Moneyball and the mechanization and computerization of MLB

[Bellhorn04]

I'm not quite done with ruminating about this particular move, though.

[mvp 78]

I'm not quite done with ruminating about this particular move, though.

 

If this was a Rays board, it'd be a conversation we'd be having decades later (ala Grady Little). Also, we're in the portion of the offseason where there isn't a whole hell of a lot to talk about.

[notin]

I get where you're coming from. And as I've posted before, as much as it might seem otherwise, I am a true believer in things such as confidence, adrenaline, etc. having an effect on performance.

 

The analytics guys acknowledge this also. But that's their job, to try to factor in every condition, and while they can't quite get there, they do a pretty darn good job of isolating different variables, including human factors.

 

I'm not so big on the influence of confidence. Every player in MLB has that, and I would doubt it is even possible to make MLB without a certain amount of confidence. There's only 750 jobs, and the separation with that small amount will NOT be based on talent alone.

 

In fact, I would bet overconfidence is a bigger problem than under-confidence among Major Leaguers....

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I'm not so big on the influence of confidence. Every player in MLB has that, and I would doubt it is even possible to make MLB without a certain amount of confidence. There's only 750 jobs, and the separation with that small amount will NOT be based on talent alone.

 

In fact, I would bet overconfidence is a bigger problem than under-confidence among Major Leaguers....

 

Even when the very words of Mookie and Joe Kelly in the game in question implied the opposite?

 

I would bet you'd lose that bet if you polled batters who faced Randy Johnson in his prime...

[notin]

Even when the very words of Mookie and Joe Kelly in the game in question implied the opposite?

 

I would bet you'd lose that bet if you polled batters who faced Randy Johnson in his prime...

 

So you're argument that MLB players are not overconfident in general rests on facing one pitcher? And hey, I bet you'd be surprised how many players were up for the challenge of trying to hit Randy Johnson, even ones who were previously 0 for 12 against him.

 

When you see guys like Yairo Munoz walk away from an MLB team because he thought/knew he was good enough to be starting, you get some sense of how confident a lot of these players really are in their own abilities. And they have to be. Confidence and overconfidence might the biggest actor separating the worst Major Leaguers from the best minor leaguers. I think too often fans try to superimpose their own feelings on some of these guys, but very, very few of us can identify with what it is like to be publicly acknowledged as one of the best 750 people in the world at anything...

[dgalehouse]

I think professional athletes are very self confident in general. However , moments of doubt can occur in certain situations. And when that happens, it certainly can have a negative effect on their performance. And a batter is going to be more confident facing some pitchers rather than others. There is always the human factor .

[moonslav59]

So you're argument that MLB players are not overconfident in general rests on facing one pitcher? And hey, I bet you'd be surprised how many players were up for the challenge of trying to hit Randy Johnson, even ones who were previously 0 for 12 against him.

 

When you see guys like Yairo Munoz walk away from an MLB team because he thought/knew he was good enough to be starting, you get some sense of how confident a lot of these players really are in their own abilities. And they have to be. Confidence and overconfidence might the biggest actor separating the worst Major Leaguers from the best minor leaguers. I think too often fans try to superimpose their own feelings on some of these guys, but very, very few of us can identify with what it is like to be publicly acknowledged as one of the best 750 people in the world at anything...

 

To take this a step further, I would argue the very best players in any sport are supremely confident. I'm not sure I would call it "over confidence," if they are, indeed, the very best of the best and having supreme confidence does not hurt them in any way.

[notin]

To take this a step further, I would argue the very best players in any sport are supremely confident. I'm not sure I would call it "over confidence," if they are, indeed, the very best of the best and having supreme confidence does not hurt them in any way.

 

Yes, I think much of their confidence is justified. I call it "overconfident" because it involves a level of confidence I cannot even begin to comprehend.

 

It's also why I don't believe we can relate to the concept of "choking" and throw that label around way too quickly...

[notin]

I think professional athletes are very self confident in general. However , moments of doubt can occur in certain situations. And when that happens, it certainly can have a negative effect on their performance. And a batter is going to be more confident facing some pitchers rather than others. There is always the human factor .

 

Doubt happens. They are human. But I would be very surprised if it happened as often for them (in baseball situations at least) as we think and at a frequency we could relate to.

 

Even taking extreme examples, like facing Randy Johnson in his prime. Or Nolan Ryan. Or Hoss Radbourne, depending on your age and era of preference. We think players get intimidated, and they might be more so than if they were facing any of 1,000 other pitchers. But they still dig in. And they still have enough faith in their abilities to swing the bat. and none of them are swinging to get it over with and go sit back down, not even the lowliest utility infielder; they're swinging because they think they can hit this guy...

Edited November 10, 2020 by notin

[moonslav59]

Yes, I think much of their confidence is justified. I call it "overconfident" because it involves a level of confidence I cannot even begin to comprehend.

 

It's also why I don't believe we can relate to the concept of "choking" and throw that label around way too quickly...

 

To me, the word "over confident" implies, too much, usually to the point of becoming a negative influence- like being too cocky. taking winning for granted or resting on your laurels.

 

That's not to say, some cocky or overconfident players, especially in team sports where other players have influence, go on to win, and in a sense "justify" their confidence, but I can see you viewpoint, too.

 

They have such an extreme form of confidence, that it seems beyond our understanding or comprehension- to the point of being "over."

 

Michael Jordan knew those last-second shots were going to go in.

[Maxbialystock]

The purpose of my argument is to defend Cash's decision and to take the blame of the World Series loss off of his shoulders. Neither the decision to pull Snell nor the decision to use Anderson is the reason that the Rays lost. I think I've made a pretty good case as to why his decisions are defensible.

 

And that, I would argue, is entirely a matter of perspective.

 

I will readily grant that Cash stuck with his system, the system that Chaim Bloom and a bunch of analysts created for him and which worked well in the regular season. I will also grant that the Dodgers were favored because they deserved to be and that Cash could not really affect the final outcome--who won the WS.

 

For example, even if Snell had stayed in game 6 and the Rays somehow managed to win 1-0, the Dodgers would still have been favored to win game 7. Indeed, the Dodgers bull pen in game 6 did something the Rays bullpen (at that point in the season) was completely incapable of. They held the Rays scoreless for the final 7.1 innings, a stunning display. So, yes, the deck was stacked against the Rays and their manager. And the Dodgers did in fact win the WS.

 

All that said, and here I am being endlessly repetitive, I think it drives us to the conclusion that the Rays were never going to win the WS. Cash did everything right because he never strayed from the Rays carefully orchestrated system for positioning players, choosing starters, telling pitchers what pitches to throw and the manager what lineups to use, when to bring in relief pitchers, and so on and so on. It was in fact that system that made the Rays so successful--most games won in the AL--in the regular season.

 

As far as we know, neither the players nor the manager did anything in any inning of any game that was not dictated by the analysts. They in fact played a perfect WS and lost.

 

Romantic that I am, however, I prefer human mistakes but also human triumphs. I like bloody socks drama and Dave Roberts stealing that crucial base and Big Papi getting those clutch hits and the insane success of the 2013 Sox and especially the brilliance of Kojii Uehara who was absolutely fearless as their closer despite not having a great repertoire. I still remember Johnny Podres finally getting the Dodgers their first WS title against a better team, the 1955 Yankees. I even like hammering Grady Little for leaving Pedro in too long, and Buckner for that error.

 

I was distraught to learn that Mookie Betts made that one catch for the Dodgers and then happily waved his positioning card on the way into the dugout. Why? Because what makes Mookie great in the field is when he deals with situations that analysts don't anticipate. The guy has great instincts to go with his athleticism and skills, and, when necessary, he uses those instincts on the basepaths as well.

 

Speaking of which, does anyone else remember that, when Cash pulled Snell, Mookie was in the on deck circle and a big smile broke out on his face? The analysts were doing him one more big favor, only it was the Rays analysts who were doing it. Cash was of course completely blameless as indeed he was for the entire season.

Edited November 10, 2020 by Maxbialystock

[Bellhorn04]

Yes, I think much of their confidence is justified. I call it "overconfident" because it involves a level of confidence I cannot even begin to comprehend.

 

It's also why I don't believe we can relate to the concept of "choking" and throw that label around way too quickly...

 

But players (and ex-player commentators) throw the concepts of clutch and choke around a lot too.

[notin]

But players (and ex-player commentators) throw the concepts of clutch and choke around a lot too.

 

Yeah but I bet they don't do it with the same regularity fans do. For example, they might label a singular instance of a player failing as "choking," but do they ever label a player who repeatedly failed in key instances as a choker?

 

And they also throw around the concepts of "team chemistry" and "team identity" but never really tell anyone what they mean. They might not be as informative as we like to think they are...

[Bellhorn04]

Yeah but I bet they don't do it with the same regularity fans do. For example, they might label a singular instance of a player failing as "choking," but do they ever label a player who repeatedly failed in key instances as a choker?

 

They're more diplomatic than most fans, needless to say, but they do make a lot of references to psychological stuff. One comment that stuck with me was when Roger Clemens got shelled by the Red Sox in Game 3 of the 1999 ALCS, in the matchup with Pedro, and Joe Torre said afterward "I think the moment might have been a little too big for Roger."

 

I have mentioned this before, but in the sport of golf, the concept of choking is openly discussed by players and commentators. Everyone seems to acknowledge that in golf choking or not choking is a big part of the game.

[notin]

They're more diplomatic than most fans, needless to say, but they do make a lot of references to psychological stuff. One comment that stuck with me was when Roger Clemens got shelled by the Red Sox in Game 3 of the 1999 ALCS, in the matchup with Pedro, and Joe Torre said afterward "I think the moment might have been a little too big for Roger."

 

I have mentioned this before, but in the sport of golf, the concept of choking is openly discussed by players and commentators. Everyone seems to acknowledge that in golf choking or not choking is a big part of the game.

 

Like I said, we leap to “choke” too quickly a lot, especially in the MLB postseason. Remember when Price had that label, but one crazy poster on this board kept posing the possibility that it might be related to fatigue. And then what happened in 2018? Price threw fewer IP and had a really good postseason...

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

So you're argument that MLB players are not overconfident in general rests on facing one pitcher? And hey, I bet you'd be surprised how many players were up for the challenge of trying to hit Randy Johnson, even ones who were previously 0 for 12 against him.

 

When you see guys like Yairo Munoz walk away from an MLB team because he thought/knew he was good enough to be starting, you get some sense of how confident a lot of these players really are in their own abilities. And they have to be. Confidence and overconfidence might the biggest actor separating the worst Major Leaguers from the best minor leaguers. I think too often fans try to superimpose their own feelings on some of these guys, but very, very few of us can identify with what it is like to be publicly acknowledged as one of the best 750 people in the world at anything...

 

Of course you recall the famous match-up between Johnson and John Kruk in the '93 All-Star Game; Kruk couldn't wait to get back to the safety of the dugout. But no, I wouldn't be surprised by any competitive athletes up for the challenge of trying to prove themselves vs. the best -- at whichever level they're playing. It's why we keep score. It still doesn't mean big leaguers used to being overconfident don't lose it at times or even forever; for every Steve Blass or Steve Sax whose careers go mysteriously South, there have to be hundreds or more guys who briefly make the majors and then never again. Do you really think Benintendi's problem last July was ultimately overconfidence?

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Yeah but I bet they don't do it with the same regularity fans do. For example, they might label a singular instance of a player failing as "choking," but do they ever label a player who repeatedly failed in key instances as a choker?

 

And they also throw around the concepts of "team chemistry" and "team identity" but never really tell anyone what they mean. They might not be as informative as we like to think they are...

 

My step-father was a pro ballplayer and he was all about character and chemistry. His mantra: the team that drinks together wins together. I used to counter that the A's and Yankees, who won half the World Series in the 1970s, were always fighting among themselves. But he argued they were extremely talented exceptions -- and that New York won two rings only after signing two of Oakland's Hall of Famers (he was a Mets fan).

Edited November 10, 2020 by 5GoldGloves:OF,75

[Kimmi]

Your arguments are always solid, Kimmi.

 

I'm not quite done with ruminating about this particular move, though.

 

Thank you, and I completely understand. These are some difficult concepts to buy in to. At one time, I am sure that I wholeheartedly agreed with everything that most of you are saying.

[Kimmi]

I'm not so big on the influence of confidence. Every player in MLB has that, and I would doubt it is even possible to make MLB without a certain amount of confidence. There's only 750 jobs, and the separation with that small amount will NOT be based on talent alone.

 

In fact, I would bet overconfidence is a bigger problem than under-confidence among Major Leaguers....

 

I can't really disagree with this Notin.

[notin]

My step-father was a pro ballplayer and he was all about character and chemistry. His mantra: the team that drinks together wins together. I used to counter that the A's and Yankees, who won half the World Series in the 1970s, were always fighting among themselves. But he argued they were extremely talented exceptions -- and that New York won two rings only after signing two of Oakland's Hall of Famers (he was a Mets fan).

 

LOL

 

But how many teams that drank together won it all?

 

And we can’t go pretending the 2004 Red Sox, a team with 3 Cooperstown-caliber players, didn’t use their talent.

 

By contrast, the 2011 Red Sox drank together and it became a notorious scapegoat...

[Kimmi]

I think professional athletes are very self confident in general. However , moments of doubt can occur in certain situations. And when that happens, it certainly can have a negative effect on their performance. And a batter is going to be more confident facing some pitchers rather than others. There is always the human factor .

 

I can't really disagree with this either.

[Kimmi]

And that, I would argue, is entirely a matter of perspective.

 

I will readily grant that Cash stuck with his system, the system that Chaim Bloom and a bunch of analysts created for him and which worked well in the regular season. I will also grant that the Dodgers were favored because they deserved to be and that Cash could not really affect the final outcome--who won the WS.

 

For example, even if Snell had stayed in game 6 and the Rays somehow managed to win 1-0, the Dodgers would still have been favored to win game 7. Indeed, the Dodgers bull pen in game 6 did something the Rays bullpen (at that point in the season) was completely incapable of. They held the Rays scoreless for the final 7.1 innings, a stunning display. So, yes, the deck was stacked against the Rays and their manager. And the Dodgers did in fact win the WS.

 

All that said, and here I am being endlessly repetitive, I think it drives us to the conclusion that the Rays were never going to win the WS. Cash did everything right because he never strayed from the Rays carefully orchestrated system for positioning players, choosing starters, telling pitchers what pitches to throw and the manager what lineups to use, when to bring in relief pitchers, and so on and so on. It was in fact that system that made the Rays so successful--most games won in the AL--in the regular season.

 

As far as we know, neither the players nor the manager did anything in any inning of any game that was not dictated by the analysts. They in fact played a perfect WS and lost.

 

Romantic that I am, however, I prefer human mistakes but also human triumphs. I like bloody socks drama and Dave Roberts stealing that crucial base and Big Papi getting those clutch hits and the insane success of the 2013 Sox and especially the brilliance of Kojii Uehara who was absolutely fearless as their closer despite not having a great repertoire. I still remember Johnny Podres finally getting the Dodgers their first WS title against a better team, the 1955 Yankees. I even like hammering Grady Little for leaving Pedro in too long, and Buckner for that error.

 

I was distraught to learn that Mookie Betts made that one catch for the Dodgers and then happily waved his positioning card on the way into the dugout. Why? Because what makes Mookie great in the field is when he deals with situations that analysts don't anticipate. The guy has great instincts to go with his athleticism and skills, and, when necessary, he uses those instincts on the basepaths as well.

 

Speaking of which, does anyone else remember that, when Cash pulled Snell, Mookie was in the on deck circle and a big smile broke out on his face? The analysts were doing him one more big favor, only it was the Rays analysts who were doing it. Cash was of course completely blameless as indeed he was for the entire season.

 

It comes down to the players' performances. A game is not won or lost on a managerial decision, it is won or lost on whether the players execute or don't. So, I disagree with how you reached your conclusion that the Rays were never going to win. The Rays didn't play a perfect World Series. Now, perhaps they perfectly managed the World Series (which I don't think is likely), but that is far different than saying that they played perfectly.

 

I very much like human mistakes and human triumphs also. Managing a game using analytics and experiencing those human mistakes/triumphs are not mutually exclusive. The way the players perform on the field is still entirely dictated by the players. Koji was the logical choice to come in and close out those games, but he still had to execute. Koji being the right choice does not guarantee his successful results.

[Kimmi]

Yeah but I bet they don't do it with the same regularity fans do. For example, they might label a singular instance of a player failing as "choking," but do they ever label a player who repeatedly failed in key instances as a choker?

 

And they also throw around the concepts of "team chemistry" and "team identity" but never really tell anyone what they mean. They might not be as informative as we like to think they are...

 

Commentators say a lot of things that simply aren't true, or at the very least, are unproven.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Interesting tidbit in the Cora press conference today regarding analytics: he gave the example of Game 4 of the World Series 2018, when he let ERod pitch to Puig, and it resulted in a 3-run homer. Cora's decision was solely driven by pre-game info that said Puig was better vs. righties than lefties. But then Cora mentioned that he knew this wasn't the same Eddie, who hadn't started a game in 16 days. Translation: Cora's gut said yank him, but he stuck with the plan and got burned. Of course, he added that that was the same game that Roberts pulled Rich Hill too soon (according to media, fans and lame ducks everywhere).

 

Btw: i was ok with letting ERod pitch to Puig, but the one decision I was totally against was letting Eovaldi pitch to Puig with two outs, first base open, Austin Barnes on deck, and the typing run on second in the 13th inning of Game 3. Kinsler misplayed Puig's grounder (I didn't use the "c" word!) and the marathon lasted another 17 hours...

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

LOL

 

But how many teams that drank together won it all?

 

And we can’t go pretending the 2004 Red Sox, a team with 3 Cooperstown-caliber players, didn’t use their talent.

 

By contrast, the 2011 Red Sox drank together and it became a notorious scapegoat...

 

Maybe the problem on 2011 is that the pitchers drank but didn't let anyone else in their club. The only names I ever heard were Beckett, Lackey and Lester (we can only guess what stuff Buch was into that year). Those cliques can crush chemistry. Contrast to '04 -- it's hard to imagine Millar or Damon not offering a snort to anyone... in the whole ballpark.

[notin]

Maybe the problem on 2011 is that the pitchers drank but didn't let anyone else in their club. The only names I ever heard were Beckett, Lackey and Lester (we can only guess what stuff Buch was into that year). Those cliques can crush chemistry. Contrast to '04 -- it's hard to imagine Millar or Damon not offering a snort to anyone... in the whole ballpark.

 

Honestly, as someone who has never met either of them, I wouldn't know that. Sure the public personas are probably very nice. But then we all used to think Bill Cosby was a nice guy, too...

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Honestly, as someone who has never met either of them, I wouldn't know that. Sure the public personas are probably very nice. But then we all used to think Bill Cosby was a nice guy, too...

 

Don't take a drink from him!

[Kimmi]

In a somewhat ironic twist, Kevin Cash is named AL Manager of the Year.

[Bellhorn04]

In a somewhat ironic twist, Kevin Cash is named AL Manager of the Year.

 

Well deserved.

[mvp 78]

Well deserved.

 

Not Renteria?