Printable View
There's tons of mathematical studies that show that managers can gain wins over the course of the season by better leveraging their relievers.Quote:
Originally Posted by ltt
??? Sorry, I guess I was under the assumption that the reason Rivera's stats were so good was because he was a good pitcher.Quote:
It is precisely the way Torre uses Rivera that produces the stats that are then used to insist he should use him otherwise.
Itt doesn't think that statistics are real (or maybe either accurate or meaningful would be a more descriptive term), so it's rather pointless to argue about.
Actually ltt is arguing the opposite Ohms.He is saying,mathematically,the stats produced are the ONLY real/accurate & meaningful (objective) because of the actual decision made by managers on player usage.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Whereas "leverage comparison" is mathematically incorrect/inaccurate & totally a subjective assessment because the situation :
1) happened under a different set (thus not comparable) of circumstances;
2) the numbers realized was a different match-up (because 2 pitchers cannot pitch to the same batter simultaneously ;) );
3) there are NO real results.
Fact1 (from the post above) Torre USED Rivera to pitch.Fact 2 Rivera pitches & obtains WHATEVER result.Fact 3 The result DETERMINES Rivera's stats.In a "leverage comparison" you are comparing objective FACTS which are determined by the above order whereas a leverage comparison (of "what ifs" thus subjective & hypothetical totally) is mathematically impossible,thus disproving:
Actually,There are tonnes of SUBJECTIVE statistical studies that show that managers COULD POSSIBLY gain wins ( or losses) over the course of the season by their usage of ALTERNATE POSSIBLE leveraging of their relieversQuote:
There's tons of mathematical studies that show that managers can gain wins over the course of the season by better leveraging their relievers.
.
However, mathematically speaking the only objective results are from ACTUAL situation management (as described above - Torre lets Rivera pitch,Rivera pitches,result is ACHIEVED which produces the stats ONLY if Torre changes Rivera then a new set of unique objective stats /results are produced & again these cannot mathematically be disproved or approved just assessed in their relevance.)
Ow my head hurts!
BTW they won and clinched a playoff spot!
maybe I can clarify:
from my perspective, the argument HGM is offering looks like this:
A manager utilizes a pitcher a certain way.
This produces that pitchers stats.
Those stats are now used to argue that the manager should utilize the pitcher a different way.
to me, this argument fails in basic logic, before we even get to the philosophical disputes.
as to those philosophical disputes, I understand that HGM was only presenting this particular instance as an example of a larger general class of managerial actions that don't properly "leverage" relief use.
the problem is that the notion of "high leverage" situations improperly, imo, describes as a class a group of largely unique situations - that is, it treats all games tied in the top of the ninth inning as a "type" while ignoring the myriad factors that make each such situation different to varying degrees.
no, you've got it completely wrong. What I dispute is not whether statistics have meaning, but rather whether certain have the meaning you say they do.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
I'm sure you'd like that to be a pointless argument, but since there seem to be passionate advocates on both sides, I find it highly unlikely that it should be so.
And surely you can do a better job of defending your position than just dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as ignorant of the holy truth statisticians have bestowed upon the world.
I mean, I could whip out my curriculum vitae and dismiss everyone I disagree with as wholly ignorant of the metamathematical thought that underpins my arguments, but I prefer trying to clarify my position and the flaws I see in others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltt
The classic differentiation of a mathematical fact & a statistical hypothesis.(which is what ltt said)
HGM is arguing that a hypothesis will produce a better result which ,mathematically,cannot be true as the event HAS already occured.Thus the hypothesis,ceteris paribus,is POSSIBILITY of a different outcome but cannot be verified as the action is over thus it is actually simply a subjective theorem not a fact.
This is getting much too much cerebral for me:confused: - I knew that I should have stuck with mud wrestling! (notice my witty pun, Guys? - I'm cerebral too!)Quote:
Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX
I'll just keep it simple.
The goal of each individual baseball game is to win. High leverage situations are, by definition, the most important times in a given game. What is the best way to maximize your chances of winning the game? By using your best players. You don't help your chances of winning by saving your best players just in case you're winning later in the game.
Yes, I understand, you can think of scenarios that explain why Torre wouldn't use Rivera in this situation. Fine. Whatever. This doesn't mean that, as a whole, managers are properly leveraging their relievers.
Throw stats out the window then. I'm arguing that the manager should use his best relief pitcher in the most important situations, and save his worst relievers for unimportant situations.Quote:
from my perspective, the argument HGM is offering looks like this:
A manager utilizes a pitcher a certain way.
This produces that pitchers stats.
Those stats are now used to argue that the manager should utilize the pitcher a different way.
to me, this argument fails in basic logic, before we even get to the philosophical disputes.
Take a look at what good leveraging of relievers can do. When does that manager use his best relievers? When the game's close. When does he use his worst relievers? When the game's not close.
If you throw stats out the window then your point (not to sound rude which I promise I am not intending this to be) becomes moot. Reason being without the stats who is to say the manager is not using his best AVAILABLE releiver in that situation. Maybe a guy is tired, sore, etc and someone else is ready and he is the best that day available! See the point? Any manager has to look beyond stats to see if a guy is ready that day. THis is why managers will give guys a day off, they notice a slight variance in swings, favoring legs, arms, etc and decide the guy needs a rest.
I understand that. But he's saying that I'm somehow using the stats that are only due to the way he's used to justify why he should be used differently, which isn't true, because the stats are due mostly to the player's ability, not how he's used. I'm using the player's ability to justify why he should be used differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD
I'm in no way saying that managers shouldn't give their players rest or anything. That'd be crazy. I'm just saying that the best relievers should be used in the highest leverage situations, and vice versa. I'm not understanding why that is such a difficult concept to grasp.
No,you are having the difficulty to grasp that "leverage" analysis in itself is a totally subjective theorem.Quote:
I understand that. But he's saying that I'm somehow using the stats that are only due to the way he's used to justify why he should be used differently, which isn't true, because the stats are due mostly to the player's ability, not how he's used. I'm using the player's ability to justify why he should be used differently.
I'm in no way saying that managers shouldn't give their players rest or anything. That'd be crazy. I'm just saying that the best relievers should be used in the highest leverage situations, and vice versa. I'm not understanding why that is such a difficult concept to grasp.
ltt is simply saying,that a manager's choice is "mathematically" the only true factual statistic,as Manager chooses pitcher at the PRECISE moment,the pitcher pitches & that produces a single,unique OUTCOME.This OUTCOME leads to the stats which are the only true mathematical stats.1 Result ONLY.
Leverage analysis is "what if" after the actual event WHICH in itself is not a fact & thus is a hypothetical supposition.
Also leverage analysis does not & cannot compare exact situations,because you cannot (as of today at least in this universe) have 2 pitchers throw to the same batter at the same instant & obtain a result,thus it non mathematical as it cannot be proved/disproved.This is what llt "means" when he says.THAT choice is a free will act which provokes a mathematical factual & unique result.Quote:
Originally Posted by ltt
Lastly,different situations lead to different results.A player may have a high K,low BB & thus a low ERA & another be a "worse" leveraged pitcher but they were pitching at different times with different stress factors.The former may be a middle reliever who is a "great" pitcher but may not be able to handle to 8th or 9th innings.Leverage does not show this.
It's like punching a brick wall, guys.
Okay, fine, I'm completely crazy for thinking that the best pitchers should be used in the most important situations, and the worst pitchers should be used in unimportant situations.
HGM you are not wrong in thinking that....I think that as well....however you HAVE to factor in conditioning, soreness, and a host of other factors beyond just stats. Your stats are great when taken in context but not EVERY manager is wrong. If they mostly all do this there is probably good resons beyond stats.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I've never claimed to not factor in conditioning, soreness, etc. Obviously, if a pitcher is unable to pitch, the manager can't and shouldn't use him. That explains single incidents. It does not explain that managers, overall, over full seasons, don't practice very good leveraging of relievers. They'd rather save their closer (usually the best reliever) for a save situation, than use him when it matters most. Just because most managers do it does not mean that it's the most beneficial way of doing things.Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD
The problem is that "leverage" as pointed out above is a SUBJECTIVE analysis,sheesh,it is that simple.It is a "what if" hypothesis,of INCOMPARABLE players because their stats that they have garnered through out the season or career ARE simply INDIVIDUAL & UNIQUE situations & thus are each every time DIFFERENT, full stop.Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD
It cannot be "proved" that X would have done better than Y because X did NOT pitch,whereas Y did.It is a SUPPOSITION of a POSSIBLE event.
Whereas Manager A's decision to pitch Y LEADS directly to an outcome,results & thus OBJECTIVE real stats.The only thing that can be garnered is that Y was either successful or unsuccessful & the next time Mr A.,will have to take his last action into consideration,IF a similar set of circumstances come into play.
The original question remains why did Torre do what he did,the posters,IMO,have shown that he did this to "test" certain players under a "stressful" situation in order to garner information for the PLAYOFFS not just for that 1 win/loss & all THIS information is used by himself,his Bullpen crew & the GM staff to obtain the "best" post season group.(in THEIR opinion.)
One has to remember that in Post season,most teams actually use LESS players than in regular season (rightly or wrongly) & go with veterans rather than "rookies".However,teams need to know if X,Y or Z is capable to handle the demands IF ASKED.
And again, I said the reason I posted this was really beyond one situation. It's a larger problem that happens year round. While there are reasons to excuse Torre for this specific instance, it's not as if Torre properly leverages his relievers, on the whole. Barely any manager does.
And no, leverage is not subjective. A tie game in the 7th inning is higher leverage than a 6 run lead in the 9th.
And players aren't incomparable just because they've pitched in different situations. There are obvious better pitchers and obvious worse pitchers. For example, Mariano Rivera is obviously better than Jeff Karstens. I don't care what situation it is. Mariano Rivera is a better pitcher than Jeff Karstens. If you're going to argue otherwise, you better be prepared to give some good facts to back up that claim.
but the example you used is demonstrative of a universal truth - there are reasons for Torre's decisions in EVERY instance. Your attempt to distill a statistical truth from human decisions is, imo, misguided, because even when a manager doesn't use what you would call his "best" pitcher in what you would call a "high leverage" situation, he does so to maximize his entire roster's chance for success over 162 games and the playoffs. Your conclusion that their actions in general do not succeed in doing this is not an empirically provable position, as you keep claiming, but rather your opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
yes it is. no two tie games in the 7th are the same. no two 6-run ninth-inning leads are the same. no two "best" relievers are the same. you're creating a class from object that are not alike.Quote:
And no, leverage is not subjective. A tie game in the 7th inning is higher leverage than a 6 run lead in the 9th.
that's not what I am, or anyone is, arguing.Quote:
And players aren't incomparable just because they've pitched in different situations. There are obvious better pitchers and obvious worse pitchers. For example, Mariano Rivera is obviously better than Jeff Karstens. I don't care what situation it is. Mariano Rivera is a better pitcher than Jeff Karstens. If you're going to argue otherwise, you better be prepared to give some good facts to back up that claim.
What I'm arguing is that you can't use the reductive argument you've chosen to analyze pitcher use, because in every single case there are myriad considerations a manager must evaluate besides the one you are insisting be paramount.
Does he? Managers can't make wrong decisions?Quote:
Originally Posted by ltt
Multiple managers have stated that they've chosen to go with a lesser reliever in a more important situation, such as a tie game in the 9th in order to save their better reliever IN CASE they get their lead. That is NOT in the best interest of winning.
A six run lead is lower leverage than a tie game. Leverage is the importance of a given situation. With a six run lead in the 9th, the probability of your team winning is extremely high. Thus, low leverage. A tie game in the 7th, the probability of winning is much less than that of a six run lead in the ninth. It is higher leverage.Quote:
yes it is. no two tie games in the 7th are the same. no two 6-run ninth-inning leads are the same. no two "best" relievers are the same. you're creating a class from object that are not alike.
When is a tie game ever a less dire situation than a six run lead? There are times in the game that are more important than others. When you have a huge lead, the situations are less important than when you're in a tie game. I don't see how you can even dispute that.
In every single game, it is always best to maximize your chances of winning. Ignoring the obvious consideration of injury and rest and other things that affect availability, the better reliever should nearly always be chosen over the lesser reliever in a highly important situation. Okay, fine, testing for the playoffs, whatever, that doesn't happen in April, and that is what I'm talking about. Managers make these decisions to go with lesser relievers in more important situations ALL SEASON LONG, and that is not in the best interest of winning.Quote:
that's not what I am, or anyone is, arguing.
What I'm arguing is that you can't use the reductive argument you've chosen to analyze pitcher use, because in every single case there are myriad considerations a manager must evaluate besides the one you are insisting be paramount.
While every situation is different, I am speaking in OVERALL terms.
Stop acting as if managers are infallible beings that can never make incorrect decisions.
So true ;) but when one does not even compound the differentiation between objectivity nor subjectivity then a classical "circular argument" is induced.But aparrently some cannot even see this............Quote:
Originally Posted by ltt
End of story.:rolleyes:
not in the sense you mean - i.e., scientifically. baseball isn't euclidean geometry, you can't "prove" your position the same way I can "prove" the interior angles of any triangle add up to 180 degrees.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
YOU say it's not in the best interests of winning. They disagree.Quote:
Multiple managers have stated that they've chosen to go with a lesser reliever in a more important situation, such as a tie game in the 9th in order to save their better reliever IN CASE they get their lead. That is NOT in the best interest of winning.
and "importance" is a subjective valuation.Quote:
A six run lead is lower leverage than a tie game. Leverage is the importance of a given situation.
look, a couple of you guys have to get over the notion that the only way anyone could possible disagree with you is because they don't understand you. Let me make this clear - I understand what you mean by "leverage," and I think it's an interesting and probably useful concept. But I also understand that actual managers are faced with much more complicated decisions than simply calculating win probability in a given situation when dealing with a team comprised of 25-40 human beings. In my opinion, that means your position is just one way of thinking about baseball, not the right way.Quote:
With a six run lead in the 9th, the probability of your team winning is extremely high. Thus, low leverage. A tie game in the 7th, the probability of winning is much less than that of a six run lead in the ninth. It is higher leverage.
Never. That has zero bearing, however, on how a manager should use his pitching staff.Quote:
When is a tie game ever a less dire situation than a six run lead?
I'm not disputing it, I'm disputing whether that means every time a manager doesn't use the pitcher you think he should he's doing the wrong thing.Quote:
There are times in the game that are more important than others. When you have a huge lead, the situations are less important than when you're in a tie game. I don't see how you can even dispute that.
this is false...Quote:
In every single game, it is always best to maximize your chances of winning.
...because this can NEVER be ignoredQuote:
Ignoring the obvious consideration of injury and rest and other things that affect availability,
assumes facts not in evidenceQuote:
the better reliever should nearly always be chosen over the lesser reliever in a highly important situation.
of course it does. any manager worth his salt is CONSTANTLY evaluating his squad. Following your suggestion, Torre only uses half his bullpen in blowouts. Rivera gets injured tomorrow and whathisname get injured tomorrow. Under your method, Torre has ZERO game-situation information to help him manage the relievers he has left.Quote:
Okay, fine, testing for the playoffs, whatever, that doesn't happen in April, and that is what I'm talking about.
you can not EVER demonstrate this. As FRS has pointed out over and over again, you are treating a probability based on statistics as though it were the predictable and guaranteed outcome of a change in behaviour.Quote:
Managers make these decisions to go with lesser relievers in more important situations ALL SEASON LONG, and that is not in the best interest of winning.
yes, but your overall terms are completely inapplicable to individuals cases, and therefore wholly suspect.Quote:
While every situation is different, I am speaking in OVERALL terms.
stop acting as if there is a scientifically provable theory of baseball.Quote:
Stop acting as if managers are infallible beings that can never make incorrect decisions.
You believe that there are 6-run leads in the 9th that are actually higher leverage situations than tie games in the 7th or 8th?Quote:
look, a couple of you guys have to get over the notion that the only way anyone could possible disagree with you is because they don't understand you. Let me make this clear - I understand what you mean by "leverage," and I think it's an interesting and probably useful concept. But I also understand that actual managers are faced with much more complicated decisions than simply calculating win probability in a given situation when dealing with a team comprised of 25-40 human beings. In my opinion, that means your position is just one way of thinking about baseball, not the right way.
What? The score of the game should have no bearing on how a manager should use his pitching staff? Wow.Quote:
Never. That has zero bearing, however, on how a manager should use his pitching staff.
That is just completely baffling. I don't even know what to say to that. The score of the game most definitely matters. In a tie game in the bottom of the 9th, you absolutely cannot allow a run, or you lose. With a 6 run lead in the top of the 9th, you have much more leeway. How in heck's name should that not have an effect on how the manager uses his pitching staff?
I already said that it isn't ALWAYS the wrong decision - availibility of the pitchers matters. As you've brought up, testing for playoffs, etc. I've said that ON THE WHOLE a better pitcher should be used in a more important situation.Quote:
I'm not disputing it, I'm disputing whether that means every time a manager doesn't use the pitcher you think he should he's doing the wrong thing.
Game 7 of the World Series. Would you rather have Josh Beckett on the mound, or Jason Marquis?
Oh. I guess I didn't know that the goal of a baseball game wasn't to win.Quote:
this is false...
I never said that you should ignore player's injuries or rest and always pitch them. I'm saying that if you have two pitchers, both equally rested and uninjured (thus, ignoring rest/injury), the better one should be used in the more important situations.Quote:
...because this can NEVER be ignored
Torre has no information on the talent of his pitchers?Quote:
of course it does. any manager worth his salt is CONSTANTLY evaluating his squad. Following your suggestion, Torre only uses half his bullpen in blowouts. Rivera gets injured tomorrow and whathisname get injured tomorrow. Under your method, Torre has ZERO game-situation information to help him manage the relievers he has left.
There are ways to evaluate your squad without lessening your chances at winning ball games.
Jeez. I never would have thought that the idea of using better players in more important situations would ever draw such criticism. I guess we should just completely ignore the talent of players, and just play whoever. You have a must-win game. There's no reason to go with your best pitcher and best possible lineup, right? Apparantly. :rolleyes:
The best way to win is to play the best possible combination of players, and maximize the chances of scoring and preventing runs in important situations by using the best possible players for the given situation. Why is that such a crazy idea?
Wow. Just wow. Carry on.
it's not, until you try to apply it to individual games and lose sight of the fact that every baseball season is 162 games long.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
In an individual game, the point is to win the game. You do this by outscoring your opponent. To win, you must maximize your run scoring and your run prevention, especially in cases where it matters most. The only way to maximize run scoring and run prevention is to use the best possible available players. If you are using lesser players, you are not maximizing your run scoring and prevention.Quote:
Originally Posted by ltt
This is a fallacy - although true for INDIVIDUAL sports - in team sport the combination of "best" players is NOT always true (it maybe in BM or sim sports).Quote:
In an individual game, the point is to win the game. You do this by outscoring your opponent. To win, you must maximize your run scoring and your run prevention, especially in cases where it matters most. The only way to maximize run scoring and run prevention is to use the best possible available players. If you are using lesser players, you are not maximizing your run scoring and prevention.
IRL it is the best team UNIT that wins the most games & therefore the division title.A team unit is a combination of best & lesser players that work together to produce the most productive team result.
Any Economist or Business Studies analyst will tell you that the sum of the parts does not neccessarily lead to an increased production.It is the "right" people* at the right spots that will lead to maximised production.
Also note,your basic analysis is ONCE again a "subjective" analysis based on hindsight,unfortunately Managers/Coaches/GM's do NOT have your fortune as they have to react in REAL TIME & SPACE (& as ltt stated they have to do this based on a 162 season not a single game enviroment) & thus attempt to win using their knowledge at the time without knowing the outcome until the play has happened."Second guessing" is so much easier when you know what has happened.....
* right can be lesser players who mesh better into the team structure & group.
Yup
I don't even think that calling that game a must win was accurate to begin with
that is true, and if the baseball season was one game long, your theory would have merit.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
It's not, and the goal of baseball is NOT to win individual games, but rather to win more games than your division foes, regardless of how many games that is.
That's what is wrong with your proposal - your butting up against the same problem Saussure encountered when attempting to apply reductionism to language - what goes on in speech, and what goes on in a baseball, is vastly more complex than simply adding up games or words.
Additionally, real managers have to make their decisions in light of an uncertain future, and on this point in particular, I think your proposition is flawed: using your "best" pitcher in the 7th inning of a tie game only makes sense if you're CERTAIN your second best and third best pitchers will also close out the other team. And if you are, then aren't they all the "best?"
I could go on - every sentence I write reminds me of another gaping whole in this "leverage" argument: matchups, splits, middle of the order v. bottom of the order, league opponent vs division opponent, league opponet v interleague opponent, there are so many factors to consider when talking about "leverage" that the term essentially has no meaning without context, and therefore has no logical argumentative weight.
I'm sorry that I started this thread on the basis of one game, because it seems as though, no matter how much I reiterate it, nobody can just drop that lone game and focus on the larger picture here.Quote:
Originally Posted by WATERY
And in order to maximize your chances of winning more games than the rest of your division, you should always attempt to win every game. Why the heck would you argue that the point of each and every game is not to win? Until you've clinched a playoff spot (at which point, it's time to not care about winning and start resting players and getting ready for the playoffs), there is absolutely no reason not to attempt to win each and every game.Quote:
Originally Posted by ltt
No, it makes sense if you want to maximize your chances of not allowing a run, and thus, maximize your chances of going ahead.Quote:
Originally Posted by ltt
The best available player for the given situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by ltt
Tie game, 7th inning, three lefties due up to bat. Rafael Betancourt may be the better reliever between he and Rafael Perez, but Rafael Perez is the better reliever for the given situation, as he's death on left-handed hitters, thus, go with Rafael Perez.
Obviously you have to account for matchups, splits, the batters coming up, etc. But then, once you account for that, choose the best available option, taking those things into consideration. And there are some cases where the choices are so obviously mismatched that barring unavailabilty, the choice of one player is always better than the other.
Now, please, ignore the game that I originally posted in this thread, and just look at two pitchers - Mariano Rivera and Jeff Karstens. Mariano Rivera is a veteran with outstanding control, a ticket to the Hall of Fame, good strikeout ability, and he's basically one of, if not the best, relievers of all time. Jeff Karstens is a mediocre rookie with fringe-average stuff. They're both right-handed pitchers. In 57 career innings, hes walked 20 to 21 strikeouts while allowing 10 home runs. He's allowed 67 hits. That is horrible. Mariano Rivera, in 146 innings over the past 2 years, has just 3 more walks than Karstens has in over double the innings. He's allowed as many hits this year in 71 innings that Karstens has allowed in 57 innings. Mariano Rivera has allowed less home runs over the past 3 seasons (over 220 innings) than Jeff Karstens has allowed in 57 innings. Rivera has done it in every single ballpark against both lefties and righties. Assuming both are uninjured and equally rested, there is not one conceivable situation in which using Jeff Karstens in a tie game gives you a better chance of keeping the game tied than Mariano Rivera. Care to provide one?
It's that one game, however, that is illustrative of my contention that there isn't really a larger picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I'm not - I'm arguing that you attempt to win every game, but you do so with the additional understanding that taking a lower chance of winning an individual game may be beneficial in that it gives you an increased chance of winning down the road.Quote:
And in order to maximize your chances of winning more games than the rest of your division, you should always attempt to win every game. Why the heck would you argue that the point of each and every game is not to win?
sure there is. Like, say, not using your closer in an interleague game if you're the Cubs and you have a 4-game set with the Brewers coming up.Quote:
Until you've clinched a playoff spot (at which point, it's time to not care about winning and start resting players and getting ready for the playoffs), there is absolutely no reason not to attempt to win each and every game.
in ONE game. You're still ignoring the fact that a manager has a plan for a 162 game season.Quote:
No, it makes sense if you want to maximize your chances of not allowing a run, and thus, maximize your chances of going ahead.
which is what managers do every time. They (and I) just disagree with how you're defining the situation. You're saying "It's just a tie-game, like all tie-games when you haven't clinched" The manager is saying, "here's how this day fits into my plan for the YEAR"Quote:
The best available player for the given situation.
It's ridiculous to claim that, having considered those things, and everything else he thinks is important, the manager DOESN'T choose the best available option. Of course he does, he's just evaluating his options based on different criteria than you.Quote:
Obviously you have to account for matchups, splits, the batters coming up, etc. But then, once you account for that, choose the best available option, taking those things into consideration.
if that were actually true, this entire thread would not exist. QED.Quote:
And there are some cases where the choices are so obviously mismatched that barring unavailabilty, the choice of one player is always better than the other.
no, because that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that there are infinite tie game situations possible in which a manager, [i]in order to maximize his TEAM's chance at LONG TERM success[i], would sacrifice the advantage in an individual game.Quote:
Now, please, ignore the game that I originally posted in this thread, and just look at two pitchers - Mariano Rivera and Jeff Karstens. Mariano Rivera is a veteran with outstanding control, a ticket to the Hall of Fame, good strikeout ability, and he's basically one of, if not the best, relievers of all time. Jeff Karstens is a mediocre rookie with fringe-average stuff. They're both right-handed pitchers. In 57 career innings, hes walked 20 to 21 strikeouts while allowing 10 home runs. He's allowed 67 hits. That is horrible. Mariano Rivera, in 146 innings over the past 2 years, has just 3 more walks than Karstens has in over double the innings. He's allowed as many hits this year in 71 innings that Karstens has allowed in 57 innings. Mariano Rivera has allowed less home runs over the past 3 seasons (over 220 innings) than Jeff Karstens has allowed in 57 innings. Rivera has done it in every single ballpark against both lefties and righties. Assuming both are uninjured and equally rested, there is not one conceivable situation in which using Jeff Karstens in a tie game gives you a better chance of keeping the game tied than Mariano Rivera. Care to provide one?
Your notion that "leverage" is easily tied to individual games is deeply flawed. Every situation is defined by a much broader and more complicated context that simply does not lend itself to the sort of definitive conclusions you are presenting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltt
So, they're infallible beings who always choose the best player for the given situation and can never make the wrong decision, and never choose a bad player for a situation?Quote:
It's ridiculous to claim that, having considered those things, and everything else he thinks is important, the manager DOESN'T choose the best available option. Of course he does, he's just evaluating his options based on different criteria than you.
yep. That's exactly what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
You can't be serious...
Managers are perfect and can never ever make a wrong decision? O_o
No, young men who have no experience managing a team make no mistakes
yep. That's exactly what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
...Quote:
Originally Posted by ltt
Okay then. I guess you're right, baseball managers are otherworldly and aren't subject to the basic human principle that everybody makes mistakes. They're perfect people capable of making 100% perfect decisions without fail. Also, there is no difference between managers, because they all always make the perfectly correct decision and can never ever be wrong.
:rolleyes:
Actually what he has said through out the thread is that Manager's decisions are exactly that a DECISION which produces a factual RESULT & thus cannot be disproved as their is no real comparatives available.As already stated "leverage" is a subjective theorem which itself cannot be proved as IT NEVER HAPPENED!
ltt is taking it to "extremes" in answering (because 29/30 managers by November will have made a "bad decision") but the point is mathematically he is right.....;)