-
Buy the book
The Cheater's Guide to Baseball
"Derek Zumsteg should be ashamed to have such comprehensive knowledge of the history of cheating in baseball. Pete Rose gave me two to one odds this book would become a classic." -- Allen Barra, author of The Last Coach: A Life of Paul "Bear" Bryant
Responding To Baker, Yet Again
Yep - here we go again. Geoff Baker’s latest blog entry revives the dead horse of the Adam Jones story, and in it, he lays out his problems with the viewpoints held by most of the M’s blogosphere. So, here’s the response. Note - if you’re as tired of talking about Jose Vidro as I am, feel free to scroll down to Derek’s two excellent posts on Horacio Ramirez below this.
Okay, here goes:
The easiest thing, I realized very quickly upon beginning this blog, would have been to fall in-step with the anti-Bavasi crowd out there.
Is there an anti-Bavasi crowd out there? Absolutely. Am I part of it? I don’t think so. As I’ve stated repeatedly, on a personal level, I like Bill a lot. He’s engaging, funny, and honest, and he’s been tremendous to USSM during his entire time as GM of the Mariners. If he loses his job, there’s a very good chance that we won’t have the same kind of relationship with the next guy that we do with Bill, and to be honest, I like that he’s willing to come hang out with us whenever we ask him to. He’s a stand up guy, and in the grand picture of life, that carries more weight than his analytical abilities.
So, no, we’re not in the Fire-Bavasi-And-Replace-Him-With-Absolutely-Anyone-Else lynch mob. I know it exists, but for the most part, I think its a minoritiy of angry fans and does not represent the consensus of the Mariner blogosphere. Yes, we believe that the Mariner organization has basic fundamental flaws in the way they evaluate talent and build a roster, and we believe there are people in baseball who could do a better job than the current administration (hello Chris Antonetti), but we’ve also recognized a lot of the positives that Bavasi has brought to the organization and acknowledge that the team is in much better shape now than it was when Pat Gillick left.
We’re more accurately described as Pro-Antonetti than Anti-Bavasi. We think the team could do better, but that doesn’t mean that we’re out to get Bill Bavasi.
But not all of it. I do think some of it goes too far and has been thought out from a fan’s perspective rather than a truly analytical one. And that, I suppose is where our views begin to branch off in different directions.
Most of the time, I’m criticized for being too analytical and not enough of a fan. Now, we’re getting criticized for exactly the opposite. Awesome.
Nowhere do I part company more with some of the fan blogs out there than on the subject of Jose Vidro. And this is, believe me, a very important subject because it drives much of the debate where the offense is concerned. Vidro has been targetted for fan criticism from the moment he arrived in Seattle and I suspect much of it has to do with the fact the team traded Chris Snelling and Emiliano Fruto to get him.
I’m going to be totally honest here, Geoff - this statement bugs the crap out of me. With this comment, you’ve veered from disagreeing with our analytical methods into questioning our motives, and that’s something of a sore spot for me. So, if this comes across as defensive or perturbed, well, when it comes to this kind of assertion, I am.
I guarantee you that I would have written exactly the same things about Jose Vidro regardless of who he had been traded for. My opinion of Jose Vidro has absolutely nothing to do with the departure of Chris Snelling. As much as we all love Doyle and want him to succeed, we’re not blind - we knew his chronic injury history was a huge problem.
No - The Jose Vidro stuff is about two things: Jose Vidro’s skills or lack thereof and how became the poster boy for everything that is wrong with how the Seattle Mariners build their roster and evaluate talent. It’s zero percent about Chris Snelling or Emiliano Fruto (who longtime readers know I was never any kind of fan of).
Disagree with our methods all you want - no problem. But when you start going after our credibility and claiming that our analysis is based on a hidden agenda, well, that’s not going to sit very well with me.
So, what happened? Well, the next half of the season is what happened. Since July 1, about when my advocacy of Jones was published on this blog — guaranteeing me weeks of love from the local fan blogosphere — Vidro has produced a .423 on-base percentage and a .459 slugging percentage for an OPS of .882. Now, I don’t know about any of you, but in my book, an .882 OPS from a DH not counted on strictly for power is quite good. It’s excellent, as a matter of fact.
We said so many good things about Geoff during the offseason and spring training - long before this issue ever turned into any real discussion - that people actually asked us to knock it off. We’ve made no secret of the fact that we think Baker is the best beat writer that we’ve ever seen, and his coverage of the team on a day to day basis has been a huge positive gain for the Seattle Times and for the online Mariner community. We didn’t stop liking Geoff when he suggested trading Ichiro for Mark Buehrle or Adam Jones for Dontrelle Willis, even as we were repulsed by the disastrously bad ideas he was coming up with.
So, no, this isn’t an issue of USSM only endorsing those who fall “lock-step” in line with our opinions. We like well thought out rational analysis, whether it comes to the same conclusion we do or not. The problem with the other side of the Jose Vidro debate is that the defenses of Vidro that we’ve seen aren’t well thought out or rational. No, instead, they were based on a constant misuse of statistics and a lack of understanding of how to properly value contributions of different players.
I really don’t want to turn this post into another Vidro/Jones debate that we’ve had a million times, but here’s the short of it - it was plainly obvious by the beginning of May that Adam Jones was a better player than Jose Vidro and would do more to help the team win the rest of the year. That was true in May, June, July, August, and it’s true now in September. Jose Vidro is an inferior baseball player to Adam Jones, and the team is better with Jones in the line-up than it is with Vidro in the line-up.
Which of those numbers bothers you? For the entire season, he’s hit .350 with an .808 OPS against righties. And another .308 with a .786 OPS against lefties. Those are season-long numbers, where the OPS was dramatically impacted by the first three powerless months. And do you know what? Neither OPS split is all that terrible.
What bothers us about Jose Vidro is that he’s keeping a better player on the bench. “Not Terrible” should not be any kind of obstacle to putting a player the caliber of Adam Jones on the field.
So, what to conclude? I’ll let you decide. But I am not about to write off 10 consistent weeks of top-level production by a guy as a “fluke” or a “hot streak”. I’ve heard this same tune being sung for weeks now. It was a “hot streak” two weeks in, then four, then eight and now 10. At what point do we conclude that possibly, just possibly, the first three months of the season were a matter of Vidro adapting to being a full-time DH?
There’s a couple of significant misunderstandings about how to understand statistics in this paragraph. I’ll try to tackle them both without getting too long winded.
1. Jose Vidro hasn’t been “hot” for 10 weeks. You simply can’t look at the actual performances during that stretch and come to that conclusion. Breaking down his post all-star break, you see three distinctly different stretches of baseball.
July 12th to August 15th: 29 games, 125 plate appearances, .413/.484/.500
August 17th to September 5th: 19 games, 86 plate appearances, .263/.326/.395
September 7th to September 15th: 8 games, 34 plate apperances, .464/.559/.679
For a month right after the all-star break, Vidro was a singles machine, building a productive 125 plate appearance stretch out of a massive quantity of singles. We all said it couldn’t continue, since the way he was getting his hits was not any kind of sustainable skill. He proceeded to have a stretch of 86 plate appearances where the balls stopped finding holes and he was, once again, a total drain on the line-up. Recently, he has once again started hitting well, this time actually driving the ball for extra base hits.
But there’s no 10 week hot stretch there. You can use the mean average to make it appear like there is, but that’s not intellectually honest. There’s a four week hot stretch, a three week cold stretch, and a one week hot stretch. Yes, you can pull his numbers since the all-star break and claim he was hitting well the whole time, but I could put a $50 million house in a ghetto and claim that the average home value of all the burned out buildings just increased by 600% too, thanks to the increase in the average home value of the neighborhood. Of course, that wouldn’t actually be true - that would be a misuse of statistics, ignoring the fact that the outliar is skewing the data. Just like claiming that Jose Vidro is on a ten week run of good hitting is a misuse of statistics.
2. The biggest flaw in the quoted paragraph, however, is a lack of understanding of random variation. This is a key point that I plan on addressing whenever I get around to finishing the other post on how to project player performance, but if you don’t know how to account for random variation or refuse to acknowledge its possible existence, you really have no chance of doing statistical analysis correctly.
Over 200 plate appearances, the effects of random variation are still very significant. Thanks to the work done in The Book, we know that if we assume a .330 true talent level OBP, for instance, over 200 plate appearances, 95% of all players will fall somewhere in the range of .264 OBP to .396 OBP. That’s a 130 point swing in on base percentage over 200 trips to the plate that can be correctly described as nothing more than random. If you’re completely unwilling to ever look at a performance change that large in that kind of sample and determine that it’s too significant to be random, you’ll fail at using statistics correctly.
Plain and simple - if every small sample of performance change leads you to believe that there’s been a tangible change of the underlying skill of the player and should change how he should be projected going forward, then you’re making a basic analytical error. And yes, Geoff, this is one of the major problems you continue to run into in your analysis - you’re far too willing to believe that recent performance swings obviously mean something. It’s an analytical problem, and if you want to try to set up a dichotomy where you’re taking the objective analytical approach and we’re just the biased fanboys, you really should look into getting that fixed.
I mean, I looked at his slugging percentage career-wise, in years when his legs were healthy, and concluded that a mark of .450 or higher would not be out of the question. That and his traditionally good on-base numbers would make him a good DH as long as the home run power was acquired someplace else. Well, if you want to point fingers, point them at Richie Sexson, because Vidro has now morphed into exactly what was hoped for when acquired.
This is exactly what we rail against in the Mariners analytical process, as it’s completely and utterly wrong. The M’s organization continually divides production up into predefined roles and expects nothing more or less than what they’ve established from that. They decided last winter that they needed a guy who didn’t strike out to hit second in the order, and so they acquired Jose Vidro with the singular hope that he would “keep innings going” and make a bunch of contact. Power didn’t matter, since that was Richie Sexson’s job.
That’s a ridiculous way to build a baseball team. The goal of every single hitter, regardless of line-up spot or position, is to produce runs. There are different ways to get there - obviously, Ichiro and Albert Pujols both produce runs using totally different skills - but that’s the goal for every hitter. You should never, never, never sacrifice runs for a particular skill. If you’re giving playing time to an inferior player because he does a certain thing that you tend to value, but it puts less runs on the board than what you could get from the other guy, you’re making the wrong decision.
Deciding that Jose Vidro doesn’t need to hit for power because “that’s Richie Sexson’s job” is just a horrible conclusion. Jose Vidro’s job is to produce runs, and he’d produce more runs if he hit for more power. Narrowly defining his job as singles-machine, and then being happy with your below average DH because he performed in your narrowly define target, does not mean that Jose Vidro performed well - it means that you created a ridiculous side goal that was different from winning baseball games.
Name me a team that’s going to sit a hitter, any hitter with a .423 on-base percentage over any prolonged stretch.
Alternately, name me a team that has a player as good as Adam Jones sitting on the bench. There isn’t one. He’s literally the best player in major league baseball that doesn’t have an every day job.
Or “platooning” (Raul Ibanez) against lefties for that one game a week Seattle actually faces one? For what purpose? Maybe some of you would take that risk. I don’t know. But it’s funny, I never see that part of things — the “head game” — discussed when folks talk about moving a player here, or plugging him in there.
Part of the Raul Ibanez Mystique is that he’s this great clubhouse veteran, a true team leader that does whatever it takes to help the team win, right? But the man has so fragile of an ego that we’re legitimately supposed to worry about how he might respond if he was platooned or moved to designated hitter?
Give me a break. This happens all across baseball all the freaking time. Platoons aren’t some neo-con statistical theory dreamed up in a baseball simulation by some nerds who don’t understand human relations. Every other baseball team in the world runs platoons, including the ones going to the playoffs. There are literally hundreds of examples of successful platoons throughout baseball, where amazingly major league players show the mental fortitude to not turn into a pumpkin simply when asked to DH or sit against same-handed pitchers.
There is exactly zero evidence supporting the idea that Raul Ibanez’s performance against right-handed pitching is tied to how often he plays left field or hits against left-handed pitching. It’s a theory - nothing less - that is unsupported by any kind of factual basis and goes against what every other baseball organization on the earth believes in.
Jim Leyland platoons. Joe Torre platoons. Tony LaRussa platoons. I think its fair to say that these guys understand the affects of playing time on a player’s psyche better than any beat writer.
Remember, this is not spring training. The parameters for this discussion began the day Adam Jones was called up and ran through to right now. A six-week period. Who are the guys who can give you the best production over the next six weeks to two months of playoff contention. Over the six weeks since, Ibanez and Vidro have been ripping the baseball, as I’ve shown. There is no need to remove either of them to squeeze a Class AAA call-up into the lineup.
Adam Jones is a better player, right now, than Ibanez or Vidro, and you can’t really come to any other conclusion based on the evidence at hand. You can, I guess, if you create bogus theories about platooning and veteran clutchness and the predictive power of small samples, but those theories lead to last place finishes.
He didn’t run down enough line drives to the gaps, you say? Well, point them out. Tell me which ones lost the game. I’d probably tell you the chances of winning would soar if the starting pitchers stopped yielding line drives to the gaps, but that’s just me.
The idea that some runs are inherently unimportant and should be completely discounted in the analysis of a player’s abilities because of their context is so remarkably wrong that I can’t even begin to wrap my head around it. Geoff goes through a few game scenarios where Ibanez came up with hits that he defines as important, showing how he’s won far more games with his offense than he’s lost with his defense, and essentially settling on the conclusion that the runs he’s allowed defensively don’t really matter.
It’s nonsense. Trying to decide which runs count and which ones don’t is a fool’s errand. Using this type of analysis, you’d have to conclude that Adrian Beltre’s home run yesterday was worthless, as the team ended up losing 9-2, but that Ichiro’s RBI single on Thursday night that put the M’s on the board, cutting the lead to 5-1 in a game that the team ended up winning 8-7, was critical.
Not every run is exactly as important as every other run, but there is no such thing as a run that doesn’t count, and deciding future playing time based on the context of past events is a great way to lose a lot of baseball games.
Geoff blames the pitchers for allowing these line drives in the gap (and, apparently, flyballs down the line, bloopers into shallow left, or routine flys to the alley that Ibanez also fails to catch) and discards any responsibility from Raul for turning those opportunities into outs. But here’s the thing - whether its the pitcher’s fault for allowing that hit or not, that ball in the outfield is still an opportunity to turn a hit into an out, and that has real tangible value. Every single ball in play is a chance to take a hit away from an opponent - some, obviously, better chances than others - and ignoring these opportunities is just a total waste of resources.
Again, I don’t have a stake in Jones failing or succeeding. But some of you want me to rip the team for not rolling the dice over the past six weeks. For me, it’s an easy argument to make. I don’t see there being enough of a justification to get Jones in there. To jolt folks around in the field or lineup when they’re batting well over .300 and hitting for power. You’re right, we don’t know what Jones would have done. Only what Ibanez and Vidro did do.
This is yet another logical fallacy that just clouds the issue. This idea that Adam Jones’ performance was this impossible to predict question mark, this massive risk, while we knew exactly what we were going to get from Raul Ibanez is just completely and utterly wrong. As we’ve shown with plenty of evidence, refuted by no evidence from the other side of the issue, there is no evidence that veterans are any less streaky than a similarly talented young player.
Jones numbers in Class AAA: .968 OPS
Shelley Duncan’s numbers at Class AAA: .957 OPSDuncan’s numbers since his first three games as an outfielder for the Yankees after a July call-up: 11-for-48 (.229) with a .275 on-base and .396 slugging percentage for a .671 OPS.
Hey - I have an idea. Let’s find the one guy who supports my preconceived belief and use him to demonstrate that minor league numbers don’t mean anything.
I could do this to.
Matt Kemp, AAA: .329/.374/.540
Matt Kemp, Majors: .337/.374/.528
Matt Kemp, of course, is far more similar to Adam Jones than Shelly Duncan. They’re basically the same hitter - same age, same skillset, same development track. Shelly Duncan is nothing like either one of them. But again, that’s not the point. The point is that using one guy who came up from Triple-A and didn’t sustain his numbers doesn’t mean anything in any kind of real analytical discussion. The predictive power of minor league numbers is a well established issue with years and years of evidence.
This isn’t analysis, Geoff - this is cherry picking to support a pre-established belief.
None of us know what Jones would have done short-term and putting him in there would be a risk.
Guess what - none of us knew what Vidro or Ibanez would have done short-term and putting them in there was also a risk. Until you grasp this, the rest of the discussion is moot.
I just don’t get it. Well, actually, I do get it to an extent. But like I said, if you come here expecting an “agenda” where certain players, like Lopez, Green, Morrow, Jones etc. can do no wrong, while others, like Ibanez, Vidro, Sexson, and Willie Bloomquist can do no right, you won’t find it.
You won’t find that here either, Geoff. It’s not hard to search through the archives to find all guys of good things we’ve said about all those guys. Now, we may say more good things about Adam Jones and Sean Green than anyone else around, but that is basically a reaction to the ridiculous amount of positive press the veterans get from the organization and the local media. The entire reason there needs to be a Free Adam Jones Society in the first place is because the organization fails to recognize how valuable he actually is. If the organization didn’t have so many blind spots in their analytical process, we wouldn’t have to continually lobby for them to make better decisions.
And finally, this quote is actually from Saturday’s Baker blog entry, but it’s along the same theme, so I’ll add it here.
Should we bother to point out why they did this? Well, in their absolute foolishness, they worried that a bullpen supported by such young arms — having never been through the stress of a playoff run or arm strain of a full major league season — just might not hold up. Well, guess what? Do I really have to keep pointing out the obvious? OK, I will. The arms in the bullpen did not hold up. Now, we can do one of two things:
We can twist ourselves into pretzels grasping for excuses, explanations, comparisons with older players and all types of theories to justify the conspiracy angle…or…we can simply say, hey, maybe on this one occasion, the folks running the team were actually right. I know it hurts to do it, but just take a deep breath and try it. The team guessed right. The bullpen arms did not hold up. That means, of course, that those who believed they would hold up were wrong about that. It hurts to be wrong, sometimes, I know. We’ve all been there. But this bullpen just wasn’t going to hold up with so many arms not used to throwing so many innings under this kind of pressure. Not with this starting rotation, that’s for sure.
I want this point to come across as clearly as possible, as it’s vitally important to understanding where the disconnect in the two opinions is coming from.
None of us can know the future. We can’t. We just do not have the ability to know what other people are going to do in days that haven’t happened yet. All we can deal with is probability and likelihood. We can make the best decisions possible based on the information we have at the time, and what happens after that is completely out of our control.
No one “knew” how the bullpen was going to perform down the stretch. You didn’t, Geoff, and neither did we. Nor did John McLaren or Bill Bavasi. We all had our opinions, obviously, but unless you just think way too highly of your own opinion (and I’m pretty sure you don’t), you know that there wasn’t a 100% certainty on that opinion playing out as you suspected.
Now, again, this is important - the fact that the results went as you suspected does not mean that you were right. I’m pretty sure you’re going to disagree with this statement, but it’s a key point to understanding how to objectively analyze things correctly, which you’ve already stated is your goal. Let me give you an analogy:
We have a coin that has been altered so that it will come up heads 60% of the time and tails only 40% of the time. It’s designed to give the advantage to the person who calls heads. If you know this ahead of time and call tails, you have made the wrong decision, regardless of what happens after that. That coin can come up tails 10 times in a row and you still made ten wrong decisions.
Why? Because you had no way of knowing what the result of that 60/40 coin flip was going to be. All you can do is make the best decision you can on the available information, and in this example, heads is always the best decision, even though that decision will lead to losing 40% of the time.
This is what I’m talking about when I rail against results based analysis. When you allow your opinion to be swayed based on the results of a small sample that contradicts the conclusion of probability that real analytical processes led to, you’re going to make bad decisions.
Yes, the bullpen melted down, just as you suspected. We could have an entire discussion about whether this was probable or not, but here’s the key - that’s not the discussion we’re having. You’re basing your probability on the results, and that’s bad analysis.
Ironically, however, you’re ignoring the results of the proposed solutions to the problems you perceived. Since lobbying for their acquisition to upgrade the bullpen, every single reliever you were in favor of bringing in has performed disastrously. Eric Gagne, Dan Wheeler, Al Reyes, Octavio Dotel… all of them. And guess what? Since I lobbied for the Mariners to acquire Jose Contreras, David Wells, and Brett Tomko, all three of them have been terrific.
Does this mean that I was right and you were wrong? No, it doesn’t. Why? Because combined, that group of pitchers has only thrown about 130 innings total since the trade deadline, and anything can happen over 130 innings. I didn’t know that Jose Contreras was going to turn it around immediately after I started lobbying for the Mariners to trade for him. I didn’t know that Eric Gagne was going to implode upon leaving Texas. And you didn’t know that Sean Green was going to start struggling as soon as the calendar hit August.
The only thing we can evaluate is the evaluative processes we take to reach the conclusions that we do - everything after that is out of our control.
This is where we differ from both you and the Mariner organization. And this is where, I believe, both you and the Mariners make the most mistakes. This is the heart of the thing that we’ve been arguing for years and years - the Mariners are behind the times in learning how to evaluate players because their processes are broken.
Until the organization learns how to do analysis properly, understand probability, and not buy into cliches that aren’t based on evidence, they’ll continue to lose to better run organizations who are winning with less resources.
Why did we spend so much time on the Adam Jones/Jose Vidro debate? Because it’s 2007’s shining example of the analytical flaws that the orgnaization holds. As long as the team continues to make decisions based on the analytical processes that lead to things like Vidro = Good DH and Jones = Class AAA Callup, they’ll never be able to compete in the AL West. It’s a symptom of a larger problem, and that larger problem is the one that we’re trying to fix.
Comments
127 Responses to “Responding To Baker, Yet Again”
I wonder whether Baker really means USSM/LL or the commenters on his board when he talks about the blogosphere.
I’m torn on discussions like this one.
I like to see the back and forth in that it stimulates a lot of good discussion, and getting this information in front of as many people as possible, as many times as possible, is the only thing that will ever change the flawed thinking of this organization.
At the same time, though, the tone of Geoff’s blog entries lately seems to be less and less about analysis, and more and more about defending the M’s “company line”, which distresses me after having had beat writers for so long that were just mouthpieces for the organization.
I think Geoff is a good writer, but his value drops sharply if he is not willing to stand up to the organization when they make bad decisions, and he seems less and less willing to do so.
Regardless of Baker’s precise target, Dave’s points iare excellently made. The 60/40 modified coin example is so clear it should be graven on the entry to the blog. All in all 4799 words of goodness.
#1: You’re partly right in thinking that he is talking to his commenters. He accuses all of the thinking fans, however, of being incapable of analyzing baseball because of the burden of fanhood, and emphasizes that as the out of towner and employee of a distinguished publication, he is in a far better position to understand what is happening on the field. Since he lists them out by name (including USSM and LL, lumped in with inferior writing) he is clearly speaking to the whole world of analyst-fans.
I think that is annoying, and Dave just did a fantastic job getting real with Baker. Solid reply, USSM.
I’m sure he DOES mean USSM. One thing I think we should all keep in perspective is that this point / counter-point format that Dave and Baker have adopted for discussing these issues tends to give the impression of more polarization than really exists. Each guy is responding to the part of the other guy’s argument that he disagrees with and not focusing on the various ways in the which they agree. Dave goes out of his way to make sure we all understand that he likes Geoff, and that Geoff’s pretty good, but still… It’s hard not to read this think Geoff’s seriously lacking in analytical skills. Geoff was coming off a lot better before he decided to openly disagree with USSM. I’d encourage everyone to continue to read his stuff with an open mind, because he does make some good points that might not be made here.
All that said, I really hope Geoff isn’t turning into a shill for the M’s organization, because someone in the mainstream needs to focus on how very badly the organization has performed in recent years. And Geoff would be the logically guy to do it. You don’t need to perform a lot of heavy analysis to see that the M’s have, over the past 5 or 6 years, paid FAR more per win than average, and in fact are right up there with the Cubs and Orioles in terms of paying the most $/win of any team in baseball. That’s prima facie evidence of bad management; I don’t know how you could possibly refute it.
Baker’s suggestion that Ibanez cannot sit one day per week is just poor analysis.
There are several very good reasons to sit Ibanez once per week against LHP.
Ibanez is 35, with a long history of hamstring problems and a recent history of shoulder problems.
Ibanez is one of the worst defensive leftfielders in the game.
And perhaps most importantly, Ibanez hits like a AAA utility infielder against LHP.
Baker’s rebuttal — Ibanez might lose his eye for hitting unless he hits every single day — is unsupported and makes little sense. If this was the case, what does Ibanez do on scheduled off-days? Does he drive to Tacoma, slip on Brian LaHair’s uniform, and hope nobody notices?
This might be the best post this site has ever seen. It’s very plain to see that the sports media is feeling the heat from the emerging role of the blogosphere. In ten years, major papers will employ half the staff they do now because fans will just get their commentary from the blog they feel provides the best coverage. Papers used to report news. Now everyone thinks they have to provide commentary. It appears in every article.
Geoff Baker’s just seeing the writing on the wall and it doesn’t say “a comfortable retirement.” He needs a tissue.
The most annoying thing about Baker is the heroic narrative he is writing for himself…
The easiest thing, I realized very quickly upon beginning this blog, would have been to fall in-step with the anti-Bavasi crowd out there.
And I alone stand against the tyranny of group-think…….
As someone who can’t see the Mariners play day-in day-out, I have to rely on box scores and stats and, frankly, over the last few years it’s been clear that the team is incapable of making the right choices and uses hot streaks, peak performance and spring training to make decisions. Honestly, I’m not sure that 2001 was much more than the perfect alignment of the stars given the evidence of the management of the time before and after then.
Any beat writer who can’t accept that the Mariners have long had an issue with effectively evaluating talent is part of the problem rather than just another journalist as positive reinforcement in the press just convinces the front-office that they’re doing okay and have had some “bad luck”.
Because it’s [this year's] shining example of the analytical flaws that the organization holds.
I think this is the key point that often gets missed. It’s not so much that Jones and Lopez are great and Vidro and Bloomquist suck, it’s that the decisions on usage and the thought process behind these decisions clearly show a disease in the Mariners organization that is killing their (our) chances of success. And they repeat the same mistakes over and over again. A lot of the constant harping isn’t about the specific players/decision involved — we know we can’t really free Adam Jones — it’s the process behind it and that we can hope to change.
Dave, do you (or any blogsphere authors) have a real running dialogue with Geoff Baker? Have you actually talked to Geoff or emailed him? Do you post on his blog, do you know if he reads here? Or is it all posting on your own blogs? I wonder if the continued cycle of Baker takes a shot at the blogsphere, USSM fires back at Baker, Baker explains why he disagrees with the blogsphere is counterproductive. Geoff seems like a bright guy and one that would listen to logic if we wasn’t being beaten over the head with it. I wonder/worry that when you write 4800 words about his blog post, that the message gets lost. I understand many of his points but the Shelley Duncan (rather than Hunter Pence, James Loney, Matt Kemp, Ryan Braun) cherry picking argument is just silly. However when you assert that Jones is the best player in AAA or the best call-up not to have a regular job it’s easy to get lost trying to find one or two players better/equal to Jones to disprove your argument rather than focusing on the real issue.
I wonder if Geoff would accept an invitation to have “beers” — I’ll pick up the tab — or attend (as a guest, not speaker) a USSM event and have a better forum for discussion. And if such a meeting would get you closer to your goal of having Geoff a bit more educated. I considered myself a bright baseball fan a couple years ago, but being a regular here for the past 2-3 years has overhauled my thinking on a number of things I considered accepted fact (the value of ERA, hot streaks, minimal defensive impact).
Geoff should probably learn to dot his I’s and cross his T’s of statistical analysis a lot better before challenging Dave’s conclusions. Challenging the motives is just ludicrous.
And 8, great call.
Excellent post.
I think the 60/40 coin example is dead on. You see so many people in all areas of life that confuse outcomes with probabilities.
Great post Dave.
of all the thing’s Baker says, this one to me is unbelievably ignorant.
–He didn’t run down enough line drives to the gaps, you say? Well, point them out. Tell me which ones lost the game. I’d probably tell you the chances of winning would soar if the starting pitchers stopped yielding line drives to the gaps, but that’s just me.
My God.
When did Gregg Easterbrook join USSM?
I wonder if Geoff would accept an invitation to have “beers” — I’ll pick up the tab — or attend (as a guest, not speaker) a USSM event and have a better forum for discussion.
I second that. This Baker vs. bloggers thing is getting ridiculous, and it’s counterproductive.
It’s time he faced the music and met the USSM readers at a feed. We are having a postseason
wakefeed, right?I wonder whether Baker really means USSM/LL or the commenters on his board when he talks about the blogosphere.
I think he means the blogosphere as a whole. I don’t think he was targeting us specifically, but he wasn’t excluding us either.
I think Geoff is a good writer, but his value drops sharply if he is not willing to stand up to the organization when they make bad decisions, and he seems less and less willing to do so.
I think Geoff sees less of a need to criticize the organization because there are so many other voices doing so. I don’t have a problem with that.
All that said, I really hope Geoff isn’t turning into a shill for the M’s organization.
I’m not worried, at all, about Geoff shilling for the M’s.
Dave, do you (or any blogsphere authors) have a real running dialogue with Geoff Baker?
Geoff and I email with some regularity. We had lunch when I was in Seattle. He’s a good guy. We just disagree on a few points, obviously, but we get along pretty well.
It’s a good post, Dave, but… I think you’re taking the whole ‘blogosphere’ thing a little too personally. You’re asserting that Baker is questioning YOUR motives, personally, or the motives of USSM when he clearly states that he reads a lot of different Ms-focused blogs, not all of which offer the kind of reasoned analysis that can be found here. You’ve assumed he was speaking directly to you, or directly to the USSM authors and contributors, when he’s speaking (I think) in much more general terms to ALL the stuff he reads out there which yes, includes USSM but does not single it out.
I see where the anger comes out, as to lousy evaluation of players, but Baker is a beat writer. He’s not the guy(s) you’re REALLY angry with. Heck, you know a lot of folks within the Ms organization and you can’t even seem to find THE guy to be angry with. Gillick, Mattox…who is next? Individual guys that you’ve railed about have come and gone and yet, the Ms still lack the ability to evaluate talent well. So who/what is it? Is it in the walls or carpeting of the offices at Safeco and it just infects whoever walks in the door?
I agree with many of your points though I do disagree slightly with the predefined role point. In Moneyball, Billy Beane when faced with losing sluggers like Giambi, chose to handle it in aggregate - improving marginally at numerous positions as opposed to trying to focus on finding the next Giambi. For years, many teams have sacrificed at certain positions where defense is more highly valued choosing to have lighter-hitting defenders but then the results of that choice mean that you have to go get heavy-hitting players in positions where defense doesn’t matter quite as much (defense for catchers, sluggers for 1B). Teams DO still do that, and they DO still manage to win. The trick is in making those choices consciously and understanding the tradeoffs. I think the Ms fail miserably at this as well.
Dave,
It would be helpful to complete your argument against the premise of Geoff’s challenge to point him to which games Ibanez’s defense has been the decisive factor. You argue appropriately that the more important question is overall runs produced vs. runs allowed, but you haven’t (as far as I’ve seen) provided an estimate of how many runs Ibanez has actually cost since July 1. The bottom line question, as always, is whether the excess runs allowed by letting Raul field instead of AJ are more than offset by the offensive production of Ibanez or Vidro over what we might have expected from Jones.
I’ve said this before, and it is worth repeating here - Geoff is a good writer, and he often works harder than most writers to gain an understanding of what he is positing. That said, his blog entries have been increasingly smug (read: I am a beat writer and because I get to watch all the games live and go into the locker room and you get to watch the game from the stands, your t.v., or computer I know more about baseball than Dave Cameron or you). I also find that he’s been getting a little preachy, which is hard to read at times, so I’ll go a couple of days without checking his blog, and then read going back a few days’ worth of entries.
The thing is that being around the team only makes one more familiar with the actual personalities of the players. It gives no greater insight into skillset (unless you are a scout or talent evaluator - and Geoff is not, and it provides no objective evidence of anything beyond attitude. WFB is a perfect example of attitude meaning nothing if not accompanied by everyday skills.
So, Geoff, while I think you are an improvement, you’ve got a lot to learn, and you’d do better to stop throwing out back-handed comments in your entries about those who may have a deeper understanding of statisitical analysis than you. It’s ok to say you don’t completely understand the arguments, but you shouldn’t try to overcompensate for that by trying to make the blog community in Seattle irrelvant. It won’t work anyway. It’s not a desire to criticize that drives Dave, Derek, Jeff S, etc., it’s a desire to have the club field the best team possible to win. If that’s not an organization’s goal too, then it’s misguided. As this season’s ship began to sink, the organization valued “sticking with guys” over winning, and in almost every case the results were predictable - Sexson, HoRam, Bad Weaver, White, Parrish, (no)Jones. In fact, while still mathmatically in it, we saw more of Jeremy Reed than Jones in spots that Jones would logically fit into if he wasn’t going to play everyday. Why? Do you have some insight into that? The team was lucky to do well over a long stretch of the season despite the glaring holes. The organization should have breathed a sigh of relief and then started trying to patch those holes before anybody noticed.
ahem, irrelevant, that is.
Yeah, I agree with this. All I can say is that it’s a systematic problem in the organization that’s rooted far beyond the GM or any individual. It has to be supported at the top, but it’s far from clear that there’s any single individual that “must be replaced.”
Seems to me that Baker has a conflict of interest that he needs to acknowledge when he defends management decisions. I would assume that he wants to keep on good terms with certain players, not to mention certain management personnel, in order to have access to them to obtain information, quotes, etc. for his stories. Since he knows that the FO is enamored with certain veteran types, he has an incentive to remain on good term with those veterans and to support what mangement is doing. It may even be subconcious, but the conflict of interest exists. No matter who the beat writer is, we’re probably going to be subjected to a defense of team decision making on some level–I think the point of Dave’s analysis is to expose a certain amount of disingenuousness (disingenuity?) on the part of Baker when he tires to pass off his defense of the M’s decisions as “analysis”. Nice job of pointing out the flaws in his approach Dave.
Dave, your point about a lot of other voices criticizing the M’s is a valid one, but I think there’s also a lot of difference between not attacking them, and actively defending them.
Geoff seems to be more and more about the latter, rather than the former, these days, and that concerns me. Then again, being paid to write, I suppose he has to take one side or the other.
And yep, as much as we like Adam Jones, the real argument isn’t about him specifically, it’s about what the way his situation has been handled says about how this organization evaluates and utilizes talent. There are tons of other examples you can point to (Soriano, HoRam, Parrish/White), just few where the value that’s being wasted is as clear.
Baker is so good that people seem to be holding him to an unrealistic standard.
As a journalist, Baker’s job isn’t to be a statistician, or to lobby the organization to do what he thinks is right. That niche is already well-filled by USSM and LL, and all he would be is a poor imitation. Fundamentally, he is a beat reporter, not a fan blogger. They are different types of voices, and if you expect Geoff to be Dave Cameron II, you’ll just be disappointed. He will inevitably have a different approach.
What Baker is excellent at is giving us the inside information that only a beat reporter can provide. But he’s smart enough and good enough that he can overlap a little bit on the analysis side as well. And he’s not afraid of being critical when it’s called for, even if he’s a little more measured in blasting them than many of us itchy-trigger-finger types are.
What I find really valuable from Geoff is his reporting of what the players and the organization think. It’s too easy to assume that the organization is idiotic, or the manager is a raving fool when they do things we don’t agree with and when they do things we all can agree are wrong.
What Geoff is doing is showing us how and why those decisions are being made, and the logic behind them. And, frankly, while I still disagree with that logic, hearing their side (as interpreted by Geoff) of why their decisions are made the way they are is valuable.
Another disconnect, I think, is that Dave/Derek and Geoff are making different points that are not as opposed as they sound.
Geoff is making a results-based argument. And, frankly, he makes a pretty good one. He was right that the bullpen staggered down the stretch. He was right that Vidro and Ibanez hit well down the stretch. Perhaps those events don’t have any predictive value, but they are what actually happened in games. In that context, I don’t think he’s wrong. As much as I wanted Adam Jones to get more of an opportunity, I don’t think that would have salvaged the Mariners’ season.
Dave/Derek’s points are more about process than results. Their points (if I can paraphrase) concentrate on the fact that despite what happened, the Mariners used a poor decision-making process - and that process is what has continued to sabotage them over the years.
I am a card-carrying USSM fan and agree with the vast majority of what is written here. Yet I’m a fan of Baker’s too and understand and agree with his opinions on being an independent voice, willing to challenge a blogosphere that can at times be a little too sure that its collective opinion is the only right one. I think that’s valuable, even when he’s wrong, and many times those disagreements look larger than they really are.
Dave, completely ignoring the “USSM vs Baker” context and focusing only on the the discussion of player evaluation, this post was an absolute home run. No. It was an absolute walk off grand slam.
#23 - True, AJ may not have salvaged the season, but Dave and many of us USSM readers (probably inlcuding you) all believe that playing him regularly (4-7 times per week) makes the team better. A better team usually wins more often. At least it has a better chance of winning more often than an inferior team. The M’s, in my opinion, decided to field an inferior team.
If this point has been addressed, I apologize, but Vidro’s acquistion created a backlog of corner outfielders/DHs/1Bs. The fact that Vidro has rarely seen 2B even though Lopez has often seen the bench indicates that even Mac thinks little of Vidro’s defensive capabilities at 2B.
If the debacle that was the 2007 Mariners season just resulted in this post, I would say it was almost worth it.
Great job Dave.
I do agree, Tek. I think both the usage of Jones and the Vidro acquisition were, as Dave/Derek have pointed out, examples of poorly-executed and poorly-planned decisions by the Mariners organization.
I think Dave’s argument about poor process from the Mariners is absolutely right.
By Baker’s logic, going “all-in” on a 2-7 draw in Hold ‘Em is a “correct” move, as long as you win the hand.
As a journalist, Baker’s job isn’t to be a statistician, or to lobby the organization to do what he thinks is right. That niche is already well-filled by USSM and LL, and all he would be is a poor imitation. Fundamentally, he is a beat reporter, not a fan blogger. They are different types of voices, and if you expect Geoff to be Dave Cameron II, you’ll just be disappointed. He will inevitably have a different approach.
I totally agree with this. Geoff’s an outstanding beat writer, which is what the Times is paying him to be. If he was both an outstanding beat writer and an outstanding statistical analyst, he’d be some kind of rare bird indeed.
Dave - where’s the best place to read about the predictive power of minor league numbers?
For a while, I’ve been interested in this topic.
No. 28, you’re dramatically oversimplifying his position.
But I’ll take the bait to say that I’d rather win the hand with an imprudent move than lose and have made the statistically correct decision. In Hold ‘Em, like baseball, results are what ultimately matter. Making statistically intelligentdecisions are simply a means to that end.
In the Mariners’ case, of course, they spent much of the season making questionable decisions but winning anyway, but wound up neither making good decisions nor winning. That’s what typically happens over time when you’re not making good decisions.
“I totally agree with this. Geoff’s an outstanding beat writer, which is what the Times is paying him to be. If he was both an outstanding beat writer and an outstanding statistical analyst, he’d be some kind of rare bird indeed.”
Well, yes, as a beat writer he’s good - certainly an improvement for Seattle. But my issues come mostly from the points in his blog in which he seeks to be something more. You can’t hide behind the “I’m just here to report” line, claiming there are columnists for your paper paid to analyze, and then start flinging arrows about while poorly analyzing (at fans and the blog “community”). As a reporter, he’s great. His writing is solid, he is thorough and gives you a chance to listen to quotes rather than just read them, which is huge, in my book, and a way to let you decide for yourself if there is a tone to be taken into account.
A blog is a different animal, however, than a game summary, and, like it or not, Baker has become a part-time analyst in his posts. He’s made himself fair game for criticism against his analysis. If it were “just the facts” in his submissions, I would feel differently. I don’t think we should expect him to criticize management all day long, but he’s not just acting as a reporter here. I’m not saying he should just write what went on -I like a little back and forth, challenge to ideas and some opinion - but commenters who defend him against criticism because he’s just a reporter when he goes beyond reporting are not being honest about the content of his blog posts.
But I’ll take the bait to say that I’d rather win the hand with an imprudent move than lose and have made the statistically correct decision. In Hold ‘Em, like baseball, results are what ultimately matter. Making statistically intelligentdecisions are simply a means to that end.
Sans time machine, that is not very helpful as a way of making decisions. You cannot know the outcome of your decision until you make it, so you should use the best predictive tools you have.
My, what a respectful and complimentary tone is being taken toward Mr. Baker.
I don’t feel up to it.
Last time I read one of his articles/entries I had the same reaction: “Hm, I don’t read him regularly, maybe he’s just having an incredibly bad day. Because he sure comes across as an effing idiot.”
Today I feel no different. If anything, I feel more sure that he’s an effing idiot.
Everything I read of his is a mish-mash of company line, contrariness and logical fallacies. HEAVY on the logical fallacies.
Does he even have an editor? Isn’t there someone at the Times that will tell him he’s about to make no sense?
The best part is the slightly sarcastic tone he employs right before he says particularly stupid things. Very Dave Barry, really. If he wasn’t actually being serious.
But the worst part is that he doesn’t realize that he’s not making sense. He is not capable of that level of thought… or too reluctant to try.
That last article I wrote about here was riddled with logical errors… not differences of opinion, not statistical mistakes, but just basic smart/dumb logical mistakes. The fact that he was not able to see them and correct them gives me very little hope he will ever get better.
I want to like him. I probably like more sportswriters than anyone here (possibly because I don’t live in Seattle), I like many different styles in many dfferent sports, most of which I like even while disagreeing with them sometimes. But Baker seems (in the exceedingly small sample size I’ve read) to be near the bottom of the barrel.
No, that’s not fair… he seems near the bottom of the barrel *that contains people I would bother to read*. I haven’t even bothered to read any other newspaper sportswriter in Seattle this year.
One last thing:
Dave said “I think Geoff sees less of a need to criticize the organization because there are so many other voices doing so. I don’t have a problem with that.”
I have two quibbles with that, and since I almost never have any quibble with Dave, I’m going to quibble freely:
Quibble one. Not criticizing is different from defending. I keep seeing him doing a lot of justifying of bad decisions… and criticizing the criticizers, if you will. He is not just “not attacking” the team, he is attacking those that attack… much safer for him. Though it comes across pretty ridiculous.
Quibble two. Contrariness is a pet peeve of mine. So if your statement is true - that he’s not writing against the team management because others are… then I think even less of him. Popularity should not dictate his stance. That sort of thinking almost always reflects weakness.
It’s as predicable as tides… as soon as an opinion of someone/something hits a certain high or low point, the contrarians will come out… people who don’t care about the reality, just are eager to go against the majority. Doesn’t matter what the subject is… you could predict the idiots that were going to come out and defend Michael Vick’s dog issues… and sure enough, they did. Or videogate. Or anything at all.
It’s sometimes a harmless quirk of human nature. But it’s a big weakness in a journalist or politician… or anyone who should really be judging situations on their merits.
#33 said …
(me, quoted)
But I’ll take the bait to say that I’d rather win the hand with an imprudent move than lose and have made the statistically correct decision. In Hold ‘Em, like baseball, results are what ultimately matter. Making statistically intelligent decisions are simply a means to that end.
(tgf)
Sans time machine, that is not very helpful as a way of making decisions. You cannot know the outcome of your decision until you make it, so you should use the best predictive tools you have.
—
That exchange had nothing to do with making future decisions, and in no way was I making a proclamation that results-based analysis is a good way to make decisions for the future. I was asked whether I’d rather win or make a smart decision and lose anyway. My answer was I’d rather win.
I was very clear about the importance of using predictive tools - they help you win more often - but at the end of the day winning is what is important.
Good results are the goal, are they not?
“Baker is so good that people seem to be holding him to an unrealistic standard.”
That’s funny.
“Geoff is making a results-based argument. And, frankly, he makes a pretty good one.”
Funnier.
“…willing to challenge a blogosphere…”
Funniest.
It takes the guts of a f***ing guppy to challenge the blogoshere. Baker sets himself up as doing this brave thing, and then you repeat it. Hilarious.
Finally:
“As a journalist, Baker’s job isn’t to be a statistician, or to lobby the organization to do what he thinks is right. That niche is already well-filled by USSM and LL, and all he would be is a poor imitation. Fundamentally, he is a beat reporter, not a fan blogger. They are different types of voices, and if you expect Geoff to be Dave Cameron II, you’ll just be disappointed. He will inevitably have a different approach.”
You know what… absolutely. The problem is that Baker THINKS he is what he is not. So he argues issues he shouldn’t be, because he doesn’t understand them.
But right now he comes across like the people that mock evolution, trying to justify their position with science.
Then you defending their behavior by saying “they’re not scientists!”
Exactly.
#32:
I assume that’s responding to my defense of Baker?
I’m not defending him from criticism. I disagree with some of what Baker says. But I also feel that those attacking him need some perspective on who he is and what their expectations should be. Rip into him if you’d like because he’s not a statistician, but if that’s what you’re looking for you’re better-served to simply not read him. If you hold him to the same standard you hold Dave and Derek (and Jason and Jeff, when they post), then you’ll just be disappointed.
Baker may not be a statistical expert, but he does an excellent job of thinking through and articulating a more traditional approach to baseball than what we see here.
For those who are writing him off as a complete shill, look at his most recent post–his vision of next year is pretty similar to what here would advocate. His approach to this stretch run doesn’t mean that he’s dumb, he just sees the Mariners’ logic in not rocking the boat in a pennant race. Given that he has insight into the human beings that make up the team that we don’t have, I find that completely defensible. We don’t talk about chemistry or other “soft” performance factors much here because they’re not quantifiable, not because they don’t completely exist.
I still think he’s been wrong, but I don’t think he’s horribly off-track either. His positions earlier in the year, and now when thinking about next year, have been and are intelligent.
That exchange had nothing to do with making future decisions, and in no way was I making a proclamation that results-based analysis is a good way to make decisions for the future. I was asked whether I’d rather win or make a smart decision and lose anyway. My answer was I’d rather win.
But the question of a one-time only { win by poor decision or lose by smart decision } is so worthless as to be devoid of any reason to be discussed.
Everyone would rather win than lose, no matter the process.
Dave, when you called Bavasi incompetent, was that just a moment of anger that passed? I ask this in the context of your saying you are not anti-Bavasi.
Dave: I’ll echo #30 in that I’d like to know where to look for predictive power of minor league stats.
And, I’d like to point out that I think we’ve actually heard Bavasi say, either in person or print, that he thinks it’s a huge leap between AAA and major league ball. Maybe THAT is one of the problems here - in that he overestimates the gulf?
To wit, I also think there’s a pretty good gulf between the two (though I’m not sure as big as Bavasi thinks), especially given the up-down pitching on our own and other teams all year in Tacoma. Which is why I’d like to read about the quantifiable proof, as it were, because my own eyes tell me (and a previous post about Clement feasting on mediocre pitchers as those are the ones left in AAA after the first month or so) otherwise…
Re #36.
John, I don’t agree at all. And it’s obvious that you don’t agree with me.
In what way? If you restrict your view just to results, his opinion is pretty intelligent. Vidro and Ibanez (particularly Ibanez) have been playing well. The bullpen has been shaky.
Does that predict anything? No. But he’s been pointing to these things for quite some time now, and he’s not wrong.
I could not disagree more. I’ve been a journalist writing to a highly-opinionated constituency. It’s very intimidating, and there is a strong temptation to agree with the tidal swell of opinion.
The M’s blogosphere is extremely intelligent, vocal, sophisticated, and opinionated. Look at the comments on his blog - standing up for his own opinion is pretty brave.
Maybe for an anonymous commenter on a blog or Usenet it’s easy to be a contrarian, but this is his career, he’s part of a relatively new yet high-profile blog, and he’s risking having people like Derek and Dave slice him to shreds, and having his comment threads on his own blog eviscerating him.
I admire his intellectual honesty. He agrees and disagrees based on what he really thinks, not on what’s popular. You may belittle the difficulty involved in that, but I won’t.
I look at this the other way around. Baker is trying to educate himself and is actually providing evidence for his views. So he uses ERA instead of xFIP. At least he’s using evidence to back up his opinions. He moved from ERA to ERA+, and he uses OPS instead of batting average. He’s smart enough to realize the Vidro’s early-season BA was empty.
Regarding “chemistry” and why we don’t talk about it:
Personally, I don’t talk about chemistry anymore because I never see it brought up except to justify bad decision-making.
People misuse its inherent non-quantifiability (is that a word?) all the time as a way to try to dispute analytical decision-making. “We can’t sit Vidro, it’d be bad for team chemistry.” “We can’t give at-bats to AJ, it’d be bad for team chemistry.”
Could there be a grain of truth to any of this? Of course. But it’s not the factor it’s constantly presented as being.
Unless you can quote Felix as saying he’s going to start pitching with his eyes closed if a certain move is made, I no longer care one bit about team chemistry.
#37 -
“I assume that’s responding to my defense of Baker?”
No, not specifically.
“We don’t talk about chemistry or other “soft” performance factors much here because they’re not quantifiable, not because they don’t completely exist.”
No, in baseball, for me at least, it’s because nobody’s been able to show they matter, or that chemistry is not something to describe a “sense” of things when all is well and the team is winning, rather than a necessary ingredient for success.
Look, I never said he’s a shill. I actually don’t care how often he takes the team to task. My issues mainly relate to his over-reaching. He’s a reporter not an analyst. Fine. But he shouldn’t start getting defensive when people point out that his work as a part-time analyst is not particularly good on a subject or two.
I don’t have the space to discuss all the issues with “traditional approach to baseball,” but I’m not going to praise the Model-T as a wonder of present-day engineering (and drive one, if that’s even possible), even though there’s a lot of history attached to it and it is the building block to a better car. It’s nice to talk about where we were in the past when we didn’t know as much, but I’d still rather drive my Audi, and get there with speed and style. You get the point. I don’t care if Geoff is a voice for traditional views, if those views are wrong I’m going to point that out. The main import of what I was saying is that he’s acting as more than just a beat reporter, and he should not be surprised when people acknowledge that dabbling into the analytical in their criticism of him. He’s opened the door to it.
Agreed, Hafner. While baseball geeks seek out this site, more casual fans often seek out the forums and blogs associated with more traditional sources of information (like newspapers).
The interplay between Geoff and Dave, or whoever, can only benefit both constituencies in the long run - as long as they’re willing to learn from each other (which, in this polarized society whether discussing sport, politic, religion or your favorite cheese, is always the hardest part).
#38:
Well, then tell that to #28, to whom I was replying. I was answering his scenario.
Personally, I don’t talk about chemistry anymore because I never see it brought up except to justify bad decision-making.
People misuse its inherent non-quantifiability (is that a word?[[ed: no, but unquantifiable is]]) all the time as a way to try to dispute analytical decision-making. “We can’t sit Vidro, it’d be bad for team chemistry.” “We can’t give at-bats to AJ, it’d be bad for team chemistry.”
Could there be a grain of truth to any of this? Of course. But it’s not the factor it’s constantly presented as being.
You are right, this is what tends to come out of the Ms camp, especially as a defense to their viewpoints, for whatever reason.
Team chemistry probably exists as a swing factor but I’m willing to bet everything that it’s affects are so minuscule as to be irrelevant. And no matter what you think about it’s scale, it’s completely unpredictable. It’s like having a random number generator spit out a performance factor for the team. You are still left in the same spot, utilize your best talent and hope for the best. In the rare cases where you actually have someone poisoning the clubhouse (happens far more often in other sports) then you can go the addition by subtraction route. But this extremely rare.
Or to put it in few words:
Winning –> good chemistry.
good chemistry !-> winning.
Yankee beat writers have written a whole slew of stories about how Shelley Duncan came in and really revitalized the team clubhouse and helped lead the Yanks back into the postseason.
IMO, what we’re seeing with Baker, is the same thing that we are see with other “journalists” that are trying their hat with blogging. These people are just not used to actual reader feedback; it seems that they enter the blog world with the idea that uniformed readers will show them with praise when in fact many readers are more learned than they. (see Joe Klein at Time.com’s blog for instance.)
45
but that’s not what 28 was posing. #28 was posing a scenario concerning a systemic process, that is, basing your evaluation of strategy 100% on the short-term results and completely disregarding known theory.
You broke that scenario by referring to it as a one-time only event.
I’d actually like to argue that the scenario presented earlier, regarding the one-shot coin flip, is integral to everything: to the contrast between the Mariners and USSMariner, to Geoff, and to Notre Dame’s firing of Tyrone Willingham. I’d say that not only is it worth being discussed, it needs to be discussed.
Let’s continue the Hold ‘Em analogy presented earlier, if only because my friend got busted out on a 2-7 last weekend. While many people have said that they’d rather win with the 2-7 than lose with a superior hand, I disagree. I disagree because there is no such thing as a single-stage game. I’ve read books by poker experts claiming that they were set back years in their development by winning hands they shouldn’t have won, thus reinforcing bad habits. Someone who wins despite themselves will attempt to win the same way next time. And just as there are always more poker tournaments, there are always more seasons and more baseball decisions to be made.
It’s the result that is, in the interest of all future situations, insignificant.
“If you restrict your view just to results, his opinion is pretty intelligent.”
You don’t see why that’s so damn funny?
“It’s very intimidating, and there is a strong temptation to agree with the tidal swell of opinion.”
THAT’S what’s funny! The USS Mariner, or the internet in general is hardly a “tidal swell of opinion.”
He is railing against the minority but pretending that he’s taking on the majority! Funny stuff.
“I admire his intellectual honesty. He agrees and disagrees based on what he really thinks, not on what’s popular. ”
First of all, his honesty is far from intellectual. And the second part… isn’t that the opposite of what Dave said he was doing? I’m a little confused here… is he trying not to bash the team or is he saying what he really thinks?
“So he uses ERA instead of xFIP. At least he’s using evidence to back up his opinions. He moved from ERA to ERA+, and he uses OPS instead of batting average. He’s smart enough to realize the Vidro’s early-season BA was empty.”
If you think I am decrying his lack of advanced statistics, you couldn’t be more off base. I don’t understand most of those myself.
My problem with him is his completely lack of understanding of the basic rules of logic. He contradicts himself, he uses small sample sizes, he sets up strawmen…
These aren’t new metrics…they are logical fallacies that have been around for a long, long time.
I’m not talking about Bill James, I’m talking about, say, Aristotle.
If you restrict your view just to results, his opinion is pretty intelligent.
Then the box score is also intelligent. Restating the results accurately is not exactly rocket science.
As long as we’re shifting the subject slightly to the effects of team chemistry - because, after all, that hasn’t been discussed enough here! - my completely unsubstantiated and uneducated opinion is that while good chemistry does not make players more talented, bad chemistry can induce players to play at a level lower than their talent.
But then again, my experience comes more in other sports, where players perform less in isolation and it doesn’t require much of a leap to imagine chemistry playing a larger role.
I agree with those who have said earlier in this comment thread that chemistry gets used to explain so many things that it’s easier just to ignore chemistry entirely. Yet, these are humans - is it so hard to imagine that happy/motivated players might perform better than unhappy/apathetic players?
I really don’t know, and perhaps that question becomes a larger one (mental effects?) than just about “chemistry,” but I think it’s interesting. Primarily, I wonder just what the heck is going on with Jose Lopez.
Can we not shift the subject slightly to the effects of team chemistry? Please? This is an old and worn topic, and not particularly germane to rehash.
49 - Spot on. Matter of fact, I was listening to Jennifer Harmon speak on exactly this just the other day.
Her approach to her play is fairly unwavering. (She is (or was, I dunno) one of the most successful cash game players in the world… not the ones shown on tv.)
She feels good if she plays well and loses and she feels bad if she plays poorly and wins.
Most people aren’t capable of thinking on that level, but the ones I know that have become particularly successful can and do think that way.
It’s very simple… she knows that if she plays well, she will grow rich, short term results be damned.
She also knows that if she plays poorly, she will soon go broke, regardless of whether she wins that night or that week or that month.
Very simple, but so hard for so many to understand.
You just hope the ones that don’t aren’t running your baseball team.
DING! DING! DING!
And how hard can it be to understand that????
Sorry, but I think we all know what kind of people we have running the Mariners.
Fracturing the coin tossing scenario…they HAVE glommed onto a system that gets them 52-57% chance of success. It’s just that the smarter folks have systems that get them 60-65% chance of success. They can beat the system (i.e., win the pennant) once in a great while, but the majority of the time, they’ll be also-rans.
Just to be clear, my defense of Geoff Baker is not meant to be a defense of results-based analysis and bad decisions based on that analysis. Okay? I’ve said all along here that the best way to succeed long-term is to make intelligent choices. Over time, you will succeed more often than those who make less intelligent choices.
My apologies to #28 if I initially misread his post - but it wasn’t clear to me that he was talking strategy. He was oversimplifying Baker’s position by saying that Baker would call winning on a stupid move the “correct” move.
My point was that not only was he misstating Baker, but that I’d rather win than be correct. As I’ve said, good decisions are a means to winning, not an end.
To Bernoulli’s point above, if you’re dumb enough to let that victory blind you to your dumb move, I would argue that’s a separate mistake.
If I was stupid but fortunate and won that hand with a 2-7, I would hope I’d be intelligent enough to take a deep breath, collect my money, and count my good fortune, hoping to never go all-in on a 2-7 again.
Please, the notion that a journalist at a large newspaper would have little experience with “actual reader feedback” before venturing into the world of blogs is rather ridiculous. People have been writing letters, making phone calls, and with modern technology even sending emails for a pretty long time.
From following the evolution of Baker’s blog, I think he handles feedback pretty well. He accepts that he doesn’t know everything and has managed to learn some new material from the likes of Dave, going so far as to incorporate it into his work. At other times, clearly they have to agree to disagree.
On the other hand, if you read through the comments on Baker’s blog, or even some on this site, there are plenty of fools mixed in with the wiser heads. So if he figures that he’s a bit smarter than the average, it’s not an unreasonable conclusion, even if this is not Lake Wobegon. It doesn’t mean he has Joe Klein’s ego, a creature which is probably immune to any amount of reader feedback.
I would rather lose playing correctly, then win on a fluke. Why? Because it means my chances of winning in the future are greater.
This is why I don’t play the lottery.
When you’re writing about the Mariners on the Internet, you’d better believe it is.
The part that I hate, hate, hate is that Baker decided he needed to criticize an entire group of people that hold differing opinions. If he wants to make the case that it was a good idea to play Vidro/Ibanez over Jones, fine, I disagree, but there’s nothing wrong with him trying to argue that position.
But if he wants to make that case, he doesn’t need to conjure up a fictitious opponent. It moves the discussion from “what was the correct decision” to “who had the best opinion,” and I’ll take the former over the latter any day.
I think this discussion is really kinda funny in light of widespread fan outcry over Howard Lincoln’s comments a few years back, wherein he said he wanted his team to be competitive year in, year out. And the fans went ballistic thinking that somehow, his statement meant he didn’t care about winning.
His statement was precisely ABOUT winning, but winning by putting good systems in place that assure competitive teams. And that if you have a competitive team (just like if you continuously execute good poker fundamentals), you maximize your chances that one day, you will win it all.
But c’mon, look at the subprime mortgage fiasco, and people going into serious credit card debt. Our whole society is geared towards instant results as opposed to sound fundamentals.
#59:
How are you defining winning? Do you mean winning a game? Making the playoffs? Making a World Series? Winning a World Series?
I think the answer differs depending on what “winning” means.
Can we agree on this?
“Results are what matters in baseball. Playing correctly is the best way to achieve those results.”
Oh, and just to be clear, on my comment above, I wasn’t saying Lincoln actually put good systems into place, but that he understands the need to do so.
If I was stupid but fortunate and won that hand with a 2-7, I would hope I’d be intelligent enough to take a deep breath, collect my money, and count my good fortune, hoping to never go all-in on a 2-7 again.
But those are mutually exclusive states. You can’t simultaneously be both:
A) stupid enough to risk your entire stake on 2-7^
B) smart enough to never do it again
Either you’re smart enough to realize it’s the bad play and refrain or you’re not. The Mariners are not.
^2-7 here acts as a placeholder for an obviously incorrect move, naturally there are times when going all-in with 2-7 is the correct play
I would prefer in life to never hear poker as a sports analogy because it is not a sport. It is about the same as using Go Fish as support to a statistical argument. Results are what matters.
Everyone uses results bases analysis! Just different types. The best example that comes to mind is FIP or xFIP. These are based on results like strikeouts, is a strikeout not a result of 3 pitches called as strikes? Not in defense of Vidro but isn’t a .300 career BA just saying he gets a hit 30% of the time? What the Mariners do poorly is they don’t look past the .300BA. Stats don’t mean anything if you don’t look at how you got to the result.
#65, you’re assuming that any player after winning in an extremely fortunate manner can’t understand how breathtakingly fortunate they were.
I can see how victory could blind somebody. I can’t agree that all victories blind all players/managers/GMs.
To restate in a more topical fashion, the Mariners have had an overall fairly successful season in terms of W-L, especially compared to pre-season expectations. Yet I can’t see any reasonable manager/GM to look at this season and not see the obvious holes in this season have been pretty clearly defined and stated here ad nauseum.
I can see the argument that Bavasi (as our player placeholder) would be blinded by this season’s success. But I can’t agree that it’s inevitable that he won’t learn.
>>>
How are you defining winning? Do you mean winning a game? Making the playoffs? Making a World Series? Winning a World Series?
>>>
That’s a fair question–in my head I was thinking in terms of a single event: a hand of blackjack or poker.
With regards to baseball, I think it is about a ladder of success:
I suppose we have to say that the ultimate goal is creating a long lasting dynasty over decades. (e.g., the Yankees, the Celtics, the Holy Roman Empire.)
Second to that, winning an individual World Series.
Failing that, making the playoffs.
Failing that, a winning season.
Failing that, an individual game.
Failing that, scoring an individual run in a game.
Failing that, individual success in an at-bat.
The goal is to get as far up the chain as possible.
That is why I mostly agree with your statement that “Results are what matters in baseball. Playing correctly is the best way to achieve those results”, but I think you are neglecting the hidden cost of winning incorrectly. While it may gain you success in terms of one of the lower level goals stated above, it may come at a cost of one of the higher-order goals.
It may happen at the top (you sacrifice your potential dynasty to try and winning a single world series now (i.e., Varitek & Lowe for Slocumb.)
It may happen at the middle (you win an individual game or series of games by getting lucky and banking on non-repeatable results and suffer the consequences later when your luck runs out (i.e., your 2007 Seattle Mariners.)
It may happen at the bottom (you may advance the runner by sacrificing an out, but you are actually reducing you over all run expectancy.)
In each of those cases, the immediate results may matter, but they all come at a cost–and nine times out of ten the non-recognition of this cost is what separates the lines of argument put forth by Dave and Derek and the lines of argument put forth by Baker.
58
Please yourself. You’re living in a dream world if you actually think that the feedback garned from the blod medium even remotely resembles that of letters to the editor and the like. Not even a fraction of the feedback from readers is shown to the public and the feedback that is is most definitely decided upon by editors whereas with blogs, feedback and discussion speaks for itself.
The fact that Baker’s blog has a bunch of nitwits can only be blamed its management and the content. Lookoutlanding and Ussmariner has done a decent job of setting guidelines for encouraging rational discourse, yet Baker cannot.
If that’s the case, we’re on the same page, John.
Sorry - referring to the John in #68, not #69.
57 - I think I speak for more than myself when I say… then what the heck was your point about Baker/results?
Are you saying that the results proved him right? Because that isn’t the case. He’s said more than once that he would have benched him/them in July.
So I’m confused what you mean when you say that Baker’s right if you just look at results.
You can’t really be saying he’s right in the same way that I’d be right if I best on yesterday’s football games today, can you?
60 - “When you’re writing about the Mariners on the Internet, you’d better believe it is.”
The “tidal swell” is either pro-Jones/anti-Raul/anit-Vidro or whatever his point is, or it isn’t. He writes for a mainstream newspaper that also has internet content.
Calling “us” folks on the internet the tidal swell of opinion is quite the hyperbole.
#69
I agree that the low standard of commenting at Baker’s blog detracts, and likely is what prompts Baker to be so defensive. I’d bet that most of the time Baker is talking to those people and not criticizing USSM.
USSM has done a great job of setting comment guidelines and enforcing them, but I think that’s easier to do for a private, unpaid concern like USSM than for a for-profit company like the Seattle Times.
USSM is a great place to read because the idiots are called as such, have their posts deleted, and are told to go read somewhere else. Dave and Derek have that freedom both because they are direct, makes their lives easier, and doesn’t take money out of their pocket.
It’d be a much tougher sell for Baker to tell the editorial staff at the Seattle Times that he’s going to be calling 50% of the readers and commenters at his popular Seattle Times-funded and branded blog that they’re idiots, deleting their posts, and telling them to go somewhere else.
Great post by Dave, and very interesting discussion by the many fine “posts” on this thread.
I have enjoyed this, and is once again why I consider the USS Mariner the best baseball blog.
Gillick won, you know. And, he continues to win in Philly. Beane usually climbs the ladder, but hasn’t made it to the top yet. I know which the blog readers here would laud, and which they would disdain. Yet Gillick’s ‘process’ has been, over a long career, more successful to achieving ‘wins’ than Beane’s has.
At what point do you revisit the premise of HOW to get to a winning result, or, that maybe there’s more than one way to get there?
Calling “us” folks on the internet the tidal swell of opinion is quite the hyperbole.
Is it really that hyperbolic when at the same time we have commenters who believe Baker’s response is proof that he can’t handle the overwhelming amount of feedback in the blog medium?
#75 — Gillick’s budgets (at least in Seattle and Philly)are far larger than Beane’s. Gillick’s style of acquiring expensive relief pitchers would doom a franchise like Oakland. Give Beane and Gillick the same financial parameters, and Beane would outdistance Gillick by a large margin.
62- The context of Lincoln’s statement was NOT putting systems in place… the context was him talking about how his #1 priority every time, all the time, was making the team show a profit every year.
That was viewed as short-sighted, mostly because it was.
#75-
Gillick has generally had far more resources at his disposal than Beane, so you’re not comparing apples with apples. Secondly, Gillick has spectacularly failed at creating lasting success with his teams. He may have gotten lucky at winning a world series in Toronto, but he sure wrecked the Mariners’s chances of continued success. (To say nothing about how easily befuddled and rooked he got dealing with the modern world of player analysis and trades.)
#72:
The above is what I said originally. Geoff is defending his past positions by bringing into evidence things that have happened in the past. He argued the bullpen needed help - well, the bullpen needed help. Once Vidro and Ibanez started hitting well, he argued they needed to be kept in the lineup. They continued to produce.
I disagreed with his reasoning on both points when he originally made them, but he’s defending his position.
Geoff is writing a blog about the Mariners - read largely by readers who are highly educated, very intelligent, very vocal, and particularly single-minded. The most intelligent and vocal M’s fans out there tend to be pretty consistent on Vidro, Ibanez, Jones, Bloomquist, Ramirez, etc.
He’s playing in a space dominated by USSM and USSM-inspired opinions and approach.
66 - If a Go Fish analogy is apt, there is no reason in the world not to use it.
Your criteria (”but it’s not a sport”) would eliminate every analogy ever.
71 - Sorry, that’s not John! Though I’d be happy to be on the same page, “L.A. M’s Fan” is not me.
#82
Sorry! The similarity in nicks confused me. It doesn’t usually take much.
77 - They could both be hyperbole.
81 - Ah. I understand your point now.
It’s tremendously unfair, however, to say both they should be benched in June, then say they should stay and get credit for being right.
And you could also say that we got someone bullpen “help” and the results were disastrous with Parrish and White.
I find it a huge stretch to say the results have born him out… I’d say the opposite is true.
But, hey, to take a page from his book… clearly we’re winning and the vets have really kept our lead in the playoff race, so I guess he was right.
83- Me too. I had to read it twice to make sure I didn’t write it.
Gillick is like the Borg. You may get all excited about joining his collective because you get to be badass for a while, but he’s really just going to suck all the resources dry from your planet, destroy any chance of life as you know it, and move on to the next planet with lush forests and running rivers when he realizes that life cannot be sustained on your world any longer. Only difference is that the Borg take you with them, while Gillick leaves us all behind to wallow in the nuclear winter.