Concepts some posters could benefit from learning

[RayClay]

2) The best team doesn't always win

The best team always wins. How do I know? Circular logic.

There is only one method of determining the best team, that is the team left after all games have been played.

Statistics are only a by-product. The only purpose for every game, playoff and Super bowl is to determine the best team, therefore the team remaining is, by definition, the best.

 

[emoney_33]

In his diagnosis of Ortiz being Clutch, Silver states;
-if the home team is batting in the bottom of the ninth down by two runs with nobody on, a walk is virtually as good as a home run.
I have to disagree. The equation does not take into account the human factor. Is the author saying that momentum has no effect on a team. I understand the concept, but he does not take any other consideration into the equation. It is purely mathematics which does not allow for the human element. Ever see a dugout go apesheet over a walk in the ninth?
- with a runner on first base, with less then two outs a strike out is preferable to a ground out.
In watching the Sox in this years playoffs, I occasionally sided with a strikeout of a batter to avoid the double-play. But that doesn't mean it is preferable. What if a hit and run was on, now you have a runner in scoring position. What if Lugo or Ellsbury is on first, they have a great chance of going to second on a fielder's choice.
In regards to AV, he will go down as the most clutch kicker in the NFL, because when the most important games were on the line with no more kicks left, regardless of previous kicks earlier in any games, made the kicks. Whether he is a 50% kicker or was not rated in the top tier is irrelevant. He made the kicks with the balance of the game on the line.

You bring up very rare occurences and the human factor to combat statements. You are correct in the sense that these blanket statements are not true 100% of time (what is true 100% of the time though?). However sabermetrics is based around the idea that the sample size has to be large enough. In general these statements are true, which you could see better if you compiled the numbers over decades, hundreds of players, thousands of at bats, situations etc...

Which reminds me a little of hold em odds. Professional poker plays make money in the long run because they stick with the odds in their favor. Of course bluffing, reading opponents etc.. come into play more at that level. In the very basic sense playing holdem, if you always make "good" plays you will make a profit in the long run. Calling an all-in when you have a 67% chance to win the hand is always the right call, even though 33% of the time you WILL lose.

Also I think the "human" element is overrated a ton in sports today by the fans, media, analysts etc.. I can't PROVE it obviously, although I believe I remember seeing a study where there was only one major league baseball player ever that had better "numbers" in "clutch" situations than his average in all situations.

Whether an insane adrenaline pump in a tight situation can increase professional ability, well that is not something I am least bit qualified to discuss lol.


Football is a different game, different factors and a far smaller sample size, so it's much harder to study these things for football. The effect coaching and teamwork has on an NFL game is a ton more than the effect teamwork and coaching has on an MLB game.

 

[pwes]

The best team always wins. How do I know? Circular logic.

There is only one method of determining the best team, that is the team left after all games have been played.

Statistics are only a by-product. The only purpose for every game, playoff and Super bowl is to determine the best team, therefore the team remaining is, by definition, the best.

True should have been the most talented team. You can have a lot of talent on a team and still lose in the end. But the best is always the last one standing.

 

[RayClay]

By the way, you have a huge extraneous variable on the Sox that doesn't exist on the more successful Patriots, the amount of money spent.

Tell the Sox to construct a team based on the KC Royals payroll, then we can test your apparently recent introduction to statistical analysis.

 

[emoney_33]

Maybe Theo should try to look up one of these brilliant friends of makewayforhtetroll's at MIT and get their advice on how to win a world series...oh...wait

Bill James...

I actually don't understand this post?

 

[RayClay]

True should have been the most talented team. You can have a lot of talent on a team and still lose in the end. But the best is always the last one standing.

But talent is such a subjective word. So much of football has to do with teamwork, character, emotion and leadership. Awful hard to fit that into a quantitative analysis model.

 

[emoney_33]

By the way, you have a huge extraneous variable on the Sox that doesn't exist on the more successful Patriots, the amount of money spent.

Tell the Sox to construct a team based on the KC Royals payroll, then we can test your apparently recent introduction to statistical analysis.

Well in baseball, with no salary cap, greedy players and the players union RUNNING sh*t, this is extremely hard. You would have to grow talent in the minors and need 4-5 years worth of minor league data to be able to begin to predict POSSIBLE major league success. And then another 3-4 years in the majors to start accurately predicting future major league performance.


But the sox already have Bill James, who was pretty damn accurate on most of his predictions for the 07 red sox players.

 

[emoney_33]

But talent is such a subjective word. So much of football has to do with teamwork, character, emotion and leadership. Awful hard to fit that into a quantitative analysis model.

Which makes football and baseball basically polar opposites.

Baseball is the ultimate individual (team) sport, football is the ultimate team sport

 

[makewayhomer]

By the way, you have a huge extraneous variable on the Sox that doesn't exist on the more successful Patriots, the amount of money spent.

Tell the Sox to construct a team based on the KC Royals payroll, then we can test your apparently recent introduction to statistical analysis.

then you basically get the Cleveland Indians, who were 2 Ace pitchers breakdowns from being a huge WS favorite. they are a VERY sabr run organization, moreso than the Sox even

true, the Sox spend a lot of money, but there are diminishing returns when it comes to player salaries. ie you can't expect a well-run $120m team to be twice as good as a well-run $60m, b/c you end up having to pay a LOT for the extra performance the best players give you. like, Arod will make twice as much as Lowell, but he's not twice as good. even though they have both been great

 

[Joker]

he referenced some of his brainiac friends at MIT and their mastery of statistical analysis as a bridge to why we should accept his original thesis...it think he's full of bullshyt

 

[Frezo]

variance. he's not gonna make 100% of his kicks; it just so happened his miss came at a baaaad time

Agreed. Numbers do not tell the whole story. They are useful, but have to be used with other unintangeable criteria. A kicker in his prime may miss 1 out of 20 twentynine yard FGs. 5 years later because of the effects of aging he may miss 1 out of 15. In another 5 years, 1 out of 12. The problem with aging is that a mathmetical formula that would correspond to this is faced with too mmany variables to be consistant. Sometimes a coach has to rely on intangeables to make personel decisions. It's these intangeables that render math not as useful as I perceive you are suggesting.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

I think something people really struggle with considering "clutch" is that, while people perform to varying degrees under pressure, people who perform poorly are mostly weeded out. Professional athletes play sports for at least 7 years before they turn pro (HS and 3 years of college) and most a lot longer. If they can't handle the pressure at lower levels they typically won't advance.

The other effect of these years of pressure is that athlete's learn to handle pressure. Yeah a superbowl winning kick is pressure-packed, but is it any moreso to a pro than a kick to win a HS championship is to a 17 year old kid?

I guess I'm saying is that, while there may be some variance in clutch ability, there isn't as much as people want to think there is.

Something else people struggle with is that sabermetricians aren't trying to prove everyone wrong. They're just asking "if something exists, shouldn't that show up statistically?"

Another great example is the effect a catcher has on pitchers. 90%+ of Red Sox fans will tell you that Varitek has great value in his ability to handle pitchers. Sabermetricians simply ask for some kind of proof. They look at the stats when Mirabelli catches each pitcher and find no statistically significant difference. After the Sox replace Tek they'll look at each pitcher's stats with Tek vs his replacement and they won't find a difference. If everyone is right and Tek provides this great benefit, shouldn't we see decline when the same pitchers pitch to different catchers?

 

[makewayhomer]

You bring up very rare occurences and the human factor to combat statements. You are correct in the sense that these blanket statements are not true 100% of time (what is true 100% of the time though?). However sabermetrics is based around the idea that the sample size has to be large enough. In general these statements are true, which you could see better if you compiled the numbers over decades, hundreds of players, thousands of at bats, situations etc...

Which reminds me a little of hold em odds. Professional poker plays make money in the long run because they stick with the odds in their favor. Of course bluffing, reading opponents etc.. come into play more at that level. In the very basic sense playing holdem, if you always make "good" plays you will make a profit in the long run. Calling an all-in when you have a 67% chance to win the hand is always the right call, even though 33% of the time you WILL lose.

Also I think the "human" element is overrated a ton in sports today by the fans, media, analysts etc.. I can't PROVE it obviously, although I believe I remember seeing a study where there was only one major league baseball player ever that had better "numbers" in "clutch" situations than his average in all situations.

Whether an insane adrenaline pump in a tight situation can increase professional ability, well that is not something I am least bit qualified to discuss lol.


Football is a different game, different factors and a far smaller sample size, so it's much harder to study these things for football. The effect coaching and teamwork has on an NFL game is a ton more than the effect teamwork and coaching has on an MLB game.

emoney, great post. I was afraid to use poker analogies (but I'm a big poker player myself!)

 

[emoney_33]

he referenced some of his brainiac friends at MIT and their mastery of statistical analysis as a bridge to why we should accept his original thesis...it think he's full of bullshyt

Quit with the "braniac", "nerd" comments. If you think he is wrong, bring some facts and argue against him. Don't just say "NERD YOU ARE WRONG HAHAHA NERD BEHIND A DESK!"

 

[Joker]

yeah...Sabremetrics would have really went a long way in helping the Sox thwart that Bucky Dent HR...I watch sports to be entertained, not to exert my brain power...yikes

 

[makewayhomer]

Agreed. Numbers do not tell the whole story. They are useful, but have to be used with other unintangeable criteria. A kicker in his prime may miss 1 out of 20 twentynine yard FGs. 5 years later because of the effects of aging he may miss 1 out of 15. In another 5 years, 1 out of 12. The problem with aging is that a mathmetical formula that would correspond to this is faced with too mmany variables to be consistant. Sometimes a coach has to rely on intangeables to make personel decisions. It's these intangeables that render math not as useful as I perceive you are suggesting.

well, kind of. Bill James and his ilk are in the business of predicting how age relates to player performance...age certainly is a big factor, and it was a big reason why getting rid of AV for Gost was a great decision.

however, with regard to 29 yard fg's and 34 yo AV, I just don't think the age matters much. a 45 yarder? yes, the age matters, and a lot.

 

[emoney_33]

Agreed. Numbers do not tell the whole story. They are useful, but have to be used with other unintangeable criteria. A kicker in his prime may miss 1 out of 20 twentynine yard FGs. 5 years later because of the effects of aging he may miss 1 out of 15. In another 5 years, 1 out of 12. The problem with aging is that a mathmetical formula that would correspond to this is faced with too mmany variables to be consistant. Sometimes a coach has to rely on intangeables to make personel decisions. It's these intangeables that render math not as useful as I perceive you are suggesting.

I think his main point was that even now, Adam will hit that fg a VAST majority of the time. The debate about being "clutch" means that in THOSe situations you have to succeed. Adam is considered clutch, yet he failed in a "clutch" situation. Not because he lost magic but because of variance. He has no control over WHEN he will succeed or fail, he only has control over how OFTEN he succeeds or fails.

For example in baseball, the argument is that a good hitter can control the fact that he will hit the ball safely 30-33% of the time, but he can not control the point in time in which that 30=33% occur (otherwise he'd never make an out when his team needs a hit, and I mean never in a large sample size).

 

[Joker]

Rebuttal...George Blanda

 

[RayClay]

then you basically get the Cleveland Indians, who were 2 Ace pitchers breakdowns from being a huge WS favorite. they are a VERY sabr run organization, moreso than the Sox even

true, the Sox spend a lot of money, but there are diminishing returns when it comes to player salaries. ie you can't expect a well-run $120m team to be twice as good as a well-run $60m, b/c you end up having to pay a LOT for the extra performance the best players give you. like, Arod will make twice as much as Lowell, but he's not twice as good. even though they have both been great

No, you basically get the Red Sox with a lot less money.

Hypotheses are very hard to prove anyway, how many different underlying variables exists between the Indians and the Red Sox besides money? You don't know. You just invalidated the whole experiment.

I'm guessing you're not very familiar with statistical research.

Your whole second paragraph consists of throwing dollar figures and unfounded conclusions around. I'm guessing Theo isn't hiring you to analyze trends.

By the way, let me know when you can analyze the future. I could use a good day at the track.

 

[fair catch fryar]

just understand that these guys are running the local baseball team

Exactly! They're running it to make $$$$ and improve the bottom line. They're not playing it. Theo will be the first to admit that he got extremely lucky with Ortiz as he wanted to trade him to the Mets at one point for Livan Hernandez only to enjoy his "clutch" performances en route to the WS title.