From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: luck in baseball
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 03:52:19 GMT

In article <19734@optima.cs.arizona.edu> 
dkl@cs.arizona.edu (David K. Lowenthal) writes:
>I have a real problem with some comments made on this newsgroup about
>luck.  I have not read them all, but Ms. Nichols especially continually
>talks about how luck enters in to one run games, world series play, etc.

>Well, I do not believe in luck in baseball, because the game is based
>on skill.  

a) That's a non-sequitur.

b) It's based on skill AND luck.  Why do you say baseball is based on
skill? 

>I now explain a few scenarios mentioned often:

No, you don't.

>1) The Twins were lucky to win game 7 because of Smith's baserunning error.

>Response: NO, that is not luck.  The Braves played a player who is notorious
>  for doing dumb things.  Part of a player's makeup is his brain.  That
>  makes Smith a poorer player, and the Braves a poorer team overall than
>  they would have been had Smith been a smart player.

a) Nobody says what you say under 1).  That's a straw man of your own
making.  

b) What they DO say is that they were lucky to win because it was a
1-run game.   Which is demonstrably true.

c) What if he hadn't made the mistake? He'd still be the same player,
dumb or not.

>2) Intangibles are luck.

>Response: NO, that is not luck.  Intangibles are things like managerial
>moves and team drive.  

a) Once again, 2) is a straw man. 

b) What people say is that the so-called intangibles do not exist at
all, or that they cannot be evaluated except retrospectively in a manner
that makes them indistinguishable from luck.  This has also been
demonstrated.

c) Managerial moves are not intangibles.  They are tangible -- and, to a
certain extent, predictable.  Moreover, their OUTCOMES are partly
predictable.  

d) Team drive is unobservable.  A team on a winning streak can have that
streak end tomorrow; the odds of the team winning its next game are
closer to the season percentage than to the streak percentage.  Again,
"team drive" cannot be observed, serves no useful purpose in evaluating
a team's chances, and only comes into play as a story to tell
afterwards, whether there was any such "drive" or not.  Moreover, nobody
can say what this "drive" consists of, where it comes from, or how it
may be induced or inhibited.  There is no reason to believe that it
exists in any specific case.

>?You are telling me that if you took 2 equal teams
>and had Tony LaRussa manage one and someone that knows nothing about baseball
>managed that other, that when LaRussa's team performed better that would be
>luck?

No, of course we're not telling you that.  You're arguing against your
stupid straw men.  Who has ever proposed anything like that around
here, other than you?

>3) Bloop hits are luck and line drive outs are bad luck.

>Response: NO, that is not luck.  Are you going to say that you lost
>the game on a couple of bloopers and that is bad luck?  What if your

As usual, a silly distortion of what people say.  

FACT: line drives fall in more than fly balls.  

DISTORTION: they should ALL fall in, and those that don't are bad luck.

CORRECTION: in fact, ALL outcomes of a liner are PARTLY influenced by
luck.

>team got some bloopers in the same game?  What if the hitter fought
>off a good pitch and fisted it into right?

What if, indeed?  Luck plays a part in ballgames: get used to it!  He
sure didn't MEAN to fist the ball; he probably meant to foul it off.
The ones that go fair in that situation generally DO become outs, and
this player had no more control over the bloop than they guy who fisted
one for a grounder.

>4) Bad calls are bad luck.

>Response: This is the only ray of hope the luck believers have.  But my
>argument is that first, several bad calls happen after bad plays.  If
>you throw it high to first and the first baseman stretches for it and
>gets the out, but the ump rules he was off the bag, then you should 
>have thrown accurately.  Also, if you play well enough, you can overcome
>a bad call.

Tell that to Cards believers...

Again, who the hell has said things like this?  Are you trying to post
to some other  newsgroup?  If you're going to insult people, at least
have the courtesy to name their names and quote their arguments.

Now, what of a bad call that did NOT have to do with a bad throw?  Or
any bad play?  There are plenty of them.  

>My basic argument is that the good teams are the ones who don't allow
>luck to enter into the game.

And our basic argument is that NO team can prevent luck from entering
into the game.  And we can dmonstrate it.

Moreover, we can demonstrate that the processes you claim are NOT
random are in fact indistinguishable from random ones.  How can you tell
it's NOT luck?  And why should we not assume the correct null hypothesis
of no non-random effect until proven otherwise, just because of your
misunderstandings about what luck is?

Roger

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball