Moneyball and the mechanization and computerization of MLB

[mvp 78]

Agree. Pulling Snell and inserting Anderson was indefensible.

 

And just think. If Alex Cora comes back to manage, he won't have to worry about these difficult decisions because Chaim Bloom will just hand him the famous Rays' Book of Foolproof Plays and In Game Decisions.

 

And, once that becomes a norm for MLB managers, the Commissioner can dump the umps and bring on the robots!!!

 

If we fans can't have mechanically perfect baseball, why bother to watch?

 

Robot umps make the game better. Getting balls and strikes correct is important. It will also speed up the game.

[Bellhorn04]

If he was pitching in the playoffs the way he had in the regular season, the move would be defensible.

 

My theory is that analytics have no real way to account for significant differences between recent data and longer term data.

[mvp 78]

My theory is that analytics have no real way to account for significant differences between recent data and longer term data.

 

Not yet. I think recent experience should be weighted more. it's not hard to do. They just haven't gotten around to it yet. I think there are better ways to quantify expectations than what we have now.

[Bellhorn04]

Not yet. I think recent experience should be weighted more. it's not hard to do. They just haven't gotten around to it yet. I think there are better ways to quantify expectations than what we have now.

 

Giving more weight to recent experience would be simple enough. But there are interesting questions of how much extra weight and under what conditions.

[Thunder]

Robot umps make the game better. Getting balls and strikes correct is important. It will also speed up the game.

 

I like the idea of robot umps for that reason, but what do you do about bang bang plays at home plate for example? Say you have a motion sensor to see when the runner crosses. But then do you tell the catcher he can't touch the plate at all? Robot balls and strikes wouldn't cause that much of an interruption, but full on robot umps making every single call would cause huge changes to the game as we know it.

[notin]

I like the idea of robot umps for that reason, but what do you do about bang bang plays at home plate for example? Say you have a motion sensor to see when the runner crosses. But then do you tell the catcher he can't touch the plate at all? Robot balls and strikes wouldn't cause that much of an interruption, but full on robot umps making every single call would cause huge changes to the game as we know it.

 

Robot umps are only meant for balls and strikes...

[Thunder]

Robot umps are only meant for balls and strikes...

 

Well then I don't get the point. Who would want to be an umpire if they're taking away your biggest job responsibility? It's either all or nothing. Either totally replace them in every facet or don't do anything

[mvp 78]

Giving more weight to recent experience would be simple enough. But there are interesting questions of how much extra weight and under what conditions.

 

I agree.

[mvp 78]

Well then I don't get the point. Who would want to be an umpire if they're taking away your biggest job responsibility? It's either all or nothing. Either totally replace them in every facet or don't do anything

 

The biggest job is to get the calls right. The way balls and strikes are called now are indefensible. Umps make wild guesses on the outside corner because of the change in equipment over the years. My guess is that people would want to be an umpire because they love the game and are unable to get on the field otherwise.

 

To use your argument, why would umps ever agree to instant replay if it right away shows that one of the guys on the field is a dumbass?

[Thunder]

The biggest job is to get the calls right. The way balls and strikes are called now are indefensible. Umps make wild guesses on the outside corner because of the change in equipment over the years. My guess is that people would want to be an umpire because they love the game and are unable to get on the field otherwise.

 

To use your argument, why would umps ever agree to instant replay if it right away shows that one of the guys on the field is a dumbass?

 

As an umpire, I know from experience that most of us know when we get a call wrong, and most "blown calls" we know we blew. This isn't the case all the time. But it's not like we can just change our minds. Instant replay lets the wrong be righted when we know we make a mistake.

 

I love the game, and I love being on the field as an umpire since I couldn't get to play beyond HS, but being behind the plate is by far the best position as an umpire. You're excited for your plate games all day. Not being able to call balls and strikes would take most of the fun away, at least for me.

[notin]

Well then I don't get the point. Who would want to be an umpire if they're taking away your biggest job responsibility? It's either all or nothing. Either totally replace them in every facet or don't do anything

 

That's just overkill.

 

Calling balls and strikes is an insanely difficult task. An umpire has a split second to decide if a 95 mph pitch touched part of an imaginary box that varies from hitter to hitter. I get amazed when they call those pitches on the edge of the K-Zone right most of the time. It's so difficult to do.

 

Except Angel Hernandez. He can go and be replaced by a full robot that does everything for him. I think C-3PO would do a better job...

[Bellhorn04]

Calling balls and strikes is an insanely difficult task. An umpire has a split second to decide if a 95 mph pitch touched part of an imaginary box that varies from hitter to hitter. I get amazed when they call those pitches on the edge of the K-Zone right most of the time. It's so difficult to do.

 

Agree 100%.

[notin]

Agree 100%.

 

I assume you also agree about C-3PO...

[Bellhorn04]

I assume you also agree about C-3PO...

 

I do support the use of technology for balls and strikes.

[mvp 78]

I do support the use of technology for balls and strikes.

 

That's the only thing I think needs to be fixed in regards to umpiring. I'd then get rid of instant replay.

[Kimmi]

I certainly understand the principle there. The only issue is with how the analytics can take into account the conditions in play in that specific game. Such as the fact that Anderson had clearly been struggling in recent outings.

 

Alex Speier (who said that pulling Snell was defensible in itself) said Anderson wasn't the same pitcher as he was in the regular season, and therefore was not an upgrade over Snell, so he disagreed with that part.

 

I will also say that I'm no longer discussing this for the purpose of proving how wrong Cash was. It's time to give the man a break. I'm just interested in the analytical part of it.

 

I'm not sure that analytics takes into account the specifics of that game. And as I've posted before, I do agree with everyone that the specifics of the game need to be taken into account when making a decision, rather than just going with analytics alone.

 

As far as Anderson struggling in recent outings, analytics doesn't agree with making decisions based on recent outings. Decisions should be based on season long projections and numbers, both of which are updated as the season progresses.

[Kimmi]

My theory is that analytics have no real way to account for significant differences between recent data and longer term data.

 

They do. Recent data is not nearly as important as the longer term data (not entire career long).

[Kimmi]

Not yet. I think recent experience should be weighted more. it's not hard to do. They just haven't gotten around to it yet. I think there are better ways to quantify expectations than what we have now.

 

Giving more weight to recent experience would be simple enough. But there are interesting questions of how much extra weight and under what conditions.

 

No, and no.

[Kimmi]

Robot umps are only meant for balls and strikes...

 

Well then I don't get the point. Who would want to be an umpire if they're taking away your biggest job responsibility? It's either all or nothing. Either totally replace them in every facet or don't do anything

 

I agree with Thunder on his overall premise. What makes certain calls in the game any more important than other calls? Leave the robot umps, and instant replay for that matter, out of the game.

[Kimmi]

That's the only thing I think needs to be fixed in regards to umpiring. I'd then get rid of instant replay.

 

Why is it so important to get balls and strikes right but not that important to get every other call right?

[Bellhorn04]

I'm not sure that analytics takes into account the specifics of that game. And as I've posted before, I do agree with everyone that the specifics of the game need to be taken into account when making a decision, rather than just going with analytics alone.

 

As far as Anderson struggling in recent outings, analytics doesn't agree with making decisions based on recent outings. Decisions should be based on season long projections and numbers, both of which are updated as the season progresses.

 

So you disagree with what Alex Speier said about Anderson not being the same pitcher as he was in the regular season?

[notin]

That's the only thing I think needs to be fixed in regards to umpiring. I'd then get rid of instant replay.

 

In theory I'm ok with Instant Replay, but so far the primary use of it has been to overturn stolen bases because some of the rules of baseball are not real consistent with physics. So yeah, it can go...

[notin]

My theory is that analytics have no real way to account for significant differences between recent data and longer term data.

 

So.. no graphng?

 

THe big problem with analytics is it cannot account for a player being tired when not in routine. They plot data based on days rest for pitcher, etc. But this off-season was a whole new formula...

[Bellhorn04]

So.. no graphng?

 

THe big problem with analytics is it cannot account for a player being tired when not in routine. They plot data based on days rest for pitcher, etc. But this off-season was a whole new formula...

 

And that would seem to apply with Anderson. Another thing is that the career sample with Anderson wasn't that big anyway.

 

But what about a guy like Kenley Jansen? Great career numbers, but Roberts obviously lost confidence with him because he was *struggling*.

 

How do analytics account for a relief pitcher who's *struggling*?

[notin]

And that would seem to apply with Anderson. Another thing is that the career sample with Anderson wasn't that big anyway.

 

But what about a guy like Kenley Jansen? Great career numbers, but Roberts obviously lost confidence with him because he was *struggling*.

 

How do analytics account for a relief pitcher who's *struggling*?

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/players/kenley-jansen/3096/graphs?statArr=6&legend=1,2&split=base&time=daily&ymin=&ymax=&start=2018&end=2020&rtype=mult&gt1=15&dStatArray=FC

[Bellhorn04]

In theory I'm ok with Instant Replay, but so far the primary use of it has been to overturn stolen bases because some of the rules of baseball are not real consistent with physics. So yeah, it can go...

 

I would guess it's been used at least as much to overturn safe/out calls at first base.

[Kimmi]

So you disagree with what Alex Speier said about Anderson not being the same pitcher as he was in the regular season?

 

Oh, so much to say, so little time. The more I read, the more I want to defend Cash's decision, both in pulling Snell and in using Anderson.

 

Rather than having me try to quote almost everything in this article, please read it, if you are so inclined. It's a great article, IMO. I'll forewarn you that it's kind of lengthy and it has that dreaded, gory math in it. The last word of the title tells you pretty much what you need to know.

 

The 2017 World Series, Ken Giles, Reliever Hot and Cold Streaks, and ********

[Kimmi]

Here is a quote from Ben Clemens, Fangraphs writer, on the topic of pulling Snell:

 

If you want my opinion on it, I would have kept Snell in, though I don’t think that was in any way the determining factor in the game. Any honest analysis of that decision is going to come down to a minuscule edge. Use one good pitcher, or use another good pitcher? It doesn’t matter much — the players on the field determine the game, not the manager, even if you think the decision was clearly one way or the other.

[Kimmi]

Here's another great, but lengthy and math filled article, on removing a pitcher, like Snell, who is cruising after 6 innings.

 

Dealing or Dueling - What's a Manager to Do?

[Kimmi]

To give you some percentages on the difference between one pitcher over another:

 

The difference in win expectancy between and elite closer (Giles) with a 2.71 ERA and a very good closer (Devenski) with a 3.37, in perhaps the highest leverage situation (9th inning of a tie game), is 1.5%. Some of that is offset if the game continues past the 9th.

 

The difference in win expectancy between an elite closer and a mediocre closer in the 9th inning with a 3-run lead is approximately 0.8%.

 

The most egregious error that a manager can make, short of purposefully throwing a game, will result in a difference in win expectancy of 5%. That is considered a HUGE swing. This occurred when a manager chose to keep his weak hitting pitcher in the game (6th inning I believe), with runners on 2nd and 3rd, rather than going with a pinch hitter.