notin

Raw data is not biased. But data analysis can be subject to a whole different set of cognitive biases, like skewed data bias, sample selection bias, cause-effect bias. And so on...

No, because it’s all done by software now..,

It's not abut assessing right or wrong as much as it is about approaching (not reaching, just approaching) objectivity. And when it comes to the "human element" of baseball, all humans have flawed observational skills, pre-conceived notions, faulty memories, and can alter their own memories unconsciously. Data doesn't do that. Stats capture the human element better. But that doesn't mean stat geeks do...

As I mentioned earlier in the thread. Not only did they never have a lead, they only had one inning that ended in a tie (Game 1, inning 6). The Sox jumped out to a lead in the first inning of every games...

At this point, you're repeating a lot of what I say about stats. The bias in stats typically comes from either error or intent. An agent uses intent. But the biases we all have when we observe things or remember things are part of the human psyche. Stuff like Dunning-Kruger effect, confirmation bias, negativity bias, self-serving bias, optimism/pessimism bias, hindsight bias, decline bias, and of course, the ever popular Backfire Effect. That last one is when you try to prove someone else wrong on a subject, and their reaction is to take the correction as a personal attack and then only cling more deeply to their beliefs. We see that one daily on this board. This is all psychology stuff, and admittedly I am not an expert on it, although the Dunning-Kruger effect wants to me to think I am...

But it is funny the weird stereotypes our televisions created. for years, people insisted all left-handed pitchers threw across their bodies and got more break, because that was how it looked when the centerfield camera was positioned just over the pitcher's right shoulder...

Actually, not necessarily. It's times like that where many people actually confront their biases. In fact, it might be the best way to confront them...

Except that there are just certain biases we have inherently. Our brains can just be wired flat out weird. Dave Cameron, formerly of Fangraphs, once wrote that the eye test for defense often just turns into "I saw that guy make an error once." This is just a simple confirmation bias that we are all prone to. We go into watching a game thinking Player X cannot field well. He makes a mistake. And on that sample size of one play, the observer feels assured with his initial hypothesis. He can't help it. None of us can...

True The biggest difference is that it can be easier to see that data refutes an initial hypothesis, whereas observations tend to lean towrds a confirmation bis or whatever one is appropriate...

Another option. If he opts out...

I want Ian Anderson, just so we can pair him with Brian Johnson and have some serious rock and roll on that pitching staff..

EXcept that in the case of humans, many of the biases are just inherent to us as observers of anything. It's really hard to not fall victim to, say, the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Statistical biases are usually more the product of intention or incomplete research and are easier to avoid...

Not getting Lux or Verdugo or May, let alone all threes. I see something more along the lines of Drew Waters and Touki Toussaint...

Yankee fan want Gerrit Cole. Cole reportedly wants the west coast. So maybe Madison Bumgarner as the consolation prize...

Oh DNA has flaws, too. I posted a link earlier to a famous and (I think) extremely funny case where DNA evidence lead police to think a serial killer was at work, when in reality the widesprad DNA belonged to a woman who packaged the cotton swabs they were using. No one is getting on about perfection. And before we go too much further down this rabbit hole, this all started as a statement about the various biases and foibles of human memory that makes it very difficult for human beings to judge the human element in the game of baseball. I think that's actually one area where stats are actually better than people. When used properly of course...

Absolutely true. And sometimes very easy to accomplish...

Would it be fair to say eyewitness testimony is less reliable than other forms of evidence?

Even DNA? Woud you prosecute a client if an eyewitness claimed he saw it but DNA exonetated him? (I'm trying to keep this in the realms of what evidence is trustworthy and not a decision made by legal ethics. If this is a straight up ethics question to you, just say so and in that case I don't need an answer.)

ACtually we seem to play the reputation game and make oput own determinations of when pressure happens. ARod, for example, has a reputaton as a choker, despit eactually having a lot of post-season success. But no one really remembers him for that? And there is always the issue of deciding that just because it is the post-season, it's a high pressure clutch game. (Was his 3 for 5 in the 19-8 blowout in the 2004 ALCS really clutch?) Part of it was, lets' face it, ARod is not likable. But overall, the guy had an .822 OPS in the post season, which is not bad for a guy with 300 PA's spread out over 20 years. Ortix was a post-season monster in his ABs. and is known for it. But also had a lot of post-season vanishing acts. We all remember nd sing songs about the 2004 ALCS and the 2013 World Series. But no one ever talks about the disaster Ortiz was in the 2008 and 2009 postseasons. and really, really, while he is remembered for the grand slam of Benoit in the 2008 ALCS that was just out of Torii Hunter's reach, mo one ever mentions that he only had one other hit in that entire series. But he was also Papi, and he was loved...

There's a big difference between resetting the tax penalties and acting like a small market team. In fact, they are opposite behaviors...

I like stats, but the more i dig into them and place some sort of mathematical scale on them, the more I see how closely tied they all are. For example, nearly every player in MLB will get hits between 20 and 30 percent of the time. And every team has nine people all hitting within this very tight range. Yet over the course of a full season, this can still lead to a difference of about 400 runs between the best and worst teams, which is an extreme chunk considering teams rarely score 1,000 runs in a season. I also think it's funny how fans like to magnify thse soetimes faily small differences. There isn't much difference between a .290 hitter and a .230 hitter, but one is glorified and the other reviled. Or a pitcher with a 3.00 ERA and a pitcher with a 3.50 ERA. In a 180IP season, that's only a difference of 10 earned runs - that could be 2 bad innings - but we look at them so differently. Those 2 IP could be the difference between being the 2 or 3 guy on a team and being a Cy Young candidate...

Exactly. Bear in mind betting odds not only take outcome into account, but also betting action. Just because more people were betting on the Dodgers did not make them a better team, but it was something Vegas odds-makers had to consider so as not to go broke in the event they actually won...

The interim crew. It's not like the offices are empty...

Also I'd point out there is a mega difference between getting a clutch hit and being a clutch hitter. Plenty of players in MLB have gotten clutch hits and no one disputes that. The whole argument surrounds the ability of any player to supercede his talent in key situations. Most of the players who have gotten multiple clutch hits or turned in mutliple clutch pitching performances are always players like Ortiz, Pedro, Schilling, Jack Morris. In short, some of the best players in the game. These players are really prime examples of players unaffected by pressure that i previously discussed and turn in their normal elite performance regardless of the situation. Now Pat Tabler. That man was a clutch freak...

I would argue the counterpoint that just because they exist in Little League or high school doesn't mean they exist in MLB. We are dealing with elite athletes here, the bst in the world. I've said before that even the worst player in MLB is better at baseball (not MLB-caliber baseball, but baseball in general) than any of us are at anything. A big part of the reason any of these players can rise to be among the best 750 players in the world is their ability to handle competitive pressures most of us simply don't and can't understand. The talent gap between, say, the 700th best player in the world and the 800th best player in the world probably isn't that large, but what can separate them is their psychology and ability to handle situations. And that is why one is in MLB and the other is in AAA. It's like how any athlete can dominate lesser competition but how many can step up against equal or better? If you've ever watched a dominant college athlete fail miserably in the pros, you know what i am talking about here...