Data driven decisions can be garbage

[owknows]

1 minute ago, ChosenOne21 said:

Data-driven decisions can absolutely not work out in any given situation.

 

What's better?

I hear good things about reading entrails.

[Moose Milligan]

The dumbest thing about the opening post is that it acts as if (as do any arguments against data driven decisions) that the data says there’s a 100% chance that the matchup will work out. 
 

No one makes that argument. All the data does is provide additional information for people to make informed decisions. That’s it. 
 

If the alternative is to wildly guess at things with no basis, what’s better?

[Baltimorecuse]

1 hour ago, owknows said:

I hear good things about reading entrails.

In the limited set that is 162 games, analyzing each individual situation is better,  

Otherwise we wouldn't need to play the games, would we.  We could just pump the data into a program and the computer picks the winners.

[Baltimorecuse]

17 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

The dumbest thing about the opening post is that it acts as if (as do any arguments against data driven decisions) that the data says there’s a 100% chance that the matchup will work out. 
 

No one makes that argument. All the data does is provide additional information for people to make informed decisions. That’s it. 
 

If the alternative is to wildly guess at things with no basis, what’s better?

But that argument WAS MADE.  If it wasn't I wouldn't have complained.  Actually what I said was the data was crap.  

[owknows]

3 minutes ago, Baltimorecuse said:

But that argument WAS MADE.  If it wasn't I wouldn't have complained.  Actually what I said was the data was crap.  

Hopefully you're not talking about my sext.

It's hard to take a selfie on your tiptoes while arching your back.

[oriole]

In the broad scheme of things, humans (who have hilariously named ourselves  “homo sapien” or “wise man”) will refuse to believe that we are not the ultimate authority in the realm of problem solving. We firmly believe that gut feelings and the undeniable notion that our perfectly evolved brains can master every angle of every problem just by willing it to happen are our birthright as kings of the universe. So it makes sense that we can’t fathom the idea that data driven models of problem solving created by statistical input would dare to dethrone us from being the one true source of knowledge. 

The truth might be that our over confidence in ourselves is actually our most significant downfall. The next generation will be the first of humankind to have to fight this war versus the artificially intelligent analytical algorithms that will be designed to shape human life into the most prosperous version of itself. Despite a seething desire to have it all, when we design a system that can maximize our chances at just that, we can’t help but push back against the awful machine thinkers and their data driven problem solving skills. We are our own gods!!! Never give in!!!!

[owknows]

4 minutes ago, oriole said:

In the broad scheme of things, humans (who have hilariously named ourselves  “homo sapien” or “wise man”) will refuse to believe that we are not the ultimate authority in the realm of problem solving. We firmly believe that gut feelings and the undeniable notion that our perfectly evolved brains can master every angle of every problem just by willing it to happen are our birthright as kings of the universe. So it makes sense that we can’t fathom the idea that data driven models of problem solving created by statistical input would dare to dethrone us from being the one true source of knowledge. 

The truth might be that our over confidence in ourselves is actually our most significant downfall. The next generation will be the first of humankind to have to fight this war versus the artificially intelligent analytical algorithms that will be designed to shape human life into the most prosperous version of itself. Despite a seething desire to have it all, when we design a system that can maximize our chances at just that, we can’t help but push back against the awful machine thinkers and their data driven problem solving skills. We are our own gods!!! Never give in!!!!

Sooo... reading entrails then.

[oriole]

52 minutes ago, owknows said:

Sooo... reading entrails then.

I have not, but I’m intrigued if you care to share? 

[Billy F-Face3]

3 hours ago, Baltimorecuse said:

It's really a no brainer.  In a game like baseball no sext can possibly consider every possible variable. 

Data has its place. And it's limitations.

Sometimes, when your goal is to be in a dominant position, you just gotta be in the moment and feel it.

Your sext didn't consider every possible position. There a variable ways to get from 1st base to 3rd base and all the way home. 

[ChosenOne21]

4 hours ago, Baltimorecuse said:

So let's add some different variables.  The pitcher kills right handed hitting.  The hitter can't hit righties.  It's the bottom of the eighth.  A run doubles your score.  Now every time that situation has occurred is averaged into the original set of variables with all the thousands of time the first and third, with one out situation has occurred.  But that totally waters down the specific situation we're in and the computer book decision is useless.  

If you're saying the sample sizes get too small to draw meaningful conclusions when you add in every specific piece of information relative to the situation, I can see where you're coming from. 

But if any exact situation has happened so few times in baseball history that we don't have enough data to make a useful model, how many times do you think any given manager has been in that situation? Why would their decision based on their limited exposure to the situation be better than a model that looks at every time that exact situation has occurred?

I think you have the wrong idea about how organizations use data to make in-game calls. I doubt any organization is having a computer make 100% of in game managerial decisions. I'm sure they give the manager some model outputs and depending on the person/organization that could have a lot or a little impact on the in-game decisions.

If your point is that computer models don't know that the statistical best reliever to use in any situation didn't sleep well the night before and had a crappy bullpen earlier, well, that's why there isn't a literal computer sitting in the dugout. This doesn't mean models are useless though.