SSI on "Appeal to Authority"

... which nobody is DOING, compadre

.

Q.  Are MLB talent scouts able to evaluate players based on intuitive judgments?

A.  The thought was floated that they aren't.  In this article the author implies that the only appropriate tool for making roster decisions is a performance-based analysis.

For example:

.

Every year, though, decisions are made based on how players do in March. The decisions are justified by claiming that it they aren’t based on the results, but on how the players look to experienced coaches and scouts who are paid to evaluate players in an up-close-and-personal atmosphere. The problem is that human beings — even experienced scouts and coaches — are pretty terrible at evaluating the difference between “how a guy looks” and what his results are.

 

Incidentally an incorrect implication, but the spirit is clear.

.

Q.  What makes you think that "experienced scouts and coaches" can evaluate anything based how a guy looks?

A.  Oh, just f'r instance, let's consider the amateur draft.

In this Baseball Analysts article, Sky Andrecheck examines the MLB return that franchises have gotten with their draft picks.

He finds a verrrrrrry nice, smooth curve:  the higher an amateur player was taken, the better the career he had in the major leagues.

.

Q.  Implying what?  What's your point?

A.   That MLB franchises knew how good that amateurs would turn out to be, up and down the draft, with a remarkable level of accuracy.

.

Q.  Implying what?  Still don't get your point.

A.  Do you think they used a performance analysis paradigm to evaluate anything?  Or do you suppose that they evaluated 18-year-olds based on how a guy looked?

If experienced scouts and coaches can't tell anything based on how a guy looks, what is that curve doing there?

.

Q.  Oh.

A.  Any time we sabermigos get to thinking we know it all, and Eric Wedge knows nothing, we might do well to remember the amateur draft.  How large a distance is there between you, gentle reader, and your being able to achieve a curve like the one above, based on watching high school games?

There is a million miles between ME, and me getting a curve like the one above, by watching high school players.  I doubt the distance between YOU and there, is much less than that.

.........

Now remember something:  the above curve is based on the talents and abilities of fine men who are at the bottom of the MLB employee pool.  Jack Zduriencik, and Eric Wedge -- and all GM's and Managers -- are they at the bottom of the MLB employee pool?  Or are their skills at all toward the top of the pyramid.

.

Q.  One last question.  The Mariners did seem to do pretty lousy last March, making decisions off Arizona performance.

A.  I think there's a lot of "noise" in their 2-for-7 result last year.  :- )  But if you want us to go point-by-point, just let us know.

Supposing the Mariners did do lousy last year, which I don't necessarily suppose, would that mean you'd give up the task?  After all, every good organization watches spring training ......

.

Q.  What is appeal to authority, by the way?

A.  The syllogism thusly:

Most of what authority A has to say on subject matter S is correct.
A says P about subject matter S.
Therefore, P is correct.

If you can find ANY statement in the last few years, locally, with that final line in it, I'll buy you a Good Humor bar.  

We are arguing about whether Capt Jack's and Sgt Wedge's intuition should be ONE PIECE OF THE PUZZLE, or whether it shouldn't be.

Nobody says Eric Wedge must be correct because he's the manager.  Nobody.

.

Your friend,

Dr D

 

 

 

 

Klat Categories: 

Comments

ghost's picture

ghost

In terms of weeding out noise...I go game by game and count up the statistics ONLY of players with a legitimate chance of making the big league roster and only when those players are competing against other players who have a legitimate chance of coming home a big leaguer.

To clarify...we see that Justin Smoak went 2 for 3 with a walk, a sharp single to right, a line out to left and a two run homer. Those ABs occurred against:

BB: The starting pitcher - an establishe dbig leaguer
Line Out: The team's primary set-up man
1B: Someone with maybe a 10% chance to make the club
GW HR: An MLB (TM) Mr. Magic Closer

So...in my head, Smoak went 1 for 2 with a walk and an impressive HR.

I've made a habit of doing this...it works better than you;'d think at getting rid of the noise.

1

and I have trouble believing the managers, coaches, and GMs that are watching every play are unduly influenced by stats. The advantage to small samples like this is that it becomes easier to remember hard hit outs and fly balls as well as embarrassing strikeouts and batters being fooled on pitches. Fans rely on stats because we can't see every game, much less the batting practices, the bullpens, and the drills, and we can only guess how a player is feeling physically or mentally. Much as we may not understand from outside, all those things contribute to decision making processes, as well they should.

And from the last spring training we have:

Saunders wins vs. Wells, good call
Kawasaki wins vs. Rodriguez, my guess is the Mariners didn't believe in Rodriguez at Short
Liddi wins vs. Peguero, push
Beavan wins vs. Ramirez, fail, but tucking Ramirez in the bullpen was a hedge that didn't work when hr was injured, it should be pointed out that Beavan didn't exactly implode.
Noesi wins vs. Iwakuma, again a fail, and again, the Mariners tucked him into the bullpen and had him work on strengthening his arm according to Baker.

2

He hit .455 (or whatever) in spring and Wedge shocked us all by announcing, loud and clear, that he was a utility player who wouldn't be used much.

Very odd for other blogs to hold that one up as a case-in-point.  He was precisely an example of the club SEEING THROUGH spring training stats.

3

He routinely gives you the report as to whether a good game occurred against premium competition and, if so, whether the pitcher was just out there working on something.

It's a great point.  And, yes, you still might wind up with only an 8-for-17 batting line against premium pitching but ... suppose it were 0-for-17?  Would people hesitate to bust Smoak's (or Figgins', or Peguero's) chops for a terrible result?

................

Pitcher J:  3 strikeouts, 10 walks in 20 innings

Pitcher J2:  21 strikeouts, 2 walks in 20 innings

One of those is, on March 27th, Jon Garland and one is Jeremy Bonderman.  The Enlightened GM wouldn't even want to know which had been which?

4

The same was something I noticed about Bays HR off Tyson Ross in the 1st. In general the Mariners have been scoring early which means that our most likely MLBers were scoring against their most likely. Nobody can convince me that this is not positive.

I dont appeal that completely. More like since A said P, P may be true. The Zunino quote early this morning is a pretty good example where since Zunino said that Maurer has a good changeup I explore the possible implications of him saying so. I've said the same recently about pressure in certain lineup spots and veteran leadership. Outside of that appeal in that situation, since the players and coaches believe in those things I believe there's a possibility in their effect. In that case you are talking about faith in abilities which is a key to life. If the players themselves have more faith in their success while wearing tie dyed armbands, give them the armbands. They will produce better if they have faith that they will.

5

I read the article in question on the Big Blog and left with similar issues with it. ST stats are, in aggregate, less than optimal. Still, the author uses Iwakuma as an example of ST performance bias. Baker (who is with the team, coaches, trainers and players every single day) has indicated that in ST and thorugh the first half of the season, Iwakuma literally took 3+ days to recover from throwing a couple of innings. It wasn't his ST stats that kept him out of the starting rotation - it was the fact that he wasn't ready for the SP grind. I think it's to the club's credit that they kept him around until he was.

Too, they don't get credit for the correct decisions. Catricala had a very good ST and the M's had no incumbent (beyond Figgins) at 3B. But they made the call to send him to AAA - a decision that his performance in 2012 says was the right call.

Long way of saying that these things are a lot more nuanced than a simple "teams pay too much attention to ST stats". Fans probably do but I doubt the front office does. (Much).

6

Hearing the concerns, Zduriencik went down to watch some AB's, watched the hitters stand on the plate and dare Iwakuma to throw something, watched them line shots around like BP, and shook his head "fuhgeddabdouit."

It wasn't stats at all.  Iwakuma's stats were fine - as I recall he had a 3:1 control ratio or something.

7

I pretty much agree with everything you've said in this article.

But, it does make me wonder about one thing. What is the 'normal' skew between "looks" and "performance"?

My thinking is in a VERY high % of cases, the looks and production agree. In all of those cases, the question of "tastes great" or "less filling" is moot.

Let's face it ... in baseball it is HARD to look horrible and be very productive. We remember those exceptions (and likely overestimate their total number), for the simple reason they ARE exceptions.

Looking exclusively at stats, I pegged Carp as a better bet than Smoak, (I tagged Carp before he took his first AAA swing, and shrugged off Smoak after his initial stint with Texas in the Majors - just to be fully forthcoming).

Eyes on - the "initial" take I heard on Carp was "meh" - while the eyes on take for Smoak was - (apologies to Molly Shannon), SUPERSTAR!

At this point, Smoak is a career .683 hitter (1421 PAs), while Carp is a career .740 hitter (608 PAs) ... but Carp is gone and Smoak remains ... (clearly NOT based on production).

Saunders, on the other hand, was viewed as having major "look" issues, while being extremely productive all the way up until he hit the majors.

Can looks override production? yes.
Can production override looks? yes.

But, both of those are within lmits. A very productive, but awful looking AAA player rarely will get an MLB chance. A great looking, but dreadfully producing player won't always get the call up and will eventually get the axe.

Honestly, I think most of the bad lookers end up failing due to injury. Major league effort with bad mechanics is a naturally bad mix. To this day, the best looking SS I have seen in my life was BJ Upton. He "looked" (to my non-scout eye), smoother than even Ozzie. But, 50 errors a year doesn't lie, so today he is an OF.

In the end, what I think "look" vs. "stats" comes down to is there is no way for a scout to see inside any players head. The productivity is what shines a light on the cerebral part of the equation. Doc can look at all the hours of footage available, but this will not tell him that Jose Lopez is basically satisfied with himself and really just doesn't want to put in the effort to get better - or that Michael Saunders is willing to do anything, up to going into a meatlocker and punching dead cows for a couple of hours each day, if the club thinks doing so will give him a legit shot at the bigs.

8

The spring idea is different from the scouting a young players tools idea. One seems to be a determination of what they are now while the other is a determination of what they could be. What they could be has more variables and wasn't really the discussion. Coming out of spring you have to decide who's better right now and this year in general. Long term analysis of ceiling and likelihood may have an effect on those decisions, but it shouldn't be the determining factor in most cases.

That doesn't mean that scouting doesn't work in determining what they are now, though.

9

Going into last season I had pretty much given up on Michael Saunders. His "look" looked pretty much like it had in the years prior, but then something happened. His new approach started to yield some results, and with renewed confidence in what he was doing, his look changed. The deer in the headlights look was gradually being replaced by a look of challenge. Still though, just as I do not have complete faith in Saunders going into this season, I am sure that he too feels a bit of trepidation. Players in Saunder's current condition need to have success in order to become complete confident in what they are doing. I've seen it before in other ventures.

Mike Carp, on the other hand, never had a confidence issue. Carp was supremely confident in himself to the point of cockiness. On top of that, Carp also has the work ethic to more finely hone what is able to do. But Mike Carp has an issue of "look" that most of us will never get to see, but some of us have. Mike Carp has a bit of an attitude problem that raises it's ugly head every now and then when he is placed in a position of stress. I heard about it in camp, and I've seen it first hand. Gordon and I both saw it first hand when in his first at bat after being sent down from the majors to Tacoma, Mike Carp got into an altercation in his very first at bat with an umpire and got tossed. Carp was then reprimanded by Darren Brown for a couple of games. When things are going his way he is a sweatheart (or so I am told) and a great team player. When things aren't going his way he turns into a something less desireable.

In a Carp versus Smoak steel-caged death match, Carp got tossed to the curb because of his occasional "look".

Now we have Dustin Ackley who bore a striking resemblance to Jeremy Reed last year. That "look" is going to be hard for him to lose, IMHO. In 2011 when he was finally brought up he "looked" like the eager rook who had never faced a level of competition that he couldn't compete in, and had a measure of success. Last year, once the pitchers figured him out, he found himself unable to compete and "looked" lost. I'm willing to bet a ton of cPoints that Wedgie has Ackley under a constant observation from afar to track how he looks during the ST. Ackley's bona fides gives him some rope, but how much depends on what Zduriencik thinks.

Give me 15 minutes with someone and I can pretty well tell you what chance they have of reaching their potential. I'm not bragging, I'm just confident...

10

Those of you who are old enough and caught the TV Western, "The Guns Of Will Sonnett" will recognize the allusion in the title of my reply. It's a freebie.

Great post, Lonnie, one that gives insight into the human side of GM'ing, coaching, and playing baseball. For most of us all we ever see is games on TV or at the stadium. We see players through a filter that prevents us from seeing only a little, the tip of the iceberg so to speak, of the human side of the game. And yet for the players and coaches the games, which command all our attention, are in a brief, intense environment the application to those games of each man as a person, all his skills, preparation, personality development, social tendencies, etc.

Anybody who hires knows that, though the accomplishments of a person are key to hiring, in the end you hire a person, not a list of accomplishments. Interviews are done not only to explore the substance of a resume, but to get a feel for the person being interviewed. Their track record is a window on that person, but it is not the whole story.

Thanks for sharing you personal insight into Carp and Ackley. Ackley has a TON to prove this year, and it will make a HUGE difference to the M's whether or not he is able to reach his potential.

11

Tajuan threw 10 pitches to get his 6 outs today....all of them strikes. Two 3-pitch punchouts, and 4 1-pitch outs.

He walked one guy on 4 pitches.

Hultzen had one 4-pitch walk and two hits inthe 1st, but got out of the jam and was fine in the 2nd. K'ed 4.

Beavan needs to be sharp.

moe

12

ghost's picture

ghost

Pitch f/x does not always work correctly in ST games. It is unlikely that these pitch counts are correct.

13

But while I was listening on the radio, Walker's walk was 4 pitches and at least 1 of his strike outs were 3 pitches. Other than that I wasn't paying attention, but whenever PitchF/X isn't working, Gameday shows the minimum number of pitches required, 1 for a hit or out, 3 for a K, 4 for a BB, and ball if there is a wild pitch or passed ball.

That said, both Hultzen and Walker pretty well shredded the batters, the only note on Walker is that 1 batter hit the ball pretty hard on his ground out.

14

ghost's picture

ghost

Reminds me of Northern Exposure.

Anyone ever watch that show? :)

The traffic report here in Nome - a car just drove down main street!

Some batter got solid wood on one of Walker's pitches...that was the only bad news. :) Love it.

15

bsr's picture

bsr

Is there any argument made on USSM that ISN'T essentially an "appeal to authority"? Lol

Why the guy seems to love endlessly beating up this strawman version of "The Mariners" that is supposedly acting based on some caricature of simplistic jock thinking...is beyond my understanding.

I'd assume the basic thought process employed by all teams in evaluating spring training is Bayesian and hypothesis based...you have a strong "prior" expectation for each player going in, set by past performance and projected development trajectory, and it takes a LOT of ST evidence to override that prior and change your mind on a player. And you have some hypotheses that can help you decide whether to do so as well. Eg, Smoak put in serious hours on a (quite tedious and methodical) offseason improvement regimen. If he's mashing in ST off real pitchers, you've now got a supporting reason to think it could be real progress.

Sure, some teams are better at this process than others. That's called skill (and luck!). But the process itself is decision making 101 in any field...no idea why a smart guy like Cameron thinks a professional sports team would be doing otherwise.

16

Why Cameron, a very smart guy, thinks that GMZ and his team are making poor decisions by utilizing a poor process is a mystery to me, particularly when it is GMZ's job that is on the line. Cameron rarely makes an effort to understand the multiple variables a real life GM must consider; e.g., 1) Cameron has reduced the M 's treatment of Iwakuma last year to a simple function of velocity only and has ignored the facts that Iwakuma had a poor spring and got lit up in the final exhibition game in Japan, and 2) reducing the trade of Jaso for Morse to a simple WAR calculation, ignoring the difficulty of finding true MOTO bats & ignoring the free availability of competent back-up catchers like Shoppach. I know that I should argue these points on USSM and not here but I don't have the energy to butt heads with DC.

17

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <ul> <ol> <li> <i> <b> <img> <table> <tr> <td> <th> <div> <strong> <p> <br> <u>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Shoutbox

Please log in or create an account to post shouts.
jemanjiYep - if you're on the site already, and hit refresh, normally it gives you the up-to-date version.5 hours 26 min ago
rjjuniorbsr: try clearing your cache.6 hours 32 min ago
rick82With Steamer saying we are at the top of the heap, we can afford to hold our fire until mid season. Even if Taylor tanks, Miller has produced at a 1.5 clip per for two years running. The team is ready to contend as is, and we can use another half season to determine what to throw away and what to keep. We won't fall to pieces for lack for half a platoon bat.7 hours 57 min ago
GLSI think the KLAT guys are still resource constrained and that's why we're having these problems. That, or they're running on Azure. :) (I'm snarky on Azure this week because of problems in my day job).8 hours 1 min ago
bsrIt also seems to show old versions of the article pages - sometimes the number of comments on the tiles on the front page says X, but there are fewer comments showing on the article when I go there. I assume you and the admins are aware of all this...I'd happily pay a few shekels on DOV if that is what it costs to maintain a functioning website...the SSI issues are getting to be a bit of a hindrance to engaging with a community on here.10 hours 28 min ago
bsrIs the website/shoutbox going to start functioning properly any time soon? It still randomly cuts off large swathes of the most recent shouts seemingly at random depending on what page I'm on. And I still have to hit reload on the home page every time I visit to see the latest articles. If I just point to SSI website, it will show an old version of the site every time, on desktop and mobile.10 hours 33 min ago
bsrWhy did we ever give JZ the nickname Trader Jack? I think we can safely revoke that title since he hasn't made a big trade in years. I favor the alternative "Hoarder Jack". I was curious so I looked it up - from 2009-2013, Jack drafted 234 players. Of those, he has traded 5 - Franklin (1st rounder), Capps (3rd), Catricala (10th), Brazis (28th), Kohlscheen (45th). Really only one trade of any significance. Not sure if that's a good or a bad thing, or typical or unusual, but it seemed interesting to me.10 hours 36 min ago
mojicianHere's the vision: The outfield on Felix/Paxton/Walker day is Ackley/Ruggiano in left, Jackson in Center, and Boomstick in right. They just take naps out there when those guys are pitching anyhow. On Happ/Kuma flyball day, Ruggiano plays right and Ackley plays left. Miller and Ackley take spot starts all over the diamond, but Miller gets at least 2 days per week at shortstop.12 hours 11 min ago
TaroSo from the perspective of the seller it makes sense to deal at the moment that they think they can maximize the return. But from the perspective of the buyer, you've lost a lot of value by waiting. If you deal for Upton on July 30th instead of December, you lose 2/3rds of his season. You could have benefitted from a 4 WAR season, but you only get a 1.5 WAR season.12 hours 30 min ago
moethedogI'm mostly with Matt. I think it's a pretty good bet, well real good, that either Taylor or Miller is a full-time real deal this year....but I'm not quite ready to bet on both of them as such, right out of the gate. I want to worry about Jackson, but he had been so remarkably consistent, looking at 1/2 seasons, before his 54 mariner games that I can't help feeling he'll be a 100+ OPS+ guy, somewhere in the .740 OPS range. I worry most about Ackley among our OF's, to tell you the truth. Since Jackson may leave after '15, I think I would approach Rasmus and say, here's 2 years at $8M, today only. In or out? It doesn't seem that he's getting big offers....he might take that. But a year of Aoki and a .350 OBP leading off vR would be quite palatable.12 hours 33 min ago
TaroAs in regards to Upton, I think its an interesting debate. I think the Braves probably could have landed similar value at the deadline, but whatever team acquires him would have 'lost' the half season of production from Upton. Therefore, he would be significantly more expensive to acquire for the buyer even if he commanded the same or similar return.12 hours 33 min ago
TaroRick, meant more in the context of improving our own roster. Acquiring any similarly valuable OF for a hole in RF in July will be much more expensive for us than it would be now due to the limited number of options and competition for those resources. This was what happened last July and will likely not get better. Beane's method of evaluating your team and then fishing at the deadline is no longer viable in the new market.12 hours 37 min ago
SABR MattThe idea of rotating Cruz into the outfield only works when you have a left handed right fielder12 hours 38 min ago
TaroTrue, but I'd assume that we would target guys who aren't doing terrible like Morales/Denorfia were at the time. Even Hart was a bargain bin guy coming off a huge layoff. Smith is coming off a 132 wRC+. Anybody can underperform in a given year, but you want to improve your team and some insurance when you can.12 hours 41 min ago
SABR MattMojician...Who plays right when Cruz doesn't? Certainly not Ruggiano, who is also right handed?12 hours 45 min ago
rick82But you don't get half a season of anyone in the offseason, Taro, so I remain perplexed by this idea that if we wait, we pay more. Atlanta dealt Upton in the off season to maximize his value, right? Had they waited til mid season, they would either have gotten more, or less in return. They dealt him now, so I'm saying they must agree that a seller gets more overall value in the off season than in the middle of a pennant race. Either that, or they are anxious to play with new toys. This is the team that gave up a ton of talent to get half a season of Teixeira, so they have experience in mid season blockbusters. Yet they moved him in December. I think that regardless of the added wild card, the market has changed since then and teams don't want to give up a lot of prime talent in mid season.12 hours 49 min ago
mojicianMatt, it was your point that the Boomstick likes to play outfield a lot too. Jogging to and from right field helps him knock the rust loose for his home run trot. That's already four outfielders, before you talk about James Jones.13 hours 34 min ago
jemanjiScintillating discussion amigos - an "editor's choice" post would simply paste in the last 70 shouts ...13 hours 37 min ago
SABR MattI think if you can get Aoki for one year, and not two, he is a good hedge you aren't married to...I don't want Taylor to be the full time starting shortstop, which means I don't want Miller in the outfield...which means we need a lefty outfielder13 hours 43 min ago
Gordon GrossGood call beni - gotta be able to be flexible in a pennant year. If Cano or Seager has a bad year, you can ride it out. if Ruggie or LoMo (or a new platoon lefty OF) collapses in the early going, you'd better find some production. And with the raft of relievers we carry to build one of the best pens in the biz, it makes it tough to mix and match.13 hours 57 min ago