From: kbos@carina.unm.edu (K. Mitchell Bose)
Subject: Re: joe carter and others
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 06:19:59 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Distribution: rec

In article <1992Dec14.024046.12197@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>In <ly_rtzm@lynx.unm.edu> kbos@carina.unm.edu (K. Mitchell Bose) writes:
>
>>Ya gotta have money to make money, bub...as a matter of fact, though, I did, in
>>fact, make about $200 on the Blue Jays' victory this year.  Once one starts
>>betting on games, of course, one isn't even talking about sabermetrics anymore,
>>but psychology (what's the public perception of talent, rather than what the
>>talent really is?)
>
>Shouldn't the stathead have a huge advantage over those who bet according to
>the "public perception" of talent?
>
As a matter of fact, I'm not so sure they don't.  I'd like to know how many
of the "statheads" would have put money on the Mets to win the pennant before
the season...of course, I'll grant that you always get one fool picking the
Mariners for first place...

Anyway, you already know that the "stathead" position on game by game bets, or
even seven game series bets, is that they're too unpredictable to prejudge.
What's the trend?  (Gamblers may not use "stathead" stuff, but they certainly
use "trends")  Something like 'Only 60% of the time did the team with the better
season record win the postseason series'.  Sabermetric modelling is more
reproducible at the seasonal and career level than it is on the game level.
Nobody has ever claimed different.  In any given game, Fred Patek might hit four
home runs...but I wouldn't bat him fourth and hope his number's up.

>Here, however, is the standard argument against relying on personal observation
>>to judge quality.  "Very few people see a wide enough sample of fielders, or 
>>fielding chances for a lot of fielders, to form anything but the sketchiest 
>>of impressions regarding the comparative quality of fielders."
>
>I agree with this totally.  I myself don't see near enough games to judge
>objectively.  But some people do.  Managers and other players do.  And
>they don't need stats to tell them what is going on.

But managers and players still see only twelve to eighteen games of other teams
in a season in a situation close enough to be helpful.  That's still a small 
sample.

>
>>>I don't think there is any doubt that next year Maddux will be the ace of the
>>>WS winning staff.
>>Maybe in your mind...I don't think the Braves will do it.
>>And ya wanna know something?
>>ALL THE STATS SAY THEY WILL!!!  I'M A GUT FEELING KINDA GUY!!!!
>
>rather daring, what?

Perhaps
>
>>>Sure.  Let's dismantle a World Series winning team and gamble that in a few
>>>years some of our youngsters can duplicate what we already have right now. 
>
>>Only three of the players who were starters in the A's 1988 division title were
>>starters in 1992.
>
>Were half of the '88 starters gone the very next year?

Four of the starters on that 1988 team were either on the bench or on other 
teams next year.  Hubbard hit .200 in 40 games and was released, Weiss was 
hurt and benched, Polonia was traded, and Baylor retired.  The next year, McGee
and Baines came in at the end of the season, and Willie Randolph was added in
the middle of the season.

>
>>In 1989, the Twins speeded the "dismantling" of their 1987 core by trading
>>Frank Viola for, among other people, Tapani and Aguilera.  These two were 
>>important cogs in the 1991 championship.
>
>They had to trade him.  He was about to declare free agency and they couldn't
>afford to sign him.
>
But they could afford to sign Kirby.  They could afford to sign Hrbek.  They
could sign Morris and Davis a year and a half later.  The Twins decided to 
get what prospects they could for Viola rather than shell out the money to
keep him, and their core.  In the case of the Jays, they decided to keep Carter
instead of promoting from within, or seeing if a better value existed.

>>>Never mind the fact that some fans actually *enjoy* watching Carter and
>>>White and their teammates perform.  The fans, that is, who enjoy watching the
>>>game more than they enjoy tabulating statistics.
>
>>I wonder what the correlation between attendance of winning teams is with
>>attendance of "entertaining" teams.  Of course, you don't; that would require
>>"statistics".
>
>No team, even if they win every year, are going to attract fans if they keep
>turning over their personnel every year.  

And teams which lack a commitment to excellence will find it difficult to draw
consistently high crowds.


-- 
Kurt Bose (as in Daisy, not Rose) * kbos@carina.unm.edu * Walks: not that sexy.
"Halt!  Based on conclusive dental evidence that truly bites, I arrest you 
 hereby for the murdering of the dead Belzic Tascar.  I am obliged to warn you 
 that my weapons are registered as offensive fronds!!"- R.M.Allen, "Monkey See"