The Bullpen Has Blown 7 Games for Trachsel

[Sports Guy]

No, that is not just a philosophical question. To the contrary, it is a very important question. It's precisely the kind of issue that I wish stats guys around here were more focused on.

It comes up alot around here. It came up with the whole "let's play Luis at SS everyday" debacle. While I agree with the stats guys that it's dumb to think he's gonna do better in the bigs than he did in the MiL, it does beg the question, "Has anybody noteworthy ever done just that: been a better ML'er than he was a Mil'er?" But nobody seems to care. Same thing with age. It always happens that stats guys say that so-and-so is toast because of his birthday, yet we know that anomalies about that happen all the time. (My hunch is that the answer to the age thing lives in places that available stats can't see, which exposes the flaw in the myth that "stats EXACTLY model what happens". They certainly don't do that; they only model the specific subset of phenomena that they represent. )

Anomalies are important for a few reasons. One of the most important reasons is that they tell us what we do NOT know or understand. They should not be dismissed as freak-show trivia that almost never happen. The simple fact is that we know anomolies happen alot, and we do not understand why. They are what we are guaranteed to miss when using stats as predictors. Therefore, anomalies belong at the top of 2 lists:

1. Things we don't understand, and therefore should humble-up about (rather than ignore);

2. Things that smart stat people should focus on. (And maybe many smart stats people are, I'm not saying they aren't.)

Maybe you should go back to school and study this stuff ;-)

Nobody cares because you don't hand an important spot on the team to a guy that has a 2% chance of making it.

Yea, maybe he bucks a trend but why gamble on that when you can get more "sure things"??

We are a pathetic team and franchise...Whether one wants to admit that or not, it is true.

And on pathetic teams, we should be looking for the best possible players for now and in the future to help us get to where we want to be.

This really shouldn't be difficult to figure out.

You say stat guys ignore this but it isn't true at all...Stat guys just prefer to go with the better odds and the better choice.

[osfan83]

Wow, there are some very bright people that post on this board! But I think this discussion is over-thinking the issue. I don't think anyone believes past statistics can accuratly predict what will exactly happen in the future. It's a case of odds. Sure ST may buck the trend next year, but that is exactly what he would be doing, BUCKING A TREND. Spend the league minimum in hopes of a player deviating from the norm? OK? Pay a player $5 in hopes he beats fairly large odds? Not a good plan.

[RShack]

I think this discussion is over-thinking the issue.

Depends on what you find interesting. No right or wrong to it, just a matter of what you find interesting.

I don't think anyone believes past statistics can accuratly predict what will exactly happen in the future. It's a case of odds.

That's the standard claim, but that's not how such things are often treated around here. Some folks routinely act as if cookbook stats predict stuff a lot more reliably and accurately than they do. And if/when you question that, some folks start getting all snippy, taking pot shots, and acting as if you're anti-stat or something. Not everybody, but some folks do.

[Migrant Redbird]

Nobody cares because you don't hand an important spot on the team to a guy that has a 2% chance of making it.

I don't know. You've got guys wanting to preserve a 2nd round draft pick (& some cash) rather than expend it upon a proven major league closer. I'm not trying to argue that going after Cordero would be a good idea (I doubt if it would), but that 2nd round draft pick is probably less than a 2% chance of becoming more than a marginal major league player. Even if your scouts have accurately assessed his potential (difficult given his amateur competition level and the aluminum bats), injuries or unpredictable development are still likely to thwart his professional career.

We gamble on 2% (and longer chances) all the time.

We are a pathetic team and franchise...Whether one wants to admit that or not, it is true.

There are worse, and the Marlins have demonstrated twice that, whether through great management or great luck, it's possible to turn from being a pathetic franchise into a world champion.

You say stat guys ignore this but it isn't true at all...Stat guys just prefer to go with the better odds and the better choice.

I doubt if most of the "stat guys" actually understand the "better odds" they claim to prefer. I don't. I realize that I don't have sufficient data to develop accurate probabilities for sports events, and that all the "odds" I throw out there are little more than WAGs. I don't think that any of the "stat guys" do that much better.

I can say with some degree of confidence that Albert Pujols is more likely to hit a game winning home run in a given situation than Steve Trachsel is, but I'd be very hard pressed to quantify the edge that Albert has. Twice? Ten time? A hundred times? It's probably in there somewhere, and it's large enough that I'd pinch hit Albert for Steve if the situation arose, but don't ask me to put any numbers on it.

[Sports Guy]

I don't know. You've got guys wanting to preserve a 2nd round draft pick (& some cash) rather than expend it upon a proven major league closer. I'm not trying to argue that going after Cordero would be a good idea (I doubt if it would), but that 2nd round draft pick is probably less than a 2% chance of becoming more than a marginal major league player. Even if your scouts have accurately assessed his potential (difficult given his amateur competition level and the aluminum bats), injuries or unpredictable development are still likely to thwart his professional career.

We gamble on 2% (and longer chances) all the time.

These situations aren't even remotely the same.

There are worse, and the Marlins have demonstrated twice that, whether through great management or great luck, it's possible to turn from being a pathetic franchise into a world champion.

Not when you take into account rescources and ballpark.

I doubt if most of the "stat guys" actually understand the "better odds" they claim to prefer. I don't. I realize that I don't have sufficient data to develop accurate probabilities for sports events, and that all the "odds" I throw out there are little more than WAGs. I don't think that any of the "stat guys" do that much better.

Player A has a 600 MiL OPS....Player B has a 900 MiL OPS...They are the same age and have been at the same levels every year...Who has a better chance at success?

[Fan4Life]

These situations aren't even remotely the same.

Not when you take into account rescources and ballpark.

Player A has a 600 MiL OPS....Player B has a 900 MiL OPS...They are the same age and have been at the same levels every year...Who has a better chance at success?

If I understand what's been said, the 900 OPS (Player B) guy has the better chance of success, but the remaning question that cannot be answered is, how much greater are those odds that player B has at success than player A? If we took 50 Player A's and 50 player B's, what percent of Player B's would actually have greater success? We don't know... We only know it is more likey for Player B's to succeed based on what we have measured.

[Sports Guy]

If I understand what's been said, the 900 OPS (Player B) guy has the better chance of success, but the remaning question that cannot be answered is, how much greater are those odds that player B has at success than player A? If we took 50 Player A's and 50 player B's, what percent of Player B's would actually have greater success? We don't know... We only know it is more likey for Player B's to succeed based on what we have measured.

Isn't that all you need to know?

[RShack]

If I understand what's been said, the 900 OPS (Player B) guy has the better chance of success, but the remaning question that cannot be answered is, how much greater are those odds that player B has at success than player A? If we took 50 Player A's and 50 player B's, what percent of Player B's would actually have greater success? We don't know... We only know it is more likey for Player B's to succeed based on what we have measured.

I think you are asking the right questions.

As for whether or not we can or cannot say what percentage of Player B's would have greater success than Player A's, I'm not sure whether or not that can be answered. It wouldn't be surprised if it could be answered... for a largish group of Player B's anyway. It certainly seems plausible that it could, and it's certainly the right kind of question to ask. If it can, we don't read that around here.

Your basic question, "If the odds are better, well, how much better are they?", is a great question and is exactly the kind of stuff I wish we heard more about. There is a tendency for some to just say, "The odds are better, and that's all we need to know, end of discussion", but that's just wrong. Unless every other single factor is equal, it's not all we need to know, and thus it should not be the end of discussion. Even a pure Vegas game player who cares nothing about baseball will want to know more than which side the odds favor, he'll want to know by how much.

Statistical projections are inherently about probabilities. That's all they are, nothing more, nothing less. Therefore, it certainly makes sense to want to know more about the probabilities than we get when somebody just makes up a number like 2% or 7% (or whatever) in the middle of an argument and then runs with it.

[Fan4Life]

I think you are asking the right questions.

As for whether or not we can or cannot say what percentage of Player B's would have greater success than Player A's, I'm not sure whether or not that can be answered. It wouldn't be surprised if it could be answered... for a largish group of Player B's anyway. It certainly seems plausible that it could, and it's certainly the right kind of question to ask. If it can, we don't read that around here.

Your basic question, "If the odds are better, well, how much better are they?", is a great question and is exactly the kind of stuff I wish we heard more about. There is a tendency for some to just say, "The odds are better, and that's all we need to know, end of discussion", but that's just wrong. Unless every other single factor is equal, it's not all we need to know, and thus it should not be the end of discussion. Even a pure Vegas game player who cares nothing about baseball will want to know more than which side the odds favor, he'll want to know by how much.

Statistical projections are inherently about probabilities. That's all they are, nothing more, nothing less. Therefore, it certainly makes sense to want to know more about the probabilities that somebody just making up a number like 2% in the middle of an argument, then running with it.

I present exhibit A....

We only know it is more likey for Player B's to succeed based on what we have measured.

Isn't that all you need to know?