reference to his statistics. A broad definition of "how he is doing" might include "he has been trying to run with a huge limp this week" or "he could not keep his eyes open due to pink eye on that road trip" or "he recently died" (to pick three ridiculous examples). I don't know that MGL is saying a manager should ignore anything of that nature.

Note that MGL's "don’t ever look at how a batter is doing lately, either yours or the opponents’" doesn't contradict anything anyone has been saying, if we take his "how a batter is doing lately" as a reference to his statistics.

It contradicts what I'm saying, as a reference to his statistics. I'm saying that a manager should absolutely look at the fact that Joe Blow is 1-for-his-last-30, despite a career average of .300. It might just be random noise, but it might not, and a manager should absolutely use statistics as a tool to bring his attention to something that might indeed require that a change in normal procedure be undertaken.

#83 is spot on.

I think one of the things to keep in mind is that a guy will often look like he's swinging well when he's getting hits. That's the problem with subjective evaluation: you have to be damn careful that your opinion isn't being shaped or influenced by useless data.

How often to you hear managers utter some mumbo-jumbo about guys who are hot just "seem" to have those little bleeders and loopers go for hits? I hear it a lot, personally. When managers make these decisions, are they really making them in a vacuum away from all the noise? That's highly unlikely.

I'm somewhat cynical by nature, but I have a hard time believing that most managers, given the clichés and platitudes that they so often offer up, are really properly weighing the subjective elements of the decision making process apart from the useless noise and undue influence caused by random or unpredictable elements.

How often to you hear managers utter some mumbo-jumbo about guys who are hot just "seem" to have those little bleeders and loopers go for hits? I hear it a lot, personally. When managers make these decisions, are they really making them in a vacuum away from all the noise? That's highly unlikely.

Really, do you think the average manager is incapable of discerning the difference between a bleeder that skips under the glove of the centerfielder and a frozen rope that skips off the warning track before the CF has a chance to react to it?

That's just one more item the manager has to take into account as he constructs his lineup card.

I agree with the Strat-O-matic analogy above. Players aren't player cards. They're human beings subject to all the whims and whimsies of fate that human beings are subject to. A manager who ignores those unsolicited intrusions inot his players' lives does so at his own risk.

luck often explains outcomes

Luck never explains outcomes. Paul Bako's .299 EQA didn't happen because of luck. What "luck" tells us is that we can't conclude that a .299 EQA is now Bako's real level of ability, because a .299 EQA over 110 PAs is well within the range of reasonable outcomes for a player with Bako's demonstrated level of suckitude.

6) Give him a guideline for estimating leverage in any situation. Give him a list of his pitcher’s projections and explain to him that he should put in his best pitchers (versus the upcoming batters) in high leverage and his worst pitchers in low leverage, as a general guideline.

If you look at what managers are in fact doing with their bullpens nowdays, you'll find that this is more or less what is happening already: they reserve some pitchers to pitch in high-leverage situations and others to pitch in low-leverage situations. When there's crossover, it generally occurs because of either (a) extra-inning games or (b) the need for load balancing on the staff - which a manager does have to be concerned with, as well.

-- MWE

Luck never explains outcomes

Really? Never? There aren't lucky hits, plays where a fielder just messes up a play, but not in a way that is called an error? That's luck for the hitter, bad luck for the pitcher. Luck does exist, I think.

I'm saying that a manager should absolutely look at the fact that Joe Blow is 1-for-his-last-30, despite a career average of .300. It might just be random noise, but it might not, and a manager should absolutely use statistics as a tool to bring his attention to something that might indeed require that a change in normal procedure be undertaken.

Well, I guess if you want to say a manager should consider the 1-for-30 as a jumping-off point to see if something's really wrong with a guy ("Wow, Joe Blow's 1 for his last 30, maybe he has an injury he's hiding from me. Get me a blindfold and a sink!"), I don't think anyone would consider that controversial.

Luck never explains outcomes.

BS. Baseball is a complex system; tiny changes in initial starting conditions can create enormous difference in outcomes. Consider last night's Braves game.

Jo Jo Reyes had Pat Burrell 0-2 in the bottom of the 7th inning. He threw a fastball inside. It missed the inside corner by about an inch. Burrell ended up doubling three pitches later, Reyes got lifted, and Jayson Werth drove in Burrell with a Texas-leaguer that skittered just out of Gregor Blanco's reach.

In at least two instances over this relatively small stretch of a seemingly rather banal game, an inch made all the difference in one run coming across the plate. This has nothing to do with what Reyes' pitching true talent was last night; he threw a pitch that but for some tiny variation in either pitching mechanics, weather conditions, or umpire decision-making, would have ended the inning with a run scoring. But for that pitch, Burrell never doubles and later scores. Reyes could have made the same pitch, using the same mechanics, in the same count, at the same target, and gotten a completely different result because of luck.

---
Even in the general sense you're talking about, Mike, I still (respectfully) think you're wrong. A player's equivalent average tells us what a player's performance is, but not how it was achieved. It is quite possible (and indeed quite likely) that outlier performance results heavily from luck. Whether a fly ball that the CF loses in the sun, a liner that just scoots over the glove of a jumping SS, or a seeing eye ground ball in the hole, there are lots of baseball outcomes that are simply lucky for one team and unlucky for another. Chipper Jones is playing out of his mind right now, but I'm a lying dog if I don't admit he's gotten lucky many times on some of the base hits he has.

WRT Bako, I can't say with certainty whether he's been lucky - I haven't watched him play. Based on his track record, I would be surprised if luck didn't play some role in his EqA right now.

Perhaps the opposition is to the terminology rather than the actual mechanics - would you rather folks said "chance" instead of "luck"?

Well, I guess if you want to say a manager should consider the 1-for-30 as a jumping-off point to see if something's really wrong with a guy ("Wow, Joe Blow's 1 for his last 30, maybe he has an injury he's hiding from me. Get me a blindfold and a sink!"), I don't think anyone would consider that controversial.

Well, MGL would. His assertion:

don’t ever look at how a batter is doing lately, either yours or the opponents’. That should have no bearing on any of your decisions.

obviously considers that not only controversial, but flatly wrong.

Luck does exist, I think.

Of course luck exists, and its influence on all kinds of outcomes in baseball and elsewhere is pervasive.

It isn't magic, it isn't mystical, and it, by definition, isn't within any actor's control. But it damn well impacts results.

A player on a streak as good as Bako's, and showing some power like he has been, probably isn't just getting bloopers to fall in.
He is probably legitimately stinging the ball. It isn't "lucky" he is doing so, he is putting a good swing on a ball and driving it.

I won't say luck is never a factor but I would say that 90% of the time the word is used it is used incorrectly. Too often luck is just thrown in for things we can not predict or for trends that will not continue.
It is just the wrong word to use as it takes away credit/blame and assigns the outcome to the Gods (or statistical variation) instead of the talents and fortitudes of the players playing the game that actually made the plays that produces the statistics we over-analyze.

Take one-run games for instance. The line is that if a team is very good/bad in those it is "luck," when in reality it isn't "luck" that made a reliever hang a curve and it isn't luck that enabled a pinch-hitting to rope an RBI single.
Now in the big picture these things might even out, but it doesn't chance the fact that what happened as the result of skill, not luck.

I won't say luck is never a factor but I would say that 90% of the time the word is used it is used incorrectly. Too often luck is just thrown in for things we can not predict or for trends that will not continue.
It is just the wrong word to use as it takes away credit/blame and assigns the outcome to the Gods (or statistical variation) instead of the talents and fortitudes of the players playing the game that actually made the plays that produces the statistics we over-analyze.

That the concept may be improperly invoked doesn't mean it doesn't occur and have impact. A line drive straight at a fielder and a broken-bat dunker falling into no-man's land are both among its obvious manifestations that impact outcomes in baseball.

But most definitely luck (or "randomness" or "chance" or whatever we want to call it; I don't understand why the word "luck" has a tendency to bother people) doesn't explain all flucutation around the norm, and that's the point I think MGL fails to properly acknowledge. Yes, recent fluctuations from the established norm in statistical performance might just be random noise that won't likely be sustained, but they also might not: they might be manifestations of a real change in health, mental/emotional status, technique, or something else, and to "don't ever" consider those possibilities is nearly as wrong-headed as to constantly overreact to short-term fluctuations.

Jo Jo Reyes had Pat Burrell 0-2 in the bottom of the 7th inning. He threw a fastball inside. It missed the inside corner by about an inch. Burrell ended up doubling three pitches later, Reyes got lifted, and Jayson Werth drove in Burrell with a Texas-leaguer that skittered just out of Gregor Blanco's reach.

In at least two instances over this relatively small stretch of a seemingly rather banal game, an inch made all the difference in one run coming across the plate. This has nothing to do with what Reyes' pitching true talent was last night; he threw a pitch that but for some tiny variation in either pitching mechanics, weather conditions, or umpire decision-making, would have ended the inning with a run scoring. But for that pitch, Burrell never doubles and later scores. Reyes could have made the same pitch, using the same mechanics, in the same count, at the same target, and gotten a completely different result because of luck.


Unless you are positing that the pitch was an inch of the plate due to a sudden and unexpected gust of wind, the fact that Reyes did not catch the corner on the 0-2 pitch to Burrell had nothing what so ever to do with luck. It was a combination of factors completely in his control (mechanics) and matters in someone else's control (umpire's version of the strike zone). But luck implies an action outside the control of the appropriate parties. Treder, perhaps unknowingly, defines luck as an action not "within any actor's control" but I'd posit that absolutely none of what you list fits that definition at all.

Sure, once a batter strikes a ball, or a pitcher releases a pitch, they lose control of the outcome. But they directly affected it by their actions and those subsequent acts are in the control of other actors on the field.

The problem is one of definition. If a batter places the ball up the middle, he is "lucky" to have Derek Jeter manning Short. If a pitcher allows contact, he is "lucky" to have Paul Blair running the ball down in Center. If a runner lights out for second, he is "lucky" to have Mike Piazza behind the plate. But Tris Speaker's popup dropping uncaught was not a matter of luck; it was a misplay that had clearly identifiable causes that are not mere random variation. Blair's range is not luck; it is an identifiable skill that, when combined with the unique skills and techniques of the other actors involved at that instant in time, results in the specific outcome.

The difference between a pop fly and a long homer is fractions of an inch; but that fraction is from the pitcher's acts and the batter's acts, not some mystical craps game. Not being able to predict the outcome doesn't mean it is luck.

(I am, however, lucky to have a beautiful, intelligent, wonderful wife who tolerates me spending way too much time thinking useless baseball thoughts ...)

But most definitely luck (or "randomness" or "chance" or whatever we want to call it; I don't understand why the word "luck" has a tendency to bother people) doesn't explain all flucutation around the norm, and that's the point I think MGL fails to properly acknowledge.

Because primitive societes used to blame stuff that they couldn't understand on "the gods." Modern society often blames that stuff on psychology or luck.

Because primitive societes used to blame stuff that they couldn't understand on "the gods." Modern society often blames that stuff on psychology or luck.

It may be the case that modern society has a tendency to assign blame (or credit) to luck more often than is warranted. But even if that's true, it doesn't mean that "luck never explains outcomes." Such an assertion is a clear illustration of an actor in modern society failing to assign blame/credit to luck at all, even though luck unquestionably is a factor in explaining outcomes.

Sure, once a batter strikes a ball, or a pitcher releases a pitch, they lose control of the outcome. But they directly affected it by their actions and those subsequent acts are in the control of other actors on the field.

If I flip a coin or roll a die, are the outcomes determined by luck, by your definition?

I believe Daly's point is that luck, random variation, et al are non-explanation explanations. They don't move us any closer to the truth. They merely state that we stand in a position of abstracted ignorance. The ultimate goal is to minimize that to the best of our ability, although as Kyle says, our abilities aren't that great right now.

I believe Daly's point is that luck, random variation, et al are non-explanation explanations. They don't move us any closer to the truth.

I would say that, properly applied, they perfectly state the truth.

A pitcher lays a fat hittable pitch right down the pipe, and the hitter puts a perfect swing on it, meets it squarely, and hits a line shot. Right to the shortstop, who catches it without great effort.

This outcome is recorded as a credit toward the pitcher's performance, and a debit against the batter's. Yet that outcome wasn't actually caused by a positive pitching performance, or a negative batting performance. It was just luck (good for the pitcher, bad for the hitter) that explains the outcome of the ball happening to go directly into a fielder's glove.

When luck explains an outcome, we should acknowledge it, and not tie ourselves into a pretzel attempting to posit some deeper explanation that isn't warranted. Randomness is a fact of the universe, and impacts us all, every day, in ways great and small. Failing to recognize this when it applies moves us away from the truth.

I love playing poker with guys like you...

And bob gaj loves trading stocks with guys like you.

He wants to take the other side on my 35% annualized returns the last 5 years? Hmm, somehow I'm really think Bob's lots smarter than that.