Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Sunday, November 11, 2012
“Luck is the residue of design.” All of them, including Alderson, were in the room at the Hyatt Regency Indian Wells Resort when Dr. Mlodinow told them on Friday that he uses physics and statistics to prove that there really is a lot of luck involved in streaks and success in baseball.
“Hard work and talent is what brings you success,” Mlodinow said he told the group. “They are two big components of success, but also luck is a big component of success. Players have the talent but are subject to the random fluctuations that happen. You look at a player who’s on a hot streak and think that he’s seeing the ball better or concentrating better, but a large component of that is randomness.”
EDIT: Link fixed.
|
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.
1. DJS Thinks Apples and Oranges are Similar Posted: November 11, 2012 at 11:08 AM (#4300013)Though it's a bit disturbing that GMs would need to go to a seminar to find this out. Wouldn't you be a bit disturbed if the doctors at your local hospital had to go to a seminar discussing bloodletting vs. antibiotics?
A lot of people on this site believe in riding the hot hand as well.
"Cal Berkley"? Really, Barry Bloom?
Oh, please. It's a popular talk. You put familiar things in there to moor the novelties to.
The only disturbing thing about it is how unthinking and trite the snark reflex can be around here.
If the player was indeed seeing the ball better or concentrating better (or some other miniscule and temporary change in approach/ability), would that reveal itself as anything other than randomness/luck?
You look at a player who’s on a hot streak and think that he’s seeing the ball better or concentrating better, but a large component of that is randomness.
Not to mention that just by observing the experiment you are influencing it!
FTFA:
You look at a player's stats, and you think that is all a random fluke, but a component of that IS sometimes better concentration (maybe because he isn't being bothered by little injury niggles, or maybe he no longer is worrying about something off the field, or maybe something as simple as basic as he is going clubbing less, and is getting enough sleep). Biological fluctuations certainly have a random / not understood element. That doesn't mean however that those biological fluctuations have no effect on sporting performance. Similarly psychological. That an athlete cannot sustain that peak (or low point) in performance, does not meant that it is (largely) random.
Most people who try to approach sports training in a (somewhat) systematic manner, agree that you can influence variations in physical performance by varying the intensity, frequency, duration, and volume of loading. The disagreement is in how easy / difficult it is to control that variation, especially in sports like baseball, or soccer, that run over an extended part of the year (ie you can't have the athlete peak for one month, then take it easy / easier the next month, the way you can in some Olympic sports)
TL:DR: the physicist should talk to some (sports) physiologists.
It`s true, when players take BP alone with a pitching machine and no one watching, the line drives tend to form an interference pattern down the lines and across the outfield gaps. However, when scouts and fans are present, the liners tend to scatter evenly across the outfield, with a predictable percentage falling into the gloves of the defenders.
Edit: And a chuckle to [11].
Theories influencing reality!
Given his profession and position, I'm sure he knows of and agrees with all of our nitpicks ... but do you really want to get into a philosophical debate between "random" and "unpredictable" with GMs. In addition to that issue, there's the fact that the effect sizes in baseball are pretty darn small.
Indeed. Reading the Gene Tenace 1972 WS article posted here a few weeks ago, one realizes some streaks are due to a heightened physical state.
There is no doubt that there's no way in hell a hitter has the same chance for a hit every time up, there's a bunch of other variables that could affect that up or down. It's just that a model that assumes that he does differs so little from what the observed results are, it leads to people claiming the absence of hot streaks, or clutch hitting or whatever. I think it's far more accurate to say that these things may exist but are difficult to impossible to detect using statistical samples the size of those most people use to try and identify them.
Well, sure, setting aside quantum for a moment, if we knew everything about the trajectory of a tossed die, starting position, velocity, air resistance down to the air currents, landing surface properties, etc. then we could predict what the roll would be. This is analagous to knowing everything about a player's physical condition and other things. Although the player's mind still comes into play. Does anyone disagree with that?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main