Off Day This ‘n That

Crapshoots from a Different Angle

As longtime readers know (do I actually have any longtime readers?) I write a lot about uncertainty.  If I’m known for anything beyond a certain jovial nature when under the influence of alcohol, it’s for my oft-repeated (and I think proven) claim that the playoffs are a crapshoot.  A nice post from the pseudonymous tangotiger late last month made concrete the influence of uncertainty in another way I thought I’d share with you.

There are lots of ways to guess what some guys performance is going to be this year: ZIPS, Steamer, Pecota, etc.  Are they any good?  Tangotiger created a prediction method he called Marcel, whose object was to be what he called the replacement level of prediction:  something that was guaranteed not to be awful. 

His prediction for any quantity (hits, homers, ERA, whatevs) has three components: (a) average the last three years of data with higher weights on the most recent years; (b) add an aging effect; (c) regress the result towards the mean.  And it turns out that this method, which can be implemented in about ten minutes in a spreadsheet, is pretty good!

And while [ZIPS and Pecota and Steamer] may be better than Marcel, whatever advantage they have is going to be slight. I mean, we are talking about Marcel winning probably 48% of the individual head to head matchups. Everyone is really fighting for that 2%. If Marcel is an 81-win kind of a forecasting system, everyone else is an 82 or 83 win system. 84 if they’ve really tapped into something the others haven’t. There’s just not that much you can do, such is the power of Random Variation.

The “power of Random Variation” is just another way of saying what I’ve been saying about the playoffs.  There’s just a limit to how much any predictive model can do if the outcome isn’t determined by the past, but only influenced by the latent talents we can observe by looking at the past.

Two Out Hitting

I’ve never discussed this much, but Chip spends a lot of time discussing RBIs with two outs.  Every two out hit with runners in scoring position is treated as either the height of clutchness or the apotheosis of Why We Can’t Have Nice Things, depending on whether the hit is executed by the offense or allowed by the defense.  He has been known, for example, to describe a few Swanson two-out RBIs as INCREDIBLE!

But it’s not.  Just as we have pretty good evidence that clutch hitting isn’t a skill (conditional on having reached the major leagues) we have some pretty obvious evidence that two out RBIs aren’t that extraordinary.  Look at the following table, whose source data is the entire Retrosheet event database:

OutsRunsRuns (excluding sacrifices)
0340,626 (23%)314,922 (22%)
1597,945 (40%)535,235 (38%)
2569,411 (38%)569,411 (40%)

Once you exclude sacrifices (runs which are impossible with two outs) two out runs are actually the modal result. 

The data-savvy among you might notice a problem with this result, in that there is no control for opportunities.  But of course every at bat is an opportunity to score a run, as Chip beats us over the head with every night.  But we can take that seriously as well, with this table:

1st and 2nd0.2520.2700.269
1st and 3rd0.6210.5370.319
2nd and 3rd0.5850.5080.368

This table gives the expected runs on a batting play with the given base situation and number of outs (sacrifices have been dropped).  For bases empty, man on first, or man on second, two out hitters do slightly better than other hitters.  For men on 1st and 2nd, the one out hitters do very slightly better, but not significantly so.  Once there’s a man on third, the no out and one out hitters do much better, since they can bring home a run with a groundout, but note that with 2 outs and the bases loaded, batters bring an extra half-run over one out and men on first and third and 0.77 runs more than the one out and men on second and third. 

File this one under: Clutch Hitting Is A Myth – Exhibit 45a.


So the alltime franchise record is 19 in a row set by the 1891 Boston Beaneaters. I’m old, but not quite old enough to remember the 1891 team — plus they were in Boston. Furthermore, even Retrosheet doesn’t have game-by-game records from back then, so our knowledge of the specifics behind that streak are limited.

But a couple of interesting things. First, this streak was 19 of the last 20 games of the season. When the streak started, on September 16th, they were 5.5 games out of first. After the 14th win in a row, they were tied for first. After the next 5 in a row, they were 3 1/2 games up with one game left — a game they lost. That’s a nice stretch run.

Second, that team not only had 4 eventual HOFers (John Clarkson, Joe Kelly, King Kelly, Kid Nichols) and the alltime MLB leader in errors, Herman Long (1,096 errors in 1,882 games) but also had one of my alltime favorite names: Pretzels Getzien, although he was released on July 16th and wasn’t around for the streak. (The 2000 Braves who won 15 in a row had only 3 HOFers: Chipper, Maddux and Glavine. The jury is still out on Andruw, though. That was Smoltz’s Tommy John year.) I leave as an exercise to the reader how many HOFers we’re looking at this year.


Question from JoshKinNJ:

Do we think Dansby has taken the leadership mantle from Freddie?

Answers, from me:

I have no idea, but I am absolutely sure that the concept of “leadership” in this context is sufficiently elastic as to be meaningless, or, to state it another way, to mean whatever it is you want it to mean….Group culture is a thing, peer effects are a thing so I’m never going to say there’s nothing there. But the notion that a team neads a “leader,” or two “leaders” or seven “leaders,” some of them hortatory and some of them quiet, etc, etc, is an explanation in search of a problem, IMO. There’s still a lot we don’t know about how some teams (in general, not just sports) function better than others, but I strongly suspect that “teams need peer leaders” is the sort of thing created to give sportswriters and broadcasters something to talk about.

After some pushback, I promised I’d write about this, but ububba’s answer pretty much beat me to it:

And we were a sub-.500 team until the first week of August last year with Freddie.

I don’t know the answer. I know that some teams (the early ’70s A’s, the mid-late ’70s Yankees) fought like cats & dogs, had guys who absolutely hated each other, and they won titles. (Of course, the best player on both teams was the same hated guy.) The ’86 Mets had a guy who thought he was the leader (Gary Carter), but everyone laughed at him behind his back, and they won a title.

Each situation is different & I’m not sure the notion of needing a leader can be proven one way or another. I mean, it seems like the 2 best players on the Braves the last few years didn’t really dig each other and it wasn’t like Freddie ever really convinced Ronald to act like a pro.

But because the Internet has given me a few more column-inches to fill, let me elaborate a bit more.  There are all kinds of players cited as leaders without any actual playing exploits to match their “leadership.”  Pablo Sandoval and Steven Vogt last year are paradigms of that.  Yet somehow, when we lost all that leadership from Pablo after he was… ahem… traded, the team did a lot better.  There are all kind of reasons for this which might simply mean that the loss of leadership is offset by, say, great hitting by Eddie Rosario, but nobody wants to talk about it because the leadership talk was really just empty nice words about Pablo Sandoval, who people seemed to like having on the team.  And that’s fine:  all things equal I’d rather work with people I enjoy and people I respect than with people I hate or people I think are stupid – maybe I’d even perform better in a good environment than in a bad one.  And maybe having someone I respect tell me how to act when I’m acting inappropriately would help.  Or maybe having someone who “leads by example” to copy would help.  And maybe that job is better performed by a peer than a manager or coach in certain circumstances.  But it all sounds pretty squishy when you put it that way, right?  And it is. 

Players vary as to their needs.  They vary in age, in experience, in language skills, in temperament, in work ethic and in any number of different ways.  The notion that they need a particular peer to guide them is, at best unproven, and at worst, utter crap.  Even if very, very few players are self-reliant, what they need to rely on will vary, and the notion that there’s a guy with a mantle (Mickey?) that is required by every team or even helpful to any particular team seems really really doubtful to me.   

So what we’re left with is a good story.  Reporters and broadcasters love telling good stories, and they love talking intangibles, because they can never be wrong.  So the Braves went four months with Freddie’s leadership last year and were profoundly mediocre.  Then he stepped up his leadership (Did he?  How?) and we’re World Champs.  Now he’s gone and his leadership is gone, so unless you want to admit that that was all just hot air, you need to find a new leader.  Dansby?  Sure!  Why not?  Because it’s all just hot air.

But just because it’s hot air doesn’t mean Freddie didn’t have a big influence on Ozzie and Austin and (somewhat more controversially, unless you agree he was misquoted, Ronald).  But maybe having instilled the virtues he was capable of instilling, he isn’t needed any more.  Until the team forgets those lessons, they don’t need a leader.  Maybe.  Or not.  I don’t mean to pooh-pooh the notion that peer leadership doesn’t matter.  All I mean to say is that the notion that  team is better owing to the intangibles of any player is a hypothesis to be demonstrated, not a lesson in moral uplift.

Author: JonathanF

Alive since 1956. Braves fan since 1966. The first ten years were pretty much wasted. Exiled to Yankees/Mets territory in 1974 --- bearable only with TBS followed by MLB.TV.

48 thoughts on “Off Day This ‘n That”

  1. JonathanF, speaking as one of your longtime readers, your last couple of paragraphs made me think of at least one specific example of something that isn’t exactly leadership but is likely tangentially related: the value of veteran pitchers on your staff who may be able to help your young pitchers figure out how to grip a pitch.

    Tyler Kepner’s book “K” does a nice job of identifying chains of parentage for individual dominant pitches: the guy who taught Charlie Morton his curveball contributed a value to his teams that wasn’t measured on the back of his baseball card. (I think it was A.J. Burnett?) And so, too, Charlie may have earned this year’s wage with some payment in kind, as Kyle Wright has credited him as a great person to talk to in the clubhouse.

    Anyway, I’m with you about the difficulty of measuring “leadership.” But it seems to me that there are some elements of a veteran’s clubhouse presence which may be less nebulous, and hopefully more testable, than others. (I know there’s a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, but still.) What do you think?

  2. I agree. There’s all sorts of teaching going on. There are morale builders; there are skill teachers; when we talk leadership, I’m pretty sure we don’t mean anyone who contributed something intangible. I certainly don’t.

    But take your example. It’s undoubtedly really complicated, since not every pitcher can teach, and lots of students are in no position to learn. I’ve listened to Peter Moylan the last few weeks talk about guys who tried to teach him pitches but he couldn’t get the knack of them well enough to use them effectively in a game. I’m sure there are lots of examples like that. Is Kyle Wright better for having met Charlie Morton? He says so, and I believe him. But Phil Niekro probably showed a lot of guys how to throw a knuckleball… the fact that they couldn’t do it doesn’t mean that Niekro wasn’t a “leader.”

    To repeat… there are lots of intangibles, positive and negative, and a few of them are probably really important. But to call them all “leadership” is to make leadership meaningless as a concept.

  3. Thanks for the interesting food for thought. Seems like tangotiger accidentally created the Index Fund of prediction models.

  4. Can we extend the discussion of “leaders” to lucky charms and or cheerleaders? I think Panda, Charlie Culberson, Guillermo Heredia and others are examples of this concept and bringing in better players doesn’t mean you lose anything by removing a lucky charm or cheerleader.

    I do wonder if there may be something more to, say, country-mates or language mates. Something that makes good players more comfortable could help them play better. (in our case referring to Venezuelans…)

  5. Has anyone noticed that Ronald has not been barreling many balls? His OPS has fallen about 100 points. About as big a slump as I can remember from him. I think he plays better when he’s going Mach 10 with his hair on fire and the idea of “saving himself for when it matters” hurts his overall game. Fortunately, it hasn’t been much of a problem during the streak with so many others guys being hot. I hope that when the team cools down as a whole then Olson and Acuna will get hot at that point.

  6. @4 Doesn’t that still fall under the “intangibles” category, though? Just like a stretch of clutch hitting from a player, someone may be a good clubhouse fit, but that’s not necessarily a transferable skill.

    I think JonathanF agreed that group dynamics is very real. What’s not real is the idea that teams are in crisis when they lose someone who the media has labeled “The Leader”.

    These guys are professionals, and have lived their lives with the knowledge that a team is a constantly changing thing, not just from one season to the next, but within the season. Next man up, right?

    I imagine it’s like how fans love to think contract negotiations affect team dynamics, when players constantly assure us that they don’t. These folks are professionals who understand how the business works.

  7. JonathanF is such a good writer — so entertaining, so educational, so good with words. We may have to break his thumbs.

  8. Ummm… thanks, coop? I do it for you, and if the thumbs have to go, they have to go. Reminds me of Eric Roberts in The Pope of Greenwich Village: (Warning: Clip contains some strong language and some thoughts on proper behavior towards women that, while coming from the mouth of a somewhat intellectually limited character under psychological stress, might nonetheless be triggering to some lo these 40 years later.)

  9. Dansby? Sure! Why not? Because it’s all just hot Hair. FTFY,
    and somebody on this team needs to be nicknamed “Pretzels” stat!

  10. @11 I’m not going to look it up, so I won’t have to be disappointed, but I pray to all of the gods that his birth certificate said “Pretzels” on it.

  11. Four games back in the division. I think the Mets are formidable, but they’re not as good and the Braves aren’t as bad as early results
    may have indicated. It’ll be a foot race to the end.

  12. This is incredible. Of course, some of these guys are going to get so expensive even before FA that we won’t be able to hold onto everyone, but the amount of control is still impressive.

  13. And now I have to Wiki Eric Roberts to see whatever happened to him…

    Last night, I went to a full 9-inning MLB game (complete w/ walk-off HR) that was 2:38 in length. Amazing. It felt like the ’70s.

    This year, I say the same thing to Mets fans as I say to Yanks fans: Don’t count on your 2 best guys always being there together this year.

    If Scherzer & deGrom come back together and are their old selves… then, yeah, they’re a serious one-two threat in the post-season, not unlike the Nats in ’19. But to me, I’m not sure that’s an even-money bet. (And if we face them, we face them, just like we did the pitching-rich Dodgers the last couple years. Fine.)

    And I’m always waiting for Judge or Stanton to tweak a quad or pull a hamstring that ILs them for weeks at a time. Judge is definitely out of his mind now & he’s carrying that team (the rest of the lineup is just OK, to be honest), but their pitching is why they’re 31 games over .500 now. (Check out the numbers Clay Holmes — nuts. Imagine Kevin Brown & his heavy sinker as a closer.)

    And, of course, lotsa talk around here about another Subway Series… but the Braves will have something to say about that. I’d love nothing more than to play both of them in October.

  14. I think we need another Pickles, since it’s been a few years since Pickles Schlosser. Jethro Anderson already has a good nickname, and I’m particularly fond of Varsity, whom I nicknamed myself.

    But in general I think we need a LOT more great nicknames.

    Adam Duvall’s from Louisville. How about “Boilermaker”?

    William Contreras already has a nickname, according to BB-ref Killer! Killer Contreras! I’m keeping it!

    Jackson Stephens is from Oxford, Alabama, in the Blue Ridge Mountains. I wouldn’t mind giving the ball to Blue Ridge Stephens.

    Kyle Wright’s from Huntsville. I’d call him Saturn Five.

    Alex Jordan Minter — I just want to call whatever inning he comes into the “Condition,” as in, “Saturn V is coming out of the game after six strong innings, and with the Braves nursing a 2-1 lead, it looks like the 7th could be the Condition.” Then, after he retires the side, “Jansen will now come in as the lead was preserved in Minter Condition.”

    Vaughn Grissom, of course, is from henceforth to be known as “Cloninger.”

  15. As Duvall creeps closer to a .200 BA, let’s take the time to remember that Mario Mendoza’s career BA was .215.

    You know who had a career BA of .200? Bob Freaking Uecker. Why oh why isn’t it called “The Uecker Line”?

  16. @26 I bet Bob would be, too. When it comes to his baseball accomplishments, he is justifiably humble.

  17. After your leadership comments this morning, AAR, Morton should be “Captain” Morgan when he’s pitching well, “Rummy” when he isn’t.

  18. Every time a pitcher gives up their first hit Chip cracks that the no hitter or perfect game is gone, no matter what inning it is. It’s not funny, it’s annoying Chip.

  19. 13 — They only have Harris as a 50 overall FV? That’s low. He and Strider are already better than that.

    And it has Strider’s ETA as 2024. Lol

  20. @4, “(s)omething that makes good players more comfortable could help them play better” sounds plausible. The first thing that idea brought to my mind, though, was BJ Upton hitting like Kate Upton while he was a teammate with his brother on the Braves and then returning to his pre-Braves level for a year & a half when he left. (Justin hit pretty much within his normal range during those two years, maybe a bit better.) Of course that assumes that playing with Justin should’ve made BJ more comfortable; maybe it didn’t. It might be difficult to test that hypothesis, though, because I imagine there are some players that are affected by their environment much more than others.

    On leadership, my experience at work was that one negative person could do a lot more damage to group productivity than one coworker with good leadership could help, so having interpersonal issues was more of a negative than having good interpersonal skills was a positive. My workplace may not have been like an MLB clubhouse, though.

  21. @22–I’m with you, Alex, on more nicknames. As to Stephens, though, I like Pepper Sprout, for the Johnny and June song “Jackson.” (Someone else suggested this as while back, but I don’t remember who.

  22. Ozuna needs to go. He seems to have an over inflated opinion of his skill set and thinks it’s still two years ago

  23. What way to lose and break the streak – total offensive inability. And beat without a hit. Charlie finally turned in a fantastic performance. I should be unhappy that Minter gave it up but no one will ever win with 0 runs. Finally Dansby, Arcia, and Harris go cold and no one picks up the slack, least of all Ozuna.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *