I am old school. Never have claimed to be anything but. Baseball has been a part of my life, a big part, for over 60 years. LA was a minor league city until the Dodgers moved here in 1958. We played the game anywhere we could, usually on our school playground. Some played little league, others did not.
I never really had any coaching until I played little league. Then the coach showed me how to position myself to catch grounders and what to do with fly balls and pop ups since I was playing 1st base most of the time.
I knew how to bunt, but rarely got that sign since I was considered a power hitter by our coach. We did not steal much, but not many little league teams do since you cannot lead off.
But I watched as many games as I could and was amazed, they could stand there and put themselves in harm’s way with a pitch coming at them as fast as a speeding car.
I loved watching Maury Wills and Jr. Gilliam. Wills would get on, steal a base, Gilliam would either sacrifice him to third, or get a hit, or pull the ball to the right side, give himself up, and get Maury to third. Then someone would hit a sac fly or a single, or sometimes even take the ball out of the park, and voila, a Dodger rally.
Baseball was a different game back then. We were taught to hit the ball squarely. Also to go with the pitch, do not try and pull everything. If memory serves, and sometimes it does not, I rarely pulled the ball. Most of my hits went up the middle, or to left center.
I loved watching pitching duels. Although more nerve racking than the games when the team scored a lot of runs. But I loved watching great hitters too. And my generation was blessed, we had so many that would later be in the Hall.
Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Clemente, Banks, Kaline, Cepeda, McCovey. Snider, Carew, Robinson, and others who were very good, but not hall worthy. And of course, Mr. Hustle, Pete Rose.
Rose does not get talked about much anymore, but he was a ballplayer. Not blessed with great size or athleticism, he made up for it with tenacious play and a burning desire to get better. And Pete Rose wanted to beat you. It took a while and some pretty good trades and acquisitions, but his Reds finally became a powerhouse in the 70’s.
Hit and run, bunts, steals. That was the kind of offense we were weaned on. Pitching and pitchers were far different animals. Pitchers were taught to finish what they started. Players were always on one year deals, and some still had to work in the off season.
To me, and I understand this is a personal choice, the game was better. There were no long dragged out meetings on the mound, most games were not interrupted by multiple pitching changes in an inning. Occasionally there were some memorable fights. But the game seemed to have a flow. The players were exciting to watch and the pitchers threw some nasty stuff.
Pitchers. Ahh, I got to see some truly great ones in those years. Ford, Wynn, missed seeing Feller by a couple of years, Spahn, Marichal, Gibson, Koufax, Drysdale, Wilhelm, Palmer, and a lot who followed, Blyleven, Kaat, Lolich, McLain, last pitcher to win 30, Maddux, Glavine. The list goes on. And these guys finished games. That is what they felt they were paid to do.
Things change as they always do. I am not sure exactly when analytics creeped into the game, but I am pretty sure Beane used it extensively before anyone else.
Now the numbers on the back of the cards that were the basis for judging a player’s worth to a team virtually began to mean nothing. What? BA means zip and OBP is more telling?
Most of us could not understand what in the blue blazes they were talking about. Hey, a guy hits .300, with 30 homers and 100 ribbies he is pretty good. A pitcher might have a 4.67 ERA, but he won 20 games! He has to be valuable. I just did not get it, and no numbers cruncher was ever going to convince me that wins, BA, RBI’s were not important stats.
I am, and always have been, an eye test guy. I could watch players on the field and over time get a sense of what kind of player they were. I will use one of my favorite whipping boys as an example. Yasmani Grandal.
Yasmani Grandal by all accounts and reports is one of the best pitch framers in the game. Until he came to the Dodgers, poor ignorant me did not even know this was a thing or a skill. And indeed I could see that this guy was pretty adept at getting balls called strikes.
Chalk up one for the analytic geeks. But he also was one of the worst at blocking balls in the dirt, and had a high passed ball count almost every year in blue. Chalk up one for us old school grey beards.
Grandal had a ton of power from the left side, and not so much from the right. His career numbers prove that. In his 4 years as a Dodger he topped 20 homers every year but the first one. His BA high was .247, and the low was .228. His OBP high was .353, and the low .307. His K rate was close to double his walk rate over the 4 years.
So over all he did a decent job, always seemed to fade come playoff time, and in 2017 lost his starting job late in the year to Austin Barnes. But he was also to my eyes mind you, not a clutch hitter. I saw him hit many HR’s that allowed the team to pile on, but rarely one that won a game, or put the team in a tie or ahead in the game. Here to me is a telling statistic. In wins he hit .267, more than 20 points higher than his career average, and right at the Mendoza line, .206 in losses. He has 92 homers in wins, and 50 in losses.
I guess you could say, I did not understand what baseball people were looking at that had these players rated the way they were. I saw Mike Piazza his rookie year. One of the first at bats I saw of his he hit a line drive off of the left center field wall for a double, and that thing was one of the hardest hit balls I had ever seen. I just knew this guy was a masher.
My eyes had never deceived me. So when AF took the reins, and started retooling the team using analytics, and not good old fashioned baseball tools type of scouting and evaluating, I was more than a bit perturbed.
But I know baseball as much as it is a sport, and evolving continually, it is more than anything else, the entertainment business, and they are here to make money.
I am just now, after all these years getting to understand what WAR means. Do I care? Probably not. Simply because I still use the eye test. You have to be blind to not see how bad some of these guys are struggling this year. I do not need the WAR stat to tell me most of them could be replaced very easily. There are so many different stats they use now, baseball cards would have to be 8X10’s to list them all.
I do not know what dWar is. And frankly, I care little. I do know I can see when they are not playing good defense with my own eyes. I do not think, oh gee, Kike’s dWar took a hit. But when I see a player like Joc go through a 1-20 slump, his BA is not going to look good in the morning.
I guess one of the things that really confused me about all of this is how analytic geeks have devalued what a win means on a pitchers resume. The game is over 100 years old. For the first 4/5ths of its life, pitchers are evaluated by their wins and their ERA’s and now that is not so?
For a pitcher to get a win, a starter anyway, they have to go five innings. Pitchers in the pen get wins all sorts of ways. Extra innings when the team comes back and wins, coming in in a tie game, and the team takes the lead. Stopping the opposition and the team scores while they are the pitcher of record.
After all, doesn’t the team that WINS the most games at the end of the season stand as the Champion of the division? I just could not understand how someone devalues that. When CK passed Koufax on the all-time win list last year, everyone made a pretty big deal of it.
I doubt we will ever see a 300 win pitcher again. No current starter in MLB is close. 200 is the new 300. Pitchers just do not pitch complete games anymore. It is not important in the new baseball. Bullpens are in the game at the end of the game almost every time.
Players are paid enormous sums these days, and keeping them healthy and contributing is the main focus. Analytics are used in every facet of the game. Even when considering who to draft. Computers cut down the paper work considerably.
I guess when you come down to it, for the people who run the game today, it will never change. As for me, as a fan, I cannot understand most of it, but I know it is in the game to stay.
But also as a fan, I cannot say it has changed the game for the better. Players are hitting more HR’s than ever, but they are striking out more too. That’s because even the K has been devalued. Striking out is now no big deal. When I played, it was something I NEVER wanted to have as the end result of an at bat.
And striking out too much kept a lot of players from ever reaching the heights some thought they would. I love the Dodgers. Always have, but I can honestly say. this is not the most exciting baseball team to watch. And they have gone that route before.
Baseball does not have a lot of characters anymore. There are some very good athletic players, and they go about their business and play hard. But someone who gets you excited every time they step to the plate because you think you might see something special? Not so much.
Mike Trout is the best all-around player in the major leagues. He has 3 MVP trophies to prove that. Mookie Betts is the most exciting player on the Dodgers. He proves that every game simply with his hard play and baseball IQ. But Trout to me is not exciting to watch. He is just a perfectionist with a steady solid approach that never changes.
Analytics have changed the way players are evaluated. Front offices and scouts look for different traits than they did when I first started loving the game. And in the adopting of these numbers and tendencies, some of the basic parts of the game have come to mean little. Bunting is a dying art. Hitting the ball where it is pitched is rarely seen. It is all about launch angle and exit velocity. With pitchers it is spin rate.
I will always love the game, and I have to live with the way it is analyzed and played because it is what the game has become. But there are days when I close my eyes and see # 7 with that sweet swing connecting and sending one into the RF bleachers, or laying down a perfect bunt and beating it out. Or #24, running full speed towards the CF fence and making an over the shoulder catch and losing his cap as he often did doing it. Or # 32, firing another fastball that the batter could only hear and not see into the catcher’s mitt. And sometimes breaking off a curveball that made the batter look so absolutely over matched when he swung.
And finally, watching # 30, take that lead, dive back a time or two, and then with the crowd yelling his name take off for second and beat the throw easily in a cloud of dust.
Have analytics made the game better? I think that determination is in the eye of the person watching the game. As for me, I am as always an old school guy. Give me a Mickey Mantle or Willie Mays over anyone on the field today anytime. They were as exciting as it gets.
Discussion (112)
Disagree, not disagreeable
I am glad Mark finally admitted he was old……school…LOL.. hey I understand the game has evolved. I get that and I have accepted that. But I still maintain that the game is not better. Not to my eyes at least. You use the data you have. Guys before computers kept notes, Hershiser said he had 3X5 index cards. Some of the more mental guys had a mental book on pitchers. Way to many strikeouts, too many easy ground outs into the shift. How that makes for a better game is beyond me. Lakers beating the Blazers by plenty at the half.
Lux and Reks look ready. Raley had a 2 hit game. I do not think any of those 3 would embarass themselves with the ML club. Rios got some swings in early batting second each of the first two innings for both teams. Did not run anything out.
Neither Wood or Gonsolin were amped at all. They were just getting work in. Bobby Miller looked pretty good. It’s hard to say how good because you have no idea how hard he is throwing and did not have an umpire calling strikes. But his breaking ball looked good (not Walker Buehler good, but still a lot of movement). AJ Ramos also had a good inning. They would need to clear a 40 man spot for him, but I would like to see what he can do at the ML level. He did very well as a Marlin. Maybe there will be a spot available after the weekend.
I do not think you get a lot out of it watching from home (for me on a small screen), but it was still fun to see the pool guys play.
I do not think Ruiz is doing his pitchers any favors by his large strike zone. I think Lux told him to call it right after the first Edubray Ramos pitch was inside the RH batters box and called a strike. This was after a called 3rd strike his previous AB that was way inside.
Gonsolin stretches it out to 99 pitches. He should get the call in Texas either Saturday or Sunday. Lynn ischeduled to pitch Saturday. It might be fun to see Lynn against the CatMan. Lux (2 HRs) and Reks (2 HRs and a double) did well against Gonsolin. I think he had 8 Ks. But what a difference a catcher is. Ruiz was calling anything in the zip code a strike while Wood & Miller had to groove one before Gale and Cartaya would call a strike. They should be up there hacking anyway.
I read Bear’s post this AM and have thought about it all day.
I am old school in a lot of ways.
I think being old school is bad. You are stuck! You can’t grow.
But I am also New School in a lot of ways.
I also think new school is bad. New is not always better… but it might be.
The horse was great… until the car.
I think that AF is a combination of old school and new school. Stats and analytics have been and always will be part of this great game of baseball., but we should not worship them. They are a tool. When Kirk Gibson stepped out of the batter’s box on a 3-2 count in the 1988 World Series, he relied on “analytics” from Mel Didier who had logged Dennis Eckersley’s proclivity to always throw a backup slider on a 3-2 count. Analytics won that World Series.
But, it took a scout to discern that. The Dodgers likely have more scouts than most teams. The teams that devalue scouts and the human element are doomed to fail. I think AF fully understands that. Analytics and sabermetrics are just another tool.
You have to try new things… step out of your comfort zone… look at things differently.
Thirty years ago, I read Graham & Dodd’s Security Analysis. I learned that in investing, you gather all the data you can and then make a decision on that data. That’s what AF does. I am sure that they have Zoom calls with all of the brain trust and bounce ideas back and forth and the consensus wins.
I am very comfortable with old school… merging with new school!
Evolve or die!
Has Zach Reks hit one or two homers today? I thought I saw him hit two but I might have been mistaken.
Miller looks pretty good from what I’ve seen so far.
I can not see who is who but noticed a pitcher named Miller, number 93, looked good.
Betts is the first Dodgers ever to hit 2 home runs and stole 2 bases in the same game….(Sunday game) he is making history!!
I am watching and wonder who is calling safe or out at first and who is calling strikes and balls at the plate. Seems Wood did good from what I saw.
Is Spectrum outsourcing their graphics to 5th graders?
Those guys standing in back of Graterol are nuts!
Lux goes yard again off Gonsolin
https://www.si.com/mlb/video/2020/08/24/los-angeles-dodgers-great-start-to-2020-season?jwsource=cl
MLB can’t his Tony, but the COVID squad is destroying him! 😉
Tom Verducci calling our taxi squad a playoff team in his article today. Probably not too far from truth. And labeling us a super team. Guess he hasn’t been reading LADT much!
Is it me, or does Hoese swing remind anyone else of Kris Bryant’s?
Lux led off the game with a HR against Gonsolin.
Lux took Gonsolin deep in the intersquad scrimmage today. There’s a live feed going on right now.
FYI, our taxi squad scrimmage can also be seen on dodgers.com
It’s like our own system’s minor league all star game! Gonsolin vs Wood, and Lux led off the game with a HR off T-Gon
Bear, I am old school also but with no where near the knowledge that you and many others on this site display. I certainly don’t understand what many of stats mean today and don’t really feel that I need to know. I just enjoy following the Dodgers and watching them win as they have been lately.
I usually go to the MLB.com Dodgers home page and scroll down and look at all the team standings. Then I keep scrolling down until I get to the Dodgers leaders in batting. They list the stats that I have always been interested in. They had five stats listed. They were BA, runs, HR’s, RBI’s and SB’s. They had the same player leading in all 5 stats. His name is Mookie Betts. He must be a very selfish player by not sharing the leads with any of his team mates. 🙂
I like Dizzy. He’s a frustrating player. He’s very hot and cold over his career. He will get hot the Dodgers face lefties so then he sits awhile and comes back cold. This year we haven’t seen the hot streak yet. I think it will come. I don’t see the detachment and frankly was disappointed in people piling on him the other day. His defense in LF is more than adequate. I don’t think he has the arm for a RF. I can’t speak for his mental state after the trade went through but I have to believe he is happy to not be in Anaheim. Arbitration can certainly be an ugly thing. I believe AF tried to be understanding when the Dodgers didn’t even send anyone to the process. Joc will get hot again.
Any post with Alice Cooper is a good one. When speaking of spoiled athletes “Billion Dollar Babies” could slide right in there.
Have you watched a game from a venue that has no fake crowd and minimal, if any, sound effects? The Yankees come to mind. It’s like a scrimmage in a hanger.
I have complained in the past about the constant canned fake crowd noise at a piercing volume. I’m not a Dieter Ruehel fan.
But with no fans at Dodger Stadium the same canned noise sounds like what is familiar. The cut outs I thought would be corny but they are fun and a visual improvement over empty seats. The volume seems tolerable. All in all the crowd noise match’s up with the game action pretty well.
Question. Is Lance Lynn any relation to Fred Lynn who played for the RedSox?. Looked it up but could not find anything. Just wondered.
Without the fans no doubt a lot of energy has been zapped out of the game not only for the players but also for us fans. I know I feel it. It almost feels like a video game at times. But at least it brings some excitement into my socially distanced life. 2020 will be a year I’ll be excited to say goodbye to! And as far as old school, new school Clayton Kershaw is a player meant for any era! Still my favorite Dodger ever!
Interesting write-up. Framing is nothing new. We taught it in college fast pitch softball back in the 90s.
I think some analytics make sense, some do not. But I also believe the Dodgers rely on scouting more than many think.
One thing that has contributed to lower averages are shifts and players not making adjustments. There were two situations in a game the other day where the Dodgers had runners on first and second, nobody out, and the shift on. Instead of bunting down the line, pretty much a sure hit, the hitter pulled the ball into the shift and a double play. Hey, if you’re leading off and they move the third baseman to the SS position, drop a bunt.
Hitters need to adapt and take advantage of opportunities, then averages will go up.
Like you Bear, I too am proudly old school when it cones to how to play the game. I still think the old school is mostly the “right school”. I embrace most of the new technology. The innovations that help players get better. I would have used many of the technology if would have been available when I played and coached and if I could have afforded it. I used to spend entire Sundays crunching numbers from pitching charts to do reports to share with players. With the apps now that stuff could be spit out in 5 minutes. Oh the time that would have saved me.
Much of the new tech just supports and explains what we knew from observation; the “rising fastball”, the spin on the overhand curve (that we called “a drop” as kids), the back-up slider. We messed with grips, thumb position, finger pressure all the time to find movement and comfort. Now that’s done way better with technology.
I too am not sold on the abundance of stats. I still live in a world that believed you can prove anything you want by using selected statistics. I still look at BA and OPS for hitters and ER given up, BA against and K’s to walks for pitchers; all the old stats. I do have to look up WHIP to see if the number is good or bad and I don’t really get WPA and WAR. I don’t really care.
But after a very good amateur career, getting drafted 3 time, signing and playing a little pro ball and then coaching for 30 + years, I’m pretty comfortable using my eyes to evaluated players and the game. I still laugh at the New School scouts. I love to watch them with the guns, phones, cameras, electronic reports. If it rains during the game they might get electrocuted. The real evaluations are made by someone higher up who analyze the data they are expected to submit. My Old School scout friends absolute hate it. They are data collector. Their opinions and evaluations have gone the way of the dinosaurs, depending on the organizations’ philosophy. They will be gone soon.
thoughts on yesterday:
* Chicks dig the long ball
* speaking of old school versus new school, I used to argue with other coaches, especially young college coaches over the use of the “contact play” with a runner on 3rd. Yesterday, top 2nd, the Rockies after a walk, single an error have runners on 2nd and 3rd with no outs. Back in my day, the instructions to the runners would have been “Make sure the ball is through” the infield.
Now days with the contact play, the runner from 3rd just takes off on any ground ball. No read what-so-ever. So Murphy, a marginal runner, is dead meat at home, not even getting in a run down to let the trail runners advance. So when the dust settles they have runners at 1st and 2nd with one out. After a ground out and pop up, we’re out of the inning with 0 runs scored. I don’t get the play. Is a big league infielder going to throw the ball away enough to beat the odds? To me it’s just bad baseball.
Note: the only time I would run a contact play is with runners at 1st and 3rd with one out. Goal is stay out of the around the horn DP. Runner at third tries to get into a rundown in hopes of trail runners getting to 3rd and 2nd with 2 outs.
* Whats lost in the score yesterday and the 7 home runs is another SO-SO outing from Stripling. His line and my eyes tell me he’s not very good right now. The Rockies left 6 LOB and Strip wiggled off with only 2 earned in 4 innings. But he’s given up 10 homes in 29 innings and his stuff isn’t crisp. He is 91 (below average fastball now days) and straight as a string. And his location isn’t especially good. That stuff might play for an inning or 2 out of the pen but like “dogs that chase cars and 10 footers for pars” – It won’t last. So while Gonsolin is down learning the Trojan’s Fight Song, Strip has another mediocre start but benefits from 7 home runs.
* Bellinger’s homer was a thing of beauty. On 2 and 0 you figure he’s sitting on a fastball. Green Light Special. Instead, he got a fat breaking ball. Instead of spitting on it, he hit it out. I wonder if he was sitting on a breaker or just adjusted. Nice hitting.
In case you missed this yesterday:
I heard a poll today on a Chicago sports talk show: which player would you take to build your franchise around?
1) Luca Doncic
2) Patrick Mahomes
3) Fernando Tatis Jr
4) Conner McDavid
Carson Fulmer claimed off waivers by the Pirates. Brian Dozier, released by the Mets. Giants requested release waivers on Hunter Pence. The Angels are getting some inquiries on Dylan Bundy. And old pal Scott Kazmir is making a start for the Sugarland Skeeters, and independent league team in what some have called a showcase for MLB teams.
Trade deadline stuff:
Jacob Amaya, one of our infield prospects, has been added to the 60-man pool. I suppose he’s replacing Uceta who is now on the restricted list. That allows him to take part in the workouts at SC and…………………………………………would also enable him to be included in a trade this week.
Apparently some of the beat writers for both the Dodgers and Rangers have been talking about the possibility of our going after Lance Lynn. We play the Rangers on Saturday so if a trade went down, the logistics of getting him to LA on public transportation would be mitigated as he could just fly home on the Dodger charter. The Rangers are in bad need of a decent first baseman. I suggest that Mr. Rios might be someone of interest to them. Unless, that is, we have already earmarked him as JT’s successor at third base starting next year.
Unless the Rangers get very hot this week they will most likely be sellers at the deadline. That should make for some interesting conversation both here and in the front offices come next weekend.
Bear your posts are both entertaining and thought provoking!! I’m always glad, whenever Jeff has moved on from one of my posts and replaced it with yours, so we have something enjoyable to read!
As an “older” person, I have always loved how the game was played in the 60’s and earlier. That’s all I knew, and that’s how I learned the game. I would, at first blush, consider myself an “old-school” baseball man. However, I recognize how technology, when used correctly has made baseball a better game. I am of the opinion that, whether it be the use of video replay, or the more complex statistical analysis, the information provided helps the players be better prepared and better players. Mind you, they still have to execute and apply good old fashioned heart and hard work. We can debate until the cows come home whether Willie Mays was a better player than Mike Trout (I think he was), but because they played in different eras we’ll never know.
With respect to Joc Pederson, he has always been a favorite of mine and it’s disheartening to watch his performance so far this year. Maybe injury, attitude, family situation, or something else. We may never know. In summer camp he looked better than he had in a long, long time. Everything he hit was on the screws, and he appeared in much better shape. He even stole a couple of bases. Apparently, he had worked out with Austin Barnes “mobility” coach, and it looked like it really paid off. However, once the season started, he’s looked like an entirely different player. I’m hoping that he’s holding back for the playoffs and once they start he’ll go off the charts. As long as he’s on the Dodgers though, I’m rooting for him.
Matt Kemp was a favorite of mine too, but he wasn’t the same after his injury and the Dodgers needed a catcher. I hated the deal when Friedman pulled the trigger on it but in retrospect the Dodgers probably did fine. I should mention that the Dodgers saved a lot of money on the deal that allowed them to sign or trade for other players.
My view of the SABR revolution in baseball is that data is data, whether it comes from a scout or a computer and as long as the human element isn’t ignored, the data is helpful. I admit that I am not a fan of the current game where no starting pitcher is expect to go more than 7 innings and all of the hitters strike out or hit HRs. It’s not nearly as interesting to watch. But I would remind the reader that Ty Cobb hated the “new game” that came into being with Babe Ruth. Here’s an excerpt from an article by Dan Holmes in 2012:
” While Cobb and Tri Speaker and other champions of the “Dead Ball Era” were still playing the game according to the established strategy of one-run at a time, Ruth was ushering in a new era of fence busting. He shunned the idea of choking up on the bat. He ignored the stigma of strikeouts. He refused to accept that he couldn’t have a high batting average and hit the ball for distance. It never entered his mind that he shouldn’t swing as hard as he could all the time.
That sickened Cobb.
“Anyone can hit a home run if they try,” the Detroit star sneered. “It’s a brute way to approach the game.””
Baseball changes all of the time. I started watching the Dodgers in the 60’s which was a pitching-dominated era, at least until they lowered the mound and changed the strike zone. But we have had periods which were “balanced” between pitching and offense like the 70’s, the Steroid Era, and now the SABR Era.
For a while, it seemed like all of the pitchers kept the ball down and away. Now that hitters try to uppercut everything, most pitchers like to pitch up in the zone. But it will all change.
The one thing that doesn’t change is that to win on a sustained basis, the best teams grow their own players, so the team with the best player development system is set up to win. The Dodgers did that better than anyone for several decades. They are doing it again. If I admire the Dodgers in the Friedman Era for anything, it’s that – growing new Dodgers the right way and adding talent when needed is the way to win for a prolonged period.
Bear, a thought-provoking essay. I am not a computer person, whatever that may mean. I suppose I am in some ways a Luddite. I do think that artificial intelligence is very scary. Stephen Hawking said it was the greatest danger to the future of humanity. A step or two less than that, but very frightening, is how the social media companies track every purchase, every comment, made by subscribers, and then send it to computer companies whose psychologically based algorithms are able to know exactly what words, labels, and news, real or invented, will cause them to vote or buy the way that they want them to. Madison Avenue, and Vance Packard’s book, “The Hidden Persuaders” date back many decades, but what we have now is more insidious and pervasive; it is doctoring reality in the service of those who want various ends, mostly increasing their own wealth and power.
So what does all this have to do with baseball analytics? Not too much, but I do have this wariness about computers and the reams of date they generate. it also relates to my dislike of computer umpires. The game should be played on the field; and we do not like or want errors, but we should accept some, because it is humanity. Thinking about this aspect the other day, i had a flash of imagining an employee being told, by readout, of course, that his work output, analyzed by the computer, did not merit a raise. No argument, or plea, or attempt to show various things that he or she did which were more nuanced, or less quantifiable, would affect the computer’s decision. Or imagine a woman going on a date, and deciding if she will date the man again, based on what the computer says: percentages regarding will the next date be better; will he be able to provide for a family; the; chance he might cheat on her. These readouts, if such ever became reality, would be based on multiple data points, past results, probabilities. But there is something beyond all that date, what we might call the ineffable, that which we feel or sense. That can be wrong, too, but it should not be ignored, unless we want a race of soulless computers.
Well, that is, in some small way at least, what i feel about computer analytics. They have undoubtedly created some interesting new statistics to look at. And surely someone like Billy Beane or the people in Houston, or Friedman, have made good use of them. But I also value simply watching sports, trying to look at all the aspects, not reify the statistics. Can our own perceptions mislead us into over- or undervaluing a player? Of course, but the statistics can also offer a misleading substitute to actually watching the games, and particularly in terms of which players come up big in the clutch, and which ones get a lot of their hits in games which are already decided.
Now, one could say that enough statistics fed into computers can account for all of that, but i don’t think so. Throughout the decades of following the Dodgers, I have seen some players who I was always happy to see come up in the crucial moment;, and others who I just knew would not rise to the occasion. Was I always right about that? Of course not. And sometimes players improved or declined in that aspect. But i still would rather trust my sense of which players are more or less valuable than their data points, than rely on these fashionable data categories the analytics gurus have created.
Let’s look at manager Bruce Bochy. I didn’t follow the Giants closely enough to know exactly what he did; but you cannot luck into three World Titles, with teams which really didn’t have an immense amount of talent. Those Giants teams seemed to always advance runners, work the counts, do something to drive in a key run at a crucial moment; while too many of the Dodgers teams would fluctuate between games where we scored 10 runs, hit six home runs; and other games where we could not advance any runners, struck out or popped up, when even a ground ball or a medium fly ball would have mattered. There is that aspect of sports which still exists, where all the data in the world cannot capture which players have the greatest hearts, In a purely sports-oriented sense; which ones simply refuse to lose; and which ones press, overswing, are susceptible to any smart pitcher who can take advantage of that.
Focusing just on the Dodgers, I will always believe that no titles in 31 years, even with some excellent talent, is not just bad luck, it is due to not having enough players who do more than their numbers might ever show, the kind we used to have in the 1960’s. How would Jim Gilliam show up on these data charts? i don’t know, but even as a boy, i knew that he was such a smart player, so adaptive, that he would probably do something to help the Dodgers win, even if it was just a ground ball to the right side, waiting out a walk to advance the lead runner, or making a fine play on a hard grounder to third with the bases loaded, which would have cost the Dodgers the 1965 World Championship, had it gotten through. One Jim Gilliam on your club was worth a lot more than having some players with gaudier statistics but without his baseball intelligence and heart.
Sorry for the extended post, but this is a subject which I have strong opinions about, and which is endlessly intriguing.
I disliked the trade for many reasons. One for sure was Grandal’s suspension for PED use. Yes, Kemp was a favorite, and to tell the truth, I could care less what his defensive metrics were, I would have only cared about that if I cared about analytics. Kemp was a hitter. . He played more games than Grandal in 2015, had more homers, 100 ribbies and generally had a decent season. Grandal was mediocre on defense. His caught stealing rate was not all that great, and unfortunately, pitch framing is not a stat. He filled a position of need which is very true. So in that sense I understood the trade. But at the time of the trade there was a lot of character assassination going on saying Kemp was traded more because he was a clubhouse cancer, and that was also why Ramirez was not resigned. I get that too. They immediately turned one of the players they got back to the Phillies for an obviously over the hill Jimmy Rollins. Kemp had an even better year offensively in 2016 again topping 100 RBI’s. And isn’t the objective to outscore the enemy? But that is all water under the bridge. I simply, like a few others that played in LA before him, did not like the guy. I do not know his character in the clubhouse, but I know what I saw on the field. He was not clutch, and he faded late in the season. And a bigger tell, his post season numbers as a Dodger are abysmal. He never proved me wrong in the 4 years he wore the uniform. He also led the league in passed balls a couple of those years. I was glad when he left. I do not despise Grandal. I dislike him. Very different emotion. So please, never assume you know what I am feeling because you have no clue as to who I am or what makes me tick.Oh yeah, how could he be more productive when Kemp continually drove in more runs? I do not get that at all.
There is a favorite book of mine. Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell, The essence of the book is this: it is small things; things we can’t necessarily measure but, through experience and intuition, nevertheless guide us and give us more insight than those things we can measure.
He illustrated the book with a series of stories or examples. The story that I remember the most was the story of the Kouros. A Kouros is an early Greek statue archetype. It is stylistically different from the later Hellenic or Roman Hellenistic sculpture – like the guy throwing the discus in the early Olympics. Those are more realistic and usually dynamically convey action. The Kouros doesn’t convey action or emotion. It is simpler, with just a very erect figure with one leg stepping forward.
None of that really matters. The point of the story in the book was the discovery of a Kouros in 1989 or so. It was notable for its near flawlessness. It was completely intact. No broken limbs, no chips. For a museum, this would be the crown jewel in any Greek collection and would add immensely to the prestige to that institution. So, the Getty set out to do its due diligence to determine its authenticity, because it really did seem almost too good to be true. The patina on the outside was entirely consistent with a marble object of that particular age, and the marble was a type consistent with the region at the time – so determined the battery of advanced scientific tests that were conducted over many months.
So, satisfied that this particular Kouros example was authentic – after all, the science said it was – the Getty spent many millions of dollars buying the world’s best example of early Greek sculpture. To showcase their new acquisition, before the official presentation to the general public, they invited many of the world’s foremost antiquities scholars and art experts for an advanced viewing. This was all eagerly anticipated. The discovery and acquisition by the Getty was big news in the art world.
However, when those who had spent their professional lifetimes studying early Greek statues finally were able to see the new Kouros, the reaction was consistent. They were repulsed. Many had a negative physical reaction – like something so instinctively wrong it makes you cringe. It just seemed off. At the same time, these experts couldn’t really put their fingers on what exactly made it so wrong. To them, however, it was very clearly a fake, although they couldn’t explain why.
It turns out it was. It was a very very good fake. It fooled the scientists the Getty had hired. It didn’t, however, pass the eyeball test of those who knew early Greek sculpture from many years of looking at and studying early Greek sculpture. Their understanding became instinctive. Their experience formed their intuition.
The new crop of analytics is better at providing insight than the old standards such as batting average or wins. They won’t take the place of human insight. There will always be a place for human experience. In fact, human intuition is very often influenced by bias and or sentimentality.
Bear made a comment the other day denigrating the Matt Kemp trade for Grandal. I’m guessing that, to him, Kemp was a sentimental favorite and, as we’ve all learned over the years, Michael despises Grandal for reasons that may be unrelated to his play (his prior PED use, maybe?). The statistics tell us something different. I thought Preller got so thoroughly fleeced by that trade that I’m surprised he kept his job. Kemp hit a little in Diego, but his defensive metrics were so bad that it made him, in conjunction to that bloated contract, a player with very little trade value, and his poor defense was just a really bad fit in cavernous Petco. AF was wise to leverage Kemp’s pretty good 2014 year to get a younger, controllable and better pitch framer in a position of need in Grandal.
Roberts has been accused many many times here of just taking his lineup orders from some computer printout from upstairs. He’s merely a puppet of analytics. If that were true, there is no way Kershaw would’ve been put in that situation against the Nats in the playoffs last year, and he certainly wouldn’t have pitched to Soto. That was Roberts going with his gut, and not only that, but being influenced by sentimentality and bias. I think what influenced that decision was the desire to have the face of the franchise for so many years get some well deserved glory in a key moment – to undo some of his past playoff failings. It was a case of the heart making the decision his head (or the numbers) wouldn’t.
AF has intuition, too. I’ve argued many times that his prior life as a Wall Street hedge fund guy has given him lessons in baseball management. As a money manager, you have every tool at your disposal to analyze equities and the financial market, but it takes experienced intuition to find value and market inefficiencies. AF is good at this, which is useful when you’re plucking guys off the open market to create a successful relief corps – and team – without throwing big money at guys who, more often than not, don’t provide comparable value.
I think more than that, however, is that AF has grown into the job as well. He’s focused on, not simply finding hidden value, but creating an organization of players and coaches with high character and high baseball IQ. This isn’t a stat that can be measured, but it is important.
We must be about the same age and have the same thoughts when it comes to baseball today and in the past. The most exciting thing about my youth was going to Dodger Stadium with my parents. It established my love for the game. I miss Vin and the players of the 60’s. Different approach to the game back then and I miss it. But it’s good to be in first place and I still listen or watch every game and always will.
For those that need Dodgers baseball on this offday, our taxi squad will play a game at Dodger Stadium today at 4pm. It can be streamed on Facebook, twitter, etc.
Should be fun seeng all the kids; even guys like Hoese and Busch should be out there.
There is a favorite book of mine. Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell, The essence of the book is this: it is small things; things we can’t necessarily measure but, through experience and intuition, nevertheless guide us and give us more insight than those things we can measure.
He illustrated the book with a series of stories or examples. The story that I remember the most was the story of the Kouros. A Kouros is an early Greek statue archetype. It is stylistically different from the later Hellenic or Roman Hellenistic sculpture – like the guy throwing the discus in the early Olympics. Those are more realistic and usually dynamically convey action. The Kouros doesn’t convey action or emotion. It is simpler, with just a very erect figure with one leg stepping forward.
None of that really matters. The point of the story in the book was the discovery of a Kouros in 1989 or so. It was notable for its near flawlessness. It was completely intact. No broken limbs, no chips. For a museum, this would be the crown jewel in any Greek collection and would add immensely to the prestige to that institution. So, the Getty set out to do its due diligence to determine its authenticity, because it really did seem almost too good to be true. The patina on the outside was entirely consistent with a marble object of that particular age, and the marble was a type consistent with the region at the time – so determined the battery of advanced scientific tests that were conducted over many months.
So, satisfied that this particular Kouros example was authentic – after all, the science said it was – the Getty spent many millions of dollars buying the world’s best example of early Greek sculpture. To showcase their new acquisition, before the official presentation to the general public, they invited many of the world’s foremost antiquities scholars and art experts for an advanced viewing. This was all eagerly anticipated. The discovery and acquisition by the Getty was big news in the art world.
However, when those who had spent their professional lifetimes studying early Greek statues finally were able to see the new Kouros, the reaction was consistent. They were repulsed. Many had a negative physical reaction – like something so instinctively wrong it makes you cringe. It just seemed off. At the same time, these experts couldn’t really put their fingers on what exactly made it so wrong. To them, however, it was very clearly a fake, although they couldn’t explain why.
It turns out it was. It was a very very good fake. It fooled the scientists the Getty had hired. It didn’t, however, pass the eyeball test of those who knew early Greek sculpture from many years of looking at and studying early Greek sculpture. Their understanding became instinctive. Their experience formed their intuition.
The new crop of analytics is better at providing insight than the old standards such as batting average or wins. They won’t take the place of human insight. There will always be a place for human experience. In fact, human intuition is very often influenced by bias and or sentimentality.
Bear made a comment the other day denigrating the Matt Kemp trade for Grandal. I’m guessing that, to him, Kemp was a sentimental favorite and, as we’ve all learned over the years, Michael despises Grandal for reasons that may be unrelated to his play (his prior PED use, maybe?). The statistics tell us something different. I thought Preller got so thoroughly fleeced by that trade that I’m surprised he kept his job. Kemp hit a little in Diego, but his defensive metrics were so bad that it made him, in conjunction to that bloated contract, a player with very little trade value, and his poor defense was just a really bad fit in cavernous Petco. AF was wise to leverage Kemp’s pretty good 2014 year to get a younger, controllable and better pitch framer in a position of need in Grandal.
Roberts has been accused many many times here of just taking his lineup orders from some computer printout from upstairs. He’s merely a puppet of analytics. If that were true, there is no way Kershaw would’ve been put in that situation against the Nats in the playoffs last year, and he certainly wouldn’t have pitched to Soto. That was Roberts going with his gut, and not only that, but being influenced by sentimentality and bias. I think what influenced that decision was the desire to have the face of the franchise for so many years get some well deserved glory in a key moment – to undo some of his past playoff failings. It was a case of the heart making the decision his head (or the numbers) wouldn’t.
AF has intuition, too. I’ve argued many times that his prior life as a Wall Street hedge fund guy has given him lessons in baseball management. As a money manager, you have every tool at your disposal to analyze equities and the financial market, but it takes experienced intuition to find value and market inefficiencies. AF is good at this, which is useful when you’re plucking guys off the open market to create a successful relief corps – and team – without throwing big money at guys who, more often than not, don’t provide comparable value.
I think more than that, however, is that AF has grown into the job as well. He’s focused on, not simply finding hidden value, but creating an organization of players and coaches with high character and high baseball IQ. This isn’t a stat that can be measured, but it is important.
Very nice post Bear,as we reach the half way point of the season with the Dodgers having the best record in baseball I see a team that to me is very talented but not that much fun to watch. I agree with you that Betts is the most exciting player on the Dodgers and to me the most fun to watch. Pederson played some great games for the Dodgers but it’s time for him to move on,maybe with another team he will get the chance to play everyday.
Another fine piece Michael – and thought provoking.
As fans I guess we are always looking for perfection, and improvement, and I’m sure fans on other sites all do the same.
I think some of you have missed the point on what is up with Joc.
I think it hurt him deeply that he was traded to the Angels for arguably a bag of balls, having come up through the Dodgers system, and in another world, could have possibly been a WS MVP.
That must’ve been a crushing blow to him. He had always been a tremendous team mate, and along with Kike, one of the main cheer leaders for the others.
He does not feel wanted. He is hurting.
Now, some people will say that he should “Man Up”, and “go out and prove them all wrong”.
Joc isn’t wired like that. He feels rejected. He is not a complicated character, I think he feels awkward.
Baseball is brutal. One day you’re playing for one of the top teams, perennial Post Season contenders, the next, you’re in a different uniform, possibly on another coast, playing with a bunch of strangers, with no chance of contending.
Added to that (I follow Joc on Insta), he really is a family guy. We have seen how close he is to his brother Champ, but he is a doting father to his young daughter and wife.
His posts often mention how much he is missing his family at this time.
He is probably feeling very vulnerable at this unprecedented time, being stuck in the “Bubble”.
I’ve grown to really like Joc. We all deal with adversity differently, but Joc’s laissez faire attitude is his way of dealing with his current situation.
We are all different, this is just his coping mechanism.
Just wanted to mark the half way point by saying how much I’m enjoying the season considering how unusual it is, and how, once it all started, how Baseball has stopped people focusing on all the negative stuff that is going on everywhere at the moment, and how this site seems to grow and grow.
I want to thank Jeff for allowing me to write for this site. I will always try to make my posts entertaining when possible. I do not want to degrade players in any way shape or form. I understand that they are who they are. And just like a beautiful woman, or a sunset you might never forget, the skills they bring to the game are skills I and most here have never had. I live vicariously through them. My baseball dreams they either fulfill, or crush. But no matter what, I will always love the game.