From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Maynard Ex Ante
Date: 17 Dec 92 21:26:16 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Dec17.134730.11702@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>>Really?  Do you mean to say that Pat Gillick doesn't go around thinking
>>about whether to acquire Jack Morris or Jim Abbott?  Really?  You mean
>>he doesn't think it has relevance to baseball?   I think *that's* absurd.
>
>Certainly Gillick does have these concerns.  In fact he traded this off-season
>for Sojo because he is not sure that Alfredo can duplicate his WS winning
>performance of last year.

Why do you suppose that is?

>>But you're ignoring empirical evidence that you are wrong.  We *can*
>>predict how many runs a team will score from the players' individual
>>stats.  We *can* predict how many wins a team will get from the runs
>>scored and allowed.  
>
>But you can't predict who will win the WS.  And that is the point.  You
>are claiming that what you can measure is important in a vain attempt to
>defend your pointless act of predicting.  In other words, what you are
>predicting has no value.  

Rog, darling, are you saying that, right now, right this minute, every
team in baseball has 27-1 odds against winning the World Series in 1993?
That the Blue Jays and Rockies have about equivalent chances of winning
the World Series?

If you feel that the Blue Jays (or, indeed, even the Cincinnati Reds)
have a better chance than the Rockies, what makes you feel that way?

>>It IS of interest, because what we care about is who will help a
>>team in 1993, not who helped in 1992.  A manager that was "better" in
>>1992, and also 1990 and 1991, is more likely to be "better" in 1993 also.
>
>We have to care about the future performances because we cannot be sure that
>the players we have will perform at the same level as they did the previous
>year.  And since the only accurate way to measure the level of an individual's
>performance is by counting the rings on his hand if we are wrong about the
>player's ability to equal his previous performance we will not find out until
>it is too late.

How many rings did Dave Winfield have in 1991 at the age of 40?
Why aren't the Blue Jays signing Winfield (with one ring) instead of
Molitor (with zero rings) in 1992 for 1993?

Would you sign Alfredo Griffin (two rings) over both Winfield and Molitor?

Or are you making an argument you don't really mean?

>>No, it certainly is NOT meaningless.  No one goes around arguing about
>>who won the World Series last year.  That should tell *you* something.  
>>They're interested in who is going to win the WS *THIS* year.  
>
>So am I.  The difference in philosophy might be reflected in our approaches
>to managing a defending champion.  I would try to hold as much of the old 
>team together as possible (within reason) while you would try to rebuild it 
>if it didn't fit your model of "best".

Ah.  What is "within reason"?  

Perhaps the statheads are also holding the team together "within reason"?
But are just being slightly more reasonable?

After all, by your argument, Griffin is twice as good as Winfield, who
is infinitely better than Molitor.

>>That means what you need to know is who will help the team *this* year.
>>And that involves knowing what helps teams and who provides that help.
>
>>Of *course* best != most successful.
>
>Ok, you can have the best team and I will take the most successful!

You get the Yankees and the Dodgers, then.  I'll take the Braves and the 
Blue Jays.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637