From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Mattingly, what a fine fielder (was: Hardly not etc.)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 09:31:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.213518.6646@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>In <BxD4n9.DIJ@news.cso.uiuc.edu> hbrooks@uiatma.atmos.uiuc.edu (Harold_Brooks) writes:

>>The evidence certainly doesn't back up your implicit assertion that the
>>person who uses unsystematic observations to base their opinions on
>>will notice that a player has lost a step faster than someone who 
>>uses systematic, recorded observations (whom you refer to as statheads).
>>Either that or not very many people understand what they see.  Certainly
>>very few in the media or major league players or managers.  

>This is hard to be sure of because the systematic observations are done
>after the unsystematic observers have done their decision making.  Non-
>superstars or players with little marquee value are replaced every year
>and many of them are veterans who managers feel have "lost a step".  They
>are replaced by younger players before systematic observers have had a 
>chance to verify that they have indeed lost a step.  In fact it is part
>of the manager's job to replace the older player before that player's
>deterioration affects the team's performance.  Unfortunately other
>factors come into play which can affect the manager's decision-making
>process:marquee value, size of salary, trade-baiting, etc.  In other
>words, many of the manager's roster decisions cannot be accurately 
>assessed through systematic observation.

While I'll agree with the statement that a manager does take into
account other things besides on field performance -- like money and
public relations -- I don't think the facts support your conjecture that
these account for the stupid reasons managers (and general managers) do
things.  (Though certainly some of them.  They don't seem to understand
the basic economic concept of "sunk costs.")

Why did the Mets sign Murray when they had Magadan?
Why did the Orioles trade for Glenn Davis when they had Randy Milligan?
Why did the Padres sign Kurt Stillwell last year?  
Why did the Mets want Tony Fernandez this year?
Why did the Orioles trade Mickey Tettleton for Jeff Robinson?
Why does Jim Leyland insist on having Jay Bell bunt every other at bat?

>>I offer as evidence the recent comments by the media during the ALCS
>>about what a fine defensive player Carney Lansford still is.  It was
>>the people with the systematic, recorded observations who have been 
>>saying that Carney isn't very good on defense any more.  It was a 
						^^^^^^^^^
As opposed to when?  I mean, I don't know how he did in Little League, but...

>>stathead who noted the resemblence of Carney to a carved, oak tree stump.

>I am not sure why you consider the media's opinion relevant to this
>discussion.  Has Larussa had a better 3bman sitting on the bench or 
>in the minors somewhere?  And if he has buried a better 3bman has it
>been out of ignorance as regards to Lansford's true ability or have
>the other factors such as his offensive performance or his marquee 
>value come into play? 

Yes, yes, yes!  His name is Jerry Browne.  Better offensively (who
isn't?) and defensively too.  And he has been.

>>I offer as further evidence Gold Glove balloting by the players and
>>managers.  Ozzie Smith won his 13th consecutive GG this year.  The
>>players and managers didn't seem to "be able to replace [him as GG] 
>>before the inferior statistics" became obvious to those who like to 
>>use systematic, recorded observations.  It was the latter group who
>>have talked about Ozzie losing a step for several years now.  (Ozzie's

>Ozzie "only" made a paltry 2 mill this year and it looks like he is not
>likely to be resigned by St. Louis.  The gold glove is a popularity 
>contest.  I think that the state of his contract negotiations is a 
>truer indicator of how highly St. Louis management respects the level
>of his playing ability.

Exactly.  It is a popularity contest, and yet it claims to be the
opinions of coaches and managers as to who is the best fielder at that
position.

And I disagree about his contract negotiations -- I think the management
is a bunch of cheapskates who wouldn't know an OBP if it kicked them in
the face.  He's a better hitter than Tony Fernandez at this point, and I
wouldn't swear that he isn't a better fielder.  And he runs the bases
MUCH MUCH better.

>>The statheads noticed some time ago that AVS isn't the defensive
>>oufielder he was.  The National League players and managers 
>>voting on Gold Gloves haven't yet.  Either they don't understand
>>what they are seeing or the systematic, recorded observation users
>>are seeing the evidence before the unsystematic observation users do.

>Again, the gold glove is a popularity contest and I doubt that it is
>awarded on merit any more consistently than any other award in baseball.

>However I do agree with you that the systematic observers have on many
>occasions pointed out that a manager has been wrong in his decisions. 
>However we have no way of knowing how many times that manager has been
>right and so the accuracy rate of either systematic or unsystematic
>observation is unknown.

The problem is, most "right" decisions are obvious, (Hmm.  Do I play
Barry Bonds or Lloyd McClendon?) while the wrong ones are the ones that
require thought.  (Do I play Carney Lansford or Jerry Browne?  Do I play
Lance Blankenship or Walt Weiss?)

I've rarely seen managers make a non-obvious decision which turns out to
be right, while I often see them make the obvious decision which turns
out to be wrong.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball