User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.8553 seconds
81 querie(s) executed
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Thursday, April 03, 2008
THT: Tango: With the game on the line, I want …
You may hear a sound, a sort of a grinding whirrrr...Tango’s Great Clutch Project is now engaged.
The Reds Fans detest their best hitter (Adam Dunn) so much that they actually selected four different hitters ahead of him. Every time I would check the results, a new leader would emerge. Junior, Scott Hatteberg and Brandon Phillips each would have made a fine choice, but the task will be taken up by Edwin Encarnacion. (And Javy Valentin was just behind Dunn in fan appreciation.) Step right up, Edwin and Adam.
Sometimes, the fight is very close, like with the Phillies. Ryan Howard is a better hitter than Chase Utley, but only ever so slightly. And the Fans, quite forcefully, preferred Utley as their game-on-the-line pick. So, the Fans want Utley, and I want Howard, so that’s what we get. The tightest race was with the Brewers, where Braun is a slightly better hitter than Fielder, but Fielder was slightly more desired by the Fans.
The Molina brothers are beloved by the Fans as well. With Pujols out of the competition, Yadier Molina had it easy with the Cardinals. But the Giants Fans also voted overwhelmingly for their own Molina (Bengie), even though none of their players were discarded. Randy Winn, Ray Durham and Aaron Rowand (a gamer if ever there was one) barely registered a blip with the Giants fans. Clearly, fans need to be emotionally tied to a player before they can grant him Clutch.
Repoz
Posted: April 03, 2008 at 07:46 AM | 40 comment(s)
Related News: General, Sabermetrics, Projections
Related News: General, Sabermetrics, Projections
Support BBTF
My Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: Madden: Omar Minaya's Mets have issues with injuries and inside the clubhouse
(2 - 1:19pm, Jul 05)
Last: Jeff K.
(2 - 1:19pm, Jul 05)
Last: Jeff K.
Newsblog: seattlePI.com: Buhner 'still bleeds Mariners blue'
(3 - 1:16pm, Jul 05)
Last: Crispix Attacks
(3 - 1:16pm, Jul 05)
Last: Crispix Attacks
Newsblog: Plain Dealer/Pluto: Matt LaPorta is still in the minors because of Grady Sizemore's cranky elbow
(4 - 1:14pm, Jul 05)
Last: Harveys Wallbangers
(4 - 1:14pm, Jul 05)
Last: Harveys Wallbangers
Newsblog: Steve Kettman: A review of the unmaking of 'Moneyball: The Movie'
(6 - 1:12pm, Jul 05)
Last: Jeff K.
(6 - 1:12pm, Jul 05)
Last: Jeff K.
Newsblog: tampabay.com: Tampa Bay Rays minor-league affiliate's Ladies Night promotion causing a stir
(6 - 12:37pm, Jul 05)
Last: Justin Zeth
(6 - 12:37pm, Jul 05)
Last: Justin Zeth
Newsblog: Kids Prefer Cheese: Mr Pujols: Walk him, just walk him
(30 - 12:35pm, Jul 05)
Last: Frisco Cali
(30 - 12:35pm, Jul 05)
Last: Frisco Cali
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2008 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I'm not so sure this is actually the case across baseball, but at least it probably is among THT readers...
If I understand it correctly, it would be better explained by this. Each of the guys already has a brunette, and a blonde walks in the room. Each guy considers the blonde an "upgrade", and as such each has an incentive to try to trade up. But if every guy follows their selfish interests, almost none of them get the blonde, and each has lost their brunette, making things worse off. Because of the group dynamic, even though nobody is at an optimal point they are better off staying where they are. Hence, equilibrium.
Even that example is wrong, because it assumes that a blonde is an upgrade on a brunette. But that's another story.
EDIT: And I still think I have it wrong. The Nash thing, not the brunette thing.
To put it simply, it's a situation where nobody has an alternative strategy that would improve their own payoff, each player knows it, and the players execute their moves perfectly.
They might have reached an agreement to maximize their cumulative payout, but that's not necessarily a Nash Equilibrium. The students have no reason to believe that they can't get the blonde. They do not have perfect information as to the desires of the blonde. They do not have perfect ability to prevent others from executing a strategy to get the blonde (after all, we know for a fact that pretty women do hook up with men, so we know the proper strategies exist).
In fact, the movie in history that probably best demonstrates a Nash Equilibrium is Wargames.
If I remember it correctly a Nash equilibrium is when each party is (a) at a point that is suboptimal for the group, but (b) has no incentive to change their own strategy when they consider others' strategies. Think of the Prisoner's Dilemma - the best option for both prisoners is to remain true to each other, but if I'm one of the prisoners my best option is to betray the other prisoner regardless of what he does.
So maybe I do have it right above. Anyone going for the blonde will lose the brunette they already have, and might not get the blonde; each is better off staying where they are, even though as a group they could do better.
Again, that's not the same thing. A Nash Equilibrium is not simply best cumulative result. One of them can get the blonde without another one losing a brunette, it's not a zero-sum game. Also, Nash Equilibria describe non-cooperative games. That alone makes the scene not work; they were cooperating on a strategy to maximize their cumulative payoff.
Going back to WarGames, Global Thermonuclear War in that world, was a Nash Equilibrium as presented by Joshua. Neither the Americans nor Soviets in the simulations could improve their strategy as Joshua had perfect knowledge of everything within its scenarios.
I don't know what it is about Yadier (and no it's not the Mets homerun, but to be honest not many Cardinal fans were that surprised, Yadier performing in the clutch is almost assumed even before that homer) This is a guy who really does seem like he performs better relative to his established level, and it seems to be an actual skill. Of course as he improves his everyday bat, I doubt the difference will be as pronounced. I still would prefer Ludwick, or Ankiel over Yadier in the clutch, Duncan on the other hand I can take or leave, I like him as a player and feel he's underrated around these parts, but clutch isn't really something I would attribute to him.
It's not a Nash Equilibrium; it's a cartel. A Nash Equilibrium occurs in non-cooperative situations.
In fact, the movie in history that probably best demonstrates a Nash Equilibrium is Wargames.
Probably so, and most simply demonstrated.
Exactly. Are we actually disagreeing? I'm so confused now.
Make her a redhead and it's all good, then.
It is close though. A PD that more approximates real life is an iterative PD, wherein the participants can punish participants for defecting. Cooperation would then becomea possible perfect Nash equilibrium for the subgame.
This is somewhat important b/c much of saberista research is not based on dynamic, iterative models. The behavior, and the Perfect Plan, is far more rationale when looking at iterations. The best examples being roster construction and pitcher utilization.
Fantasy and rotisserie style gaming removes a lot of the effect of the iterative concerns of the game. Certain segments of the saberstuff is constructed for fantasy gaming rather than actual baseball. That is how we end up with things like DIPS and why using WARP can lead to a warped view of the game.
Not true. A Nash equilibrum is not defined by non-cooperation; it is defined by the lack of agreement by the participants on the measured utility.
Player A can choose to cooperate with Player B;
Player B can choose to defect;
and you can still have a Nash equilibrum.
Harem behavior is often a Nash equilibrum depending on the economics and sociology of that soceity.
Except in the example, that would be hard to do. For instance, one guy could get a head start on the blonde or wait and try to land her later once others have settled for the brunettes. There's a lot of intransitivity here too - Russell Crowe trying to pick up the blonde with a cheesy pickup line could very well have a differing result than Adam Goldberg trying.
Some solutions in a non-cooperative game will resemble those in a cooperative game, but that's not the same thing. You're mashing Nash and von Neumann-Morgenstern together.
This is what I get for a throwaway comment!
True.
For instance, one guy could get a head start on the blonde or wait and try to land her later once others have settled for the brunettes.
Yep. Lots of strategies. Some may use the Hilary strategy of putting down the other guys in hopes that it would build them up.
Well, we all know Hillary ain't finding an optimal strategy!
In the prisoners dilemma, Hillary would probably whine to the cop that the other detainee was shooting at her.
How did we go from my saying "suboptimal for the group" to you interpreting my comment as saying "best cumulative result"?
Exactly. Are we actually disagreeing? I'm so confused now.
Oh, that's how. ;-)
Player A can choose to cooperate with Player B;
Player B can choose to defect;
and you can still have a Nash equilibrum.
But that's non-cooperation.
There's a lot of intransitivity here too - Russell Crowe trying to pick up the blonde with a cheesy pickup line could very well have a differing result than Adam Goldberg trying.
I posit Crowe Equilibrium: each participant will keep their current strategy because Russell Crowe is involved, and he'll win.
That would be like Rhoda joining The Outsiders (of course then we have the Monty Hall problem).
Nash titled his paper, "Non-cooperative games." but this is not what it strictly means. A subset of players may cooperate with another set of players who defect, and that may still define the Nash equilibrum.
Tango started it!
One thing about Tangos thing is that he is still crediting walks more valuable than observers will credit walks, when someone thinks of clutch they really think of the ability to do the work on their own. Tangos right of course, but if he was asking who was the better clutch player many people are thinking "who do I want up to the plate with two outs and go ahead run on second" or something to that effect. Not "who do I want to turn two outs man on second to two outs man on first and second"
This is an excellent point, and worthy of refocusing the thread to the original topic. This whole thing as it's currently laid out will be measured based on Tango's definition of clutch, even though the Fans' picks might not have been made with that definition in mind.
Thankfully, on the Fangraphs page they are using all the typical stats.
In this situation, the situation in the movie is clearly not a Nash equilibrium since, holding everyone elses choice fixed, one guy could defect and hook up with the blonde. In fact, there is only one pure strategy Nash equilibrium, and it is non-symmetric: have exactly one guy get the blonde, and the other three get a brunnette! Personally, I think it would have been great if, in the movie, Crowe had suggested this solution. There is also, I believe a symmetric mixed strategy, but my game theory is far too rusty to derive it, and in any case it would depend on the specific utilities you assign to each of the outcomes.
He's like the Derek Jeter of math.
That actually would've been an awesome scene. After all the positing, Crowe waits for the others to get their brunettes, scores with the blonde and proclaims "Ha! Convincing you guys the optimal strategy was the non-optimal payout was actually my optimal strategy."
I'll be tickled pink if the Fans win this one. In the Encarnacion v Dunn, I was definitely happy.
***
kevin/7: I was focusing on the 3 months of her life where Lohan came-of-age, but prior to her overindulgences.
You do realize that a pitcher's peripherals are a better predictor of his future performance than ERA, right?
LOL. You do realize that:
(1) Preventing hits on balls in play is a necessary skill;
(2) DIPS doesn't project peripheals; it aggregates them in a haphazard, ever evolving way. In fact, it tries to predict ERA for rotisserie leagues that use a pre-selected population of pitchers; and
(3) People looked at pitchers K rates, walk rates and home run rates LONG before we had something called DIPS.
kevin/7: I was focusing on the 3 months of her life where Lohan came-of-age, but prior to her overindulgences.
A high peak guy.
I'll be tickled pink if the Fans win this one.
Me too. Its a great project btw.
After all the positing, Crowe waits for the others to get their brunettes, scores with the blonde and proclaims "Ha! Convincing you guys the optimal strategy was the non-optimal payout was actually my optimal strategy."
It would have even been better if he said, "Busted!"
There is also, I believe a symmetric mixed strategy,
If that strategy involves inviting the blond to a Green Day concert, we would call it "Moneyball"
No offense, but I bet Neifi would out hit you in the clutch. But the ellipsis lets us all be clutch gods for a few moments.
Is this your way of saying "I don't understand linear regression and choose not to believe in it"?
This sounds like a Whig historian talking, but to most people who believe in clutch, you are clutch if you did "a good thing" in clutch situations and not clutch if you did a "bad thing". It is not quite fair for Tango to use wOBP. Maybe OBP with some considerations for DPs.
The actual results, as I said in post 31, will not be based on wOBA, or anything really. If the Fans end up with more RBIs, or higher WPA, or whatnot, and if that's how they want to measure winning, that's fine. If the Fans end up with lower RBI, OBP, SLG, wOBA, WPA, Situational Wins across the board, then, there's nothing more for the Fan to say.
I guess you've already thought of factoring in playing time. The Mets are an outlier in your selections as Marlon Anderson is used almost completely as a pinch hitter while Delgardo is the regular first baseman. Fans do seem to love catchers. (which I don't get, since fans hate double plays in clutchy situations)
I still think this is going to be a lot of fun to see. I love the fact that a lot of your studies/work involves the accuracy (or not) of the fans perception and am glad to see someone accepting some input outside of the normal numbers/scout/writers point of view.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main