Article: Free Agent Pitching: 20/20 Hindsight

[Mike Sixel]

Your argument that they aren't bad at drafting players is that 4 seasons ago they had some good pitchers?

[old nurse]

Correlation is measured between -1 and 1. Anything above 0 is considered correlation and I generally think of it this way:

 

.66-1 = High correlation

.33-.66 = Moderate Correlation

0-.33 = Low correlation

 

So contract size is moderate to low correlation but still well above a crap shoot which I interpreted as no correlation.

a .39 correlation means that if you want to believe the theory you believe it. It also means if you don't want to believe the theory you can do that, too.

[Oxtung]

A scientist makes a prediction based on a theory. He then tests the prediction in the lab. The test works as predicted (within a margin of error). Therefore, the theory has some validity.

 

A GM makes a decision based on a theory and some facts. He then tests the decision on the field in the form of giving the player an opportunity. The prediction holds, as the player was successful. Therefore, the decision was right.

 

A scientist makes a prediction based on a theory. He then tests the prediction in the lab. Unfortunately, the test fails to show what he expects. This invalidates the theory.

 

A GM signs a player based on a theory and some facts. He then tests the theory on the field in the form of giving the player an opportunity. Unfortunately, the test fails as the player fails to perform as well as the GM's theory predicted. Therefore, the decision was wrong.

 

This is the kind of reasoning we use in everyday life. I fail to see that it is invalid or it's "just not how the world works."

 

I do web marketing. We build experiences and test them in multivariate settings. The one that works the best gets adopted. We then continue to test that experience and iteratively improve it.

 

The whole premise is that you can't really know all that much about how an experience will work in advance until you test it. When you test it, you can say, "I guess option B was best."

 

This is a lot like what GMs do. They have limited data. Humans are not robots. So they take their best shot. If it doesn't work out, they say, "Well, I guess I was wrong." If everybody knew the right answer before trying it, it wouldn't be a game. The guys who play the game the best win. But even the best GMs are right a little better than half the time, which is why they hedge their bets by getting depth.

 

Oh, and the stats guy never said it was Correia. He said it was a player they were considering acquiring. It seems likely that if he did it for one player, he did it for every player they acquired.

 

According to my wife, who is a research scientist, she is judged, and paid, based on whether her theory is sound and if it will return significant new results that will help move the field forward. She isn't paid based on results of those experiments. Results and the theory are two separate processes and are judged as such. If you're theory is sound you get paid. If your results are interesting, doesn't matter whether they agree or conflict with your theory, you get published. Two separate process with two separate results.

[tobynotjason]

Using any of the metrics is fine if you understand the limitations of them. You sign a player to play in your baseball park 81 games a year. What that player does should suit your park. All of the metrics attempt to get rid of that factor. Any metric is a look backwards wether or not it is sustainable no metric measures.

 

 

What on earth re: Correia is particularly suited to Target Field (which btw had an above average HR Factor last year)? Why is anything about his stuff likely to play significantly better than DIPS numbers would suggest?

 

I mean, sure, superior defense (which has nothing to do with your home park) will proportionately help low K pitchers more than high K pitchers, but it helps all pitchers a lot, and in any case that's an argument at the extreme margin. (Note that I'm not suggesting the Twins have "superior defense", just addressing that argument were that TR's plan.)

[drjim]

According to my wife, who is a research scientist, she is judged, and paid, based on whether her theory is sound and if it will return significant new results that will help move the field forward. She isn't paid based on results of those experiments. Results and the theory are two separate processes and are judged as such. If you're theory is sound you get paid. If your results are interesting, doesn't matter whether they agree or conflict with your theory, you get published. Two separate process with two separate results.

 

You can also get paid if your theory matches the desires of those requesting it. This is true whether or not the theory actually means anything in reality.

[drjim]

Unless it fails year, after year, after year, and you have zero, not one, starter in your rotation you drafted, and the ones you had the year before were bad (not Baker, he was good), and the same as the year before.......the fear of downside risk shown by the fans of this team astounds me, it really does. You are not wrong to have that fear if you want, people have different appetities, but it does amaze me.

 

Why do different risk preferences and calculations amaze you? Using "fear" shows significant misunderstanding.

[Mike Sixel]

Because the posts are always about the downside, and never about the upside, so it is fear, not risk analysis. Trust me, I know about risk analysis, and what is stated on here is not about that at all. Maybe for you it is. I stand by my comment, maybe "fear" is too strong, but super risk averse isn't.....that distinction to me is one without sufficient distance between the terms to have meaning. YMMV on that distinction.

 

edited to be shorter and to the point....

[Oxtung]

You can also get paid if your theory matches the desires of those requesting it. This is true whether or not the theory actually means anything in reality.

 

So you're saying that Terry Ryan is just working within the predefined parameters set forth by the Pohlads? I would probably agree with that.

[drjim]

Because the posts are always about the downside, and never about the upside, so it is fear, not risk analysis. Trust me, I know about risk analysis, and what is stated on here is not about that at all. Maybe for you it is. I stand by my comment, maybe "fear" is too strong, but super risk averse isn't.....that distinction to me is one without sufficient distance between the terms to have meaning. YMMV on that distinction.

 

edited to be shorter and to the point....

 

I would respectfully disagree. Broad, balanced points are whittled down to specific points - in this particular point the disagreement is on the downside risk of long term pitching contracts. Few (if any) would argue signing a pitcher like this would result in anything other than extra wins in the short term. It isn't mentioned because I see it as understood.

[old nurse]

What on earth re: Correia is particularly suited to Target Field (which btw had an above average HR Factor last year)? Why is anything about his stuff likely to play significantly better than DIPS numbers would suggest?

 

I mean, sure, superior defense (which has nothing to do with your home park) will proportionately help low K pitchers more than high K pitchers, but it helps all pitchers a lot, and in any case that's an argument at the extreme margin. (Note that I'm not suggesting the Twins have "superior defense", just addressing that argument were that TR's plan.)

Not a darn thing to do with Correia as I never mentioned Correia. l.