Article: Twins Believe Hot Start Is More Than Smoke (Machine) And Mirrors

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

I don't think it is all luck, but I don't think the success of the team is all skill, or "grit", or whatever nonsense intangible measurement (Puntos?) that old-school baseball guys want to use, either.

 

My whole point in the posts I've made in the thread is that it is a combination of stats, analysis and outcomes/events. There is luck involved, but I think you can only be so lucky before there has to be something else going on....

 

The terrible bunt by Mauer yesterday that resulted in a run and a long rally instead of a double play was a lucky break, but it also probably caught the Sox by surprise. The Twins put on a play to force the Red Sox to execute. The Red Sox failed to execute, so they lost. Just because the analysis and conventional wisdom is that play should be a double play doesn't mean the Red Sox get a do-over. If that were case, I'd want all those outs that our infielders in the outfield "should have" caught last year.

 

Yes, the Twins have been very lucky this year... all I'm saying is that luck is (in part) a product of forcing the issue and not taking anything for granted.  

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

No, but that is a me issue.

 

That and I hate quoting super long posts, so it is 50/50 our issue. Have a great day, doc.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I don't think it is all luck, but I don't think the success of the team is all skill, or "grit", or whatever nonsense intangible measurement (Puntos?) that old-school baseball guys want to use, either.

 

My whole point in the posts I've made in the thread is that it is a combination of stats, analysis and outcomes/events. There is luck involved, but I think you can only be so lucky before there has to be something else going on....

 

The terrible bunt by Mauer yesterday that resulted in a run and a long rally instead of a double play was a lucky break, but it also probably caught the Sox by surprise. The Twins put on a play to force the Red Sox to execute. The Red Sox failed to execute, so they lost. Just because the analysis and conventional wisdom is that play should be a double play doesn't mean the Red Sox get a do-over. If that were case, I'd want all those outs that our infielders in the outfield "should have" caught last year.

 

Yes, the Twins have been very lucky this year... all I'm saying is that luck is (in part) a product of forcing the issue and not taking anything for granted.  

 

This is an issue with most humans, they really have a hard time accepting randomness being the absolute norm of existence. On the scale of activity we are looking at, each individual outcome is more random than we want to admit. People always look for someone or something to "blame" when a car accident happens, or when the economy goes up or down, or even a 1 day change in the stock market. But for most every THING that happens*, it is fairly random.

 

*thing, not things. once we get enough things, we can reasonably well predict what is LIKELY to happen, but not what WILL happen.

 

Luck and randomness really rule individual events. Like a hit ball missing the glove of an infielder by an inch, or a put lipping out, or an ump missing a call......all random.

 

And, our brains don't like that.

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

The funny thing about this conversation is that I think we agree.

[Mike Sixel]

 

The funny thing about this conversation is that I think we agree.

 

Most people here agree most of the time.....and yet we yell at each other too much.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

The funny thing about this conversation is that I think we agree.

Probably just luck.  

[drjim]

One thought I have had on luck/randomness in the context of baseball analysis is that it might be too much of a go to phrase to explain the things that currently can't be captured objectively. Saying we aren't sure is not as interesting as saying it is luck/randomness. I suspect that in the near future some (if not much) of this will be captured in some way.

 

And for the Twins, I think the main reason for the current record is clustering. I don't know if this is luck or random but likely unsustainable (which all might be the same thing).

 

My much more cynical thought on this is that people who really, really accept baseball metrics and use them to completely explain the game and expected outcomes struggle when things fall outside the model. Easier to describe as random/luck than to look at possible intangible explanations and/or emphasize errors in the models. (And by errors I don't mean they are necessarily "wrong" but difficulty in capturing outliers).

 

All that said, I don't think the Twins are a magical team that will defy all metrics forever. They are going to have to improve their true talent level one way or the other to stay in the playoff race.

 

And I am an economist by training, so I am just practicing my ability to speak out of all sides of my mouth.

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

 

Probably just luck.  

Luck and we "play the game the right way"

[jimmer]

 

 

And for the Twins, I think the main reason for the current record is clustering. I don't know if this is luck or random but likely unsustainable (which all might be the same thing).

 

 

 

 

I believe Cameron talked a lot about sequencing to explain it and to explain why it likely doesn't continue. (which is clustering).

Edited June 5, 2015 by jimmer

[drjim]

 

I believe Cameron talked a lot about sequencing to explain it and the explain why it likely doesn't continue. (which is clustering).

 

He did. I agree with him. True talent level needs to improve to sustain.

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

Ultimately, I think it's called luck until there's data to define the successful situation and then that data is being used in the game to create a successful outcome.

 

For example, if a batter hits a line drive and a fielder is standing right there to get it, we might call that lucky.

 

If that line drive was hit into an extreme shift, then it's considered to be sound strategy to move the fielders into the place the batter's most likely to hit the ball.

 

The Sox error on the Mauer bunt was luck. If Molitor knew that Sandoval is more likely to drop the ball on a throw from the catcher at that time of day, and then called for the bunt to try to force an error, well, that's crazy, but if somehow that was supported by data, it wouldn't be luck so much as a strategy.

 

Molitor spoke about the bunt after the game and sounded almost upset about the outcome. It was not a good bunt by Mauer, so he probably wanted his players to execute the play. Molitor did call for the sacrifice, he wanted to get the guys in a position to score.  It worked out, and the miscue seemed to breed more miscues. Again, not actually related events, but the story you tell your kids makes the fish get bigger every year.

 

The Twins are lucky because they can't explain how they are doing it, and it is not a repeatable strategy that is making them successful. If they could figure out how they could get Santana to hit, or to incorporate the trio (Arcia, Vargas, Pinto) back into the middle of the lineup without sacrificing too much on defense, I think they could flip the switch from lucky to good.  

 

[by jiminy]

About Ryan's seemingly contradictory comments that he doesn't like it when people criticise the team without seeing them play, but then he drafts people without seeing them play:

 

My reading of this is that he just doesn't want his brief scouting of a player to overrule his scouts, who have watched the player much, much more than he has.

 

So by doing this he's still expressing confidence in the process of watching people play -- he's just respecting that his scouts have put in a lot more eye-witness hours than he has -- a position that is both consistent, and one I really respect.

[Mike Sixel]

If you can't handle criticism, you probably should not be in a leadership role for your own health.

Edited June 6, 2015 by mike wants wins

[drivlikejehu]

The thing is that Ryan won't admit he was wrong even if the Twins end up with 90+ losses. He's good at saying words like "accountability" and what not, but even better at avoiding the actual realization of those concepts.