Baseball's Creeping Math Problem

I started reading Smart Baseball  by Keith Law, about the nature of player evaluation in baseball. Keith works with teams to evaluate performance and help big league teams win more. He’s loves numbers and comparisons and telling us how little we understand the game. He comes off a little stuffy with his 'well actually' deep dives into historic players and old statistical measurements. He’s mostly good natured though, and it’s hard not be convinced that these newer sabermetric figures are the most efficient ways to compile stats. 

I’m a bit old fashioned on sports, I enjoy the sport first and consider the numbers second. Mostly I don’t think about them. I don’t gamble or play fantasy baseball so individual stats are important as a measuring stick for historical comparison and salary. I follow teams and then players. I realize having statistically better players means you team is more likely to win, but it doesn’t mean I want to slice numbers thinner than a deli counter prosciutto. Smart Baseball isn’t a book full of cheery anecdotes and life lessons from a former executive. It’s more like a textbook, informational and straightforward.

 The thesis is really this: as a measure of value to a team, the old statistics should be phased out. If the purpose is for managers, owners, scouts and sportswriters to assign values to players, sabermetrics are perfect. The data says so at least. I think at least some portion of this is slick graphs and quirky player FYIs. But I’m willing to listen. Baseball elders did the best they knew how with available data at the time. We watch a more precise game now. Everything is tracked and nerds create new ways to map player contributions.

The much criticized statistics (batting average, RBI) at least had broad appeal. Fans and scouts knew how to score players and assign value. Newer stats like WAR (wins above replacement) and wOBA (weighted on base average) are certainly more precise but, for now, don’t have broad appeal.

 A guy named Bill James created efficient measures of performance in the late 70s. We call them sabermetrics and most clubs have come around to his way of thinking. Acceptance takes time though and just because someone comes up with a brilliant system doesn’t mean everyone will be on board. Reluctance to change doesn’t equate to stupidity or arrogance, it just means this ‘thing’ needs more time.

Sabermetrics provide value where no one knew to look before. But they risk becoming an end to themselves unless the baseball continues to draw sharp lines around their product. They should allow changes to the game on the margins and phase everything in slowly. The NFL created additional problems by trying to redefine things like catches, holding and pass interference. The multiple camera angles create the need for more precise rules on those very things we are trying to determine. It’s a vicious cycle and not one that gets resolved easy.

The MLB is a slow moving body, like an Alaskan glacier or the U.S. Senate. This is a good thing. It ensures consistency. If it lets the stats wonks change everything we track, it won’t be long before the fun is gone. Mangers will manage purely on numbers and forget how to take chances. Players won’t take chances at the plate on a first pitch strike if the percentages are bad. It could be a lab experiment, a test between each team’s mathematical models. Too boring for average fans.

 Every team needs wins. Wins come from runs. Runs come from more opportunities to score. Yes, I realize I’m summarizing the Jonah Hill explainer from Moneyball but stay with me. By valuing certain aspects of the game over others (OBP over AVG) clubs can scoop up wins they might not otherwise have gotten using traditional measures of performance. Moneyball and the A’s are just the most high profile example of this thinking. Wonkish number crunchers who follow baseball have been doing this for years, creating their own statistics I mean.

More competitive teams mean fan participation goes up. (No I didn’t create a graph for that but it stands to reason right?) Clubs sell more tickets and merchandise with a winning team in town. All this comes with a lot of caveats and side bars but winning or at least the chance of winning trumps loosing. What does the game look like in 20 years if managers utilize shifts on defense for every opposing batter and mix up the pitching rotation to devalue the closer? It might turn baseball into America’s favorite sport again, but it could also make it a total bore.

I watched a Netflix special the other night on the origins of curling. It closer to amatuer bowling in the eighties, guys from the local club meeting for beers. Apparently one of the best players found a loophole in the scoring and exploited it to countless Brier victories. The problem was it kept scoring so low and turned the whole affair into a colossal bore that fans started booing them everywhere they went. The sport instituted some rule changes to prevent low scoring games (matches?) and bring back the fans. 

I think there is a lesson in there for baseball. Make changes where necessary but be deliberate please. Too much too soon and the already dwindling fan base goes away for good. Don’t change the nature of the sport and don’t assume statistics that are practical and quantifiable will be embraced by everyone.

The average age of baseball fans is 57. So they have a problem every sport suffers with, how to attract new fans while not alienating the regulars. Don't let the math overwhelm the talent. 

Running Blog

I’m still running. 

The winter can be tough week to week from a weather standpoint. It rains a lot in the spring too which is rapidly approaching. The worst part about the extended rainy season is that the ground is soaked and often doesn’t dry up for a long time. It makes going to the parks impossible. Last week was blustery and hoovering just under 20 degrees on Sunday, my big run day. No big deal. I needed a break. But I didn’t need one on the following Thursday when I usually do a second, much shorter, run. I missed running on the treadmill that night.

 I can’t run outdoors in the dark. In the summer I don’t mind if the sun is going down and I’m finishing up, but otherwise I avoid it. I’ve started thinking about how I’m going to approach the summer. Normally I go for a late morning jog on Sunday morning and add another morning one, maybe 3 miles, on a day off from work. So I’ll get two in for the week. But I’ve never tried to run more than 4 miles in the Oklahoma summer. It’s pretty much hot an hour after the sun is up. Anything over 3 miles is brutal. The heat adds another dimension that with sweating and cramping.

If I want to maintain the same distances in the heat, I’ll have to either run with water or wake up earlier. I can’t imagine getting up early enough for the heat to be a moot point. Even for work the earliest I’m out of bed is 8:00 am. On weekends it’s closer to 9:00. After coffee it’s almost 10:00 and by then the sun is punishing anyone foolish enough to exercise outdoors. So carrying a small bottle with a strap for my hand sounds like a good option right now. Will it be enough? I guess this will be a learning experience for me. If I have to cut back on the longer runs then so be it. I think I’ll have to answer the very tough question at the front of my mind “How bad do you want to run?”

I need to add an extra day with of running instead of doing other cardio like the spin bike at the gym. Nothing strengthens the legs for running like running. Currently I’m doing more squats and leg presses for the hamstrings. I can’t tell if mine are unusually weak or if the after jog pain is normal. I’ve heard from other runners that as long as you aren’t changing your stride the weaker muscles will come along. In other words, don’t worry about nagging soreness. Worry if something is pulled or stretched.

Anyway, I’ll keep figuring out how to increase distance and stamina in all types of conditions until It’s second nature.

Loss of Connection

I’ve been reading all about ISIS. Mostly I’ve been covering the news on the fighting in Syria because it looks like it’s coming to an end. The ISIS part of it at least. I feel a little guilty about not following the wars we (Americans) are currently engaged in closer. It feels so far away. Not only far in distance terms but also far away in relevant terms. This is sadly true in too many of these wars. We, the American people, lose touch with the mission and the purpose of sending soldiers there in the first place. I don’t mean the mission isn’t worthwhile or critical to preventing strongholds of Islamic terrorists that can launch attacks from sympathetic governments in foreign countries. This is how we got into Afghanistan after all, take out Al Qaeda and prevent weak governments from inviting Osama bin laden types to set up camp.

My concern is that Americans are losing connection to the conflicts we’re involved in. We are able to fight them like on a small scale with limited loss of life (good thing) and little knowledge of the scope of the battle (bad thing). Syria sums this up perfectly. 

  

Syria is basically a mixture of groups and alliances all controlling different territories and with different ideologies. It’s the last of the Muslim countries to have a rebelling in what started during 2011 in the “Arab Spring”. It’s also had the toughest government response to the fighting. Egypt, Morocco, Libya and Yemen all forced their leaders out through popular will and violent street protests. Most of the rebellions played out in similar ways, a citizen gets punished unfairly with beatings or torture for some low level crime. Defiance on a small level (supposedly kids that used graffiti on official buildings) created a full scale insurrection that dragged other fighters, jihadists and regime supporters. The underlying resentment against officials created a spark that lit a powder keg. 

When we finally did send a contingent of troops the biggest questions was “OK, so who are we supporting exactly?”  I remember talking to a women whose husband was in Syria, this was probably 2016 or so. My response was “Wait, so we have troops there?” Maybe “troops” is the wrong word, more likely they were elite units and specialists.

To say the rebels we trained didn’t share our values is an understatement. I don’t mean in the “well I don’t approve of their methods” line we use when explaining support for non-democratic leaders. I mean cruelty on a ridiculous scale. I remember a video of a rebel who killed a soldier and cut his heart out Temple of Doom style. Unlike Temple of Doom the fighter did one better and actually ate it. Yep. Those were our boys alright, for a while anyway. No one was going to make the ‘he may be a cannibal but he’s our cannibal’ case at least. We abandoned the cause of training and equipping a lot of these groups shortly after.

The reality of most wars, conflicts, episodes and flare ups is they reinforce geopolitical realities rather than realign them. Countries need allies the way people need friends.  Friendly governments align based on tradition or pragmatism. The U.S. aligns with Western Europe because of traditions rooted in similar cultures, languages, legal and economic systems. We align with governments of Iraq and Saudi Arabia because of pragmatism and trade, often reluctantly. The House of Saud fights the regime in Iran (the Ayatollahs) which spreads terrorism around through the Middle East and especially against Israel. Russia supports both the government in Iran and Syria.

It’s a bit of mess on a global scale but if you follow the alliance it makes a lot more sense. Governments help each other when it’s in their interest. For all the talk about the Cold War being over much of the alliances post WWII are still in play.

I don’t subscribe to the knee jerk reaction that “Well that’s their problem, it aint our war”. It’s getting harder to define what is “our” war and what isn’t. Part of that is our fault, we need to pay attention. We have the luxury of not knowing where Syria is on a map, let alone being able to point out the factions and list the grievances. But if we string enough of these conflicts together year after year at what point is it no longer America’s military?

It could just become a rapid deploy force for America’s allies.

The way Congress gets around voting on each conflict is to give the president the ability to conduct it on his terms (called the Authorized Use of Military Force). Presidents get to manage the war and talk to generals about the progress. It makes sense to give this authorization for expediency’s sake, but voting to send in troops in the first place is the best option. I know it’s tough to get the legislative branch to agree to anything, but when presidents make unilateral decisions it creates separate tracks of responsibility. Wars are fought by the president and the Defense Department; domestic spending and investigation are done by Congress.

 If the future of warfare is going to consist of small groups of well-trained soldiers, like Army Rangers, whose missions are limited and opaque, we should know about it. Our representatives should vote on it and tell us why they did. Whose interest was served? Does the enemy represent a threat to American operations or some third tier ally? I’m not against being in Syria necessarily but I’m worried that our success creates the impression among our friends that we are the tip of the spear in every possible fighting scenario. 

 For all the problems in Afghanistan and Iraq we had some connection to both conflicts. We had family, friends and neighbors that served in both wars. There was home-front opposition to the war and messy results in both cases. But President Bush made a convincing case for both wars we sent our troops. He paid a price. Our soldiers paid a price. Their families paid a price. We did it the right way though, tell the American people, enlist allies, plan the war.

I think this is part of the reason for trying to keep conflicts small and impersonal. Don’t force the public to decide on sending a hundred thousand troops somewhere, keep it small, keep it out the news. I’m sympathetic to that line of thinking, but if we aren’t careful it can become a pattern. Maybe it already is.    

The Hidden Characteristics

 

Paul Harvey used to tell us about the “Rest of the Story”, interesting vignettes about famous people that few of us had ever heard. They had a way of rounding out the flat surface of long dead individuals. Even with helpful stories that broaden characters we can only really know a little about each person.

History filters out characteristics central to character but opposed to the larger narrative they represent.

History is never quite as clean as we’d like. Henry Ford called history “Bunk” as in, nonsense or hog wash. I don’t think he meant “lies” but certainly exaggerations and distortions. There are indisputable facts throughout history that we know to be true. The Civil War between the states took place between 1861 and 1865. The Union outlasted the Confederacy through a war of attrition exhausting all resources the South could muster. General Sherman hated the South and viewed slavery as something barbaric. The first two statements are true and the third is basically false.

 We know that Sherman wanted to keep the Union together but as he did live in Louisiana for a while and come to respect the Southern aristocracy. He didn’t think slavery a terrible thing despite fighting for the side with the most abolitionist sentiment. He comes close to supporting it on a few occasions. He may have come around to the view that freeing slaves was the best alternative but I couldn’t find any proof of it. I’m guessing Sherman isn’t unique in that way either. I doubt many Union generals thought of freeing slaves as their primary concern. A lot of Civil War history (recent) emphasizes the most important goal of the Union, to free slaves. But to read accounts of generals, on both sides, the cause of slavery seems a minor issue.  

 We tend to exaggerate traits that show up in their lives, and ignore other characteristics that don’t line up with our image. Union soldiers fought to end slavery, Confederate soldiers wanted to keep it. A lot of pseudo history flows from that.

I read a biography of Benjamin Franklin years ago and was surprised that the author kept trying to explain away Franklin’s request for prayer at the Constitutional Convention. A known Deist, Franklin couldn’t have really thought a prayer would make a difference goes the argument. The author ties himself up to explain this ‘one-off’ over this minor example that seems to contradict what the great inventor was all about. It doesn’t contradict anything though. People are complicated and prone to change their minds. Some historians want Franklin to be the logical scientist, running electrical tests and dismissing notions of faith as silliness.

There is always the chance that Benjamin Franklin had matured in his old age (81 during the convention) and placed a greater emphasis on God and faith. After seeing Washington’s rag tag army survive the onslaught of the British troops and their vastly superior infantry, isn’t it at least possible? How many of us have changed our minds on an issue as more information becomes available?

Someone like FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) is much harder to get at the heart of. He is miserable to study because he rarely wrote things down. He would famously tell staff members one thing and send others off with contrary instructions. He didn’t record much of it in his diaries either so historians have to piece together his life with large chunks missing.

It isn’t hard to imagine how easy it is to misunderstand someone or only see a particular side of them. A lot of historical writing is just that. Leo Tolstoy writes Napoleon as a silly little man surrounded by sycophantic followers in War and Peace. As a Russian he didn’t buy the ‘great man’ narrative surrounding the French general who rebuilt the country after the disastrous revolution. It didn’t hurt that Napoleon was run out of Moscow by the brutal winter more so than the Cossacks that defended it. This made him seem beatable for maybe the first time. But Leo Tolstoy only knows about Napoleon from Russian sources, it’s a shaded picture. Napoleon might have been overrated as a leader by French standards, but does anyone honestly think he couldn’t command fighting men?

I usually only see my neighbors when I work in the yard. I wave, they wave. Our relationship isn’t too much more than that, pleasant but impersonal. I lose my temper frequently when doing yard work. Either the mower won’t start or the weed wacker won’t spool out line; I threw my hammer and cussed out the shingles (many times) on my garage while replacing the roof a few years ago. I told a man walking through the neighbor (in no uncertain terms) I didn’t trust him and he’d better keep walking. Any neighbor observing my behavior (It gets really hot in the summer OK!) would describe me a lot different than someone I work with. I’m typically agreeable at work.

That’s how this whole picture of a person works. When you realize we act different depending on the situations it helps to explain the full image a little clearer. There is also the issue of any of us at different ages or different phases in life. Before kids and after kids; as a student and after retirement. Our essential nature doesn’t change but the intensity and importance of our pursuits often does.

I try to keep it in mind when reading history.