Caution Is Costly, Scholars Say (July 30, 2003)
Trying to understand human decision-making, they are writing papers about such choices as when to punt, or when to take out a basketball player in foul trouble. About 25 of them gathered in the spring for a two-day academic conference in Arizona, where they went to a spring training game once their work was done.At the conference in Arizona, Bill James, a baseball writer recently hired by the Boston Red Sox as a consultant, was a bigger attraction than any of the intellectual stars in attendance, a few professors said.
"All of the academics in the room were jealous of Bill James," said Thaler, an energetic man who is quick to make self-deprecating jokes. "He had the job they really want: adviser to the Red Sox."
--posted by TangoTiger at 03:18 PM EDT
Posted 3:40 p.m.,
July 30, 2003
(#1) -
jmac
Many Yankees fans know how the story ends, however. Mike Ferraro, the third-base coach, waved Randolph home. Willie Wilson of the Royals played the carom in left field cleanly and threw to third baseman George Brett, who relayed the ball perfectly to catcher Darrell Porter.
Randolph was out. The Yankees lost. George Steinbrenner made sure that Ferraro was no longer coaching third base the next season.
except..except
it took a combination of luck & skill to get Randolph
Willie Wilson actually overthrew the cutoff man, Frank White
overthrew him so far that the ball went directly to Brett, playing "trailer"--who gunned down Randolph
if I'm Ferraro, I send Randolph on that play 100 out of 100
Posted 3:44 p.m.,
July 30, 2003
(#2) -
George Steinbrenner
Results are ALL that matter in this town.
Posted 3:47 p.m.,
July 30, 2003
(#3) -
kevin
I think we should start a blog on game theory and how it relates to the ways GM's deal with one another. Ostensibly, a trade is made that is supposed to help most teams. But the really good trades are the ones that help you and screw the other guy.
Posted 4:06 p.m.,
July 30, 2003
(#4) -
fracas
But the really good trades are the ones that help you and screw the other guy.
Short term, perhaps; long term, such trades diminish your ability to make other trades. I would suggest that, long term, the really good trades are the ones that help you and don't help anybody in your division.
(Or perhaps the best trades are the ones where both players perform well, but the one you traded away gets hit by a bus. Not your fault.)
Posted 4:20 p.m.,
July 30, 2003
(#5) -
MNP
Short term, perhaps; long term, such trades diminish your ability to make other trades.
I wonder how true this really is. The great fleecings -- Ed Hearn for David Cone, Jeff Bagwell for Larry Anderson, Lou Brock for Ernie whats-his-name, etc -- I wonder if other GMs really hold it against the "winners" in trades like that?
I can see a GM who trades dishonestly, or insults the intelligence of other GMs getting a bad reputation and people not trading with him. But I'm not sure I see the David Cone/Ed Hearn type trades creating that sort of ill will.
Posted 4:21 p.m.,
July 30, 2003
(#6) -
washerdreyer
The statements in the article about walking Bonds are really too vague to determine if they are talking about the same things that Tango was last year. The idea that managers make the decision for which they are least likely to be criticized, rather than the best decision, is not particularly novel. I would guess these guys have uncovered some interesting stuff, but there's no way to tell from the article what it is.
Posted 1:21 p.m.,
July 31, 2003
(#7) -
Bob T
There were a couple of good presentations at SABR in Denver about intentional walks by John Jarvis and Mark Pankin. Pankin's specifically dealt with Bonds.
Sadly, the math was a little over my head.
Posted 2:42 p.m.,
July 31, 2003
(#8) -
Chris McClinch
MNP-
I don't know if it's so much a matter of holding a good trade against someone as saying "This guy made the guy in Boston look like an idiot. I'd be better off not trading with him." If I were a GM, I probably wouldn't answer if Billy Beane's number showed up on my caller ID.
Posted 4:57 p.m.,
July 31, 2003
(#9) -
George Steinbrenner II
if I'm Ferraro, I send Randolph on that play 100 out of 100
Sorry, you only get to do it once. Pack your bags, you're fired.
Posted 5:04 p.m.,
July 31, 2003
(#10) -
OCF
I wonder how true this really is. The great fleecings -- Ed Hearn for David Cone, Jeff Bagwell for Larry Anderson, Lou Brock for Ernie whats-his-name, etc -- I wonder if other GMs really hold it against the "winners" in trades like that?
(Or perhaps the best trades are the ones where both players perform well, but the one you traded away gets hit by a bus. Not your fault.)
Look - some trades are just stupid up front, and Bagwell/Anderson is one of the stupidest. But even though I grew up as a Lou Brock fan, I've come to realize that before the fact, trading Brock for Broglio made perfect sense.
Over the previous 4 years or so, Ernie Broglio was one of the 20 best pitchers in the NL - maybe even one of the 10 best. He was the same age as Bob Gibson, and through 1963, his record was indistinguishable from Gibson's, except he didn't have Gibson's extreme K's. Lou Brock was young and fast, but essentially useless to the Cubs. He wasn't a good defensive outfielder, and that meant he couldn't play CF - the Cubs had tried that, and had already decided that it didn't work. He sure as hell wasn't going to take Billy Williams's job in LF. He didn't look like a great hitter. What do you do with a guy like that? He was excess talent that didn't fit the team's needs. Isn't it better to trade off excess talent for real value than letting him rot on the bench?
Well, Broglio didn't get hit by a bus, but he might as well have been. I never heard that he had arm trouble, but go look at his record and you tell me what you think happened. And Brock caught lightning in a bottle, hit way over his head for the rest of 1964, and found a way to mine what talent and work ethic he had and make a (marginal) Hall of Fame career out of it.
There was risk in that trade - there's risk in every "big" trade. (This was a "big" trade because of Broglio's previous record.) The Cubs "lost" the trade becuase Broglio, for whatever reasons, fell on hard times. I don't see why Brock's improbable prosperity in circumstances the Cubs couldn't provide for him should be held against the Cubs.
And it's just that - the incessant crowing about how it was "one of the worst trades ever", even now, nearly 40 years later with unfair references to "Ernie What's-his-name," when it was basically a rational trade - that contributes to risk-aversion.
Posted 5:14 p.m.,
July 31, 2003
(#11) -
OCF
How about a nice little 2 by 2 game? Let's set up the situation: it's mid-60's in the Astrodome. (This tells you three things: it's a low-run environment, there's a hard, bouncy carpet in the outfield, and there's a whole lot of room out there in the outfield.) The visiting team has a 1-run lead in the bottom of the 9th. The Astros have a runner on 2nd, 1 out. The runner is average speed or a little faster; the centerfielder is fast but weak-armed. The batter hits a sinking line drive to shallow straightaway center - it looks like a single but is maybe on the far outer edge of what the CF can get to. Assume that trying to catch it involves a risk of missing the ball altogether. There are two things the CF can do - go for the risky catch, or slow down to play the bounce. There are two things the runner can do - take off for the plate so he can score on the single, or hold up near 2B.
Analyze.
Posted 9:09 p.m.,
July 31, 2003
(#12) -
Rod
In reference to Bob T's comment about the winning poster presentation at SABR33 made by John Jarvis, here's a link.
Trends, Exceptions and Results of IBB Usage
http://knology.net/~johnfjarvis/iwfr.html
Posted 12:55 a.m.,
August 1, 2003
(#13) -
Vinay Kumar
long term, such [lopsided] trades diminish your ability to make other trades.
I don't agree with this as much as I agree with its correlary: making mutually beneficial trades helps foster trading relationships, that make it easier to make beneficial trades in the future. I think any longtime roto or fantasy league player would agree with that. Just look at all the complex trades we've seen the last few years involving the same clique of GMs.
That said, I don't know how much credit to assign any single trade in such a trading relationship.