From: maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Mattingly, what a fine fielder (was: Hardly not etc.)
Date: 7 Nov 92 21:35:18 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON

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.

>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 
>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? 

>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.

>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.

-- 
roger maynard
maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca