MicroBob
08-31-2005, 11:10 AM
Okay - so my Dad forwarded me this article on baseball number-crunchers from the NY Times. He said "I sent you an article about baseball today which I think has some analogies to poker and investing. Will be interested in what you think."
NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/weekinreview/28leon.html?ex=1126065600&en=f1671b94c4fdad4b&ei=5 070&emc=eta1)
I've decided to share my take on it with the forums (for whatever it's worth):
Yeah. I can see some analogies to poker as well as investing.
You seem pretty interested in these baseball number-crunchers types.
I think the numbers have their place...but Larussa is most definitely correct that being a part of the game is relevant as well.
But it's also true that some of the old-time Tommy Lasorda and Sparky Anderson types probably go more on feel than they should.
The numbers crunchers will weigh the value of an out vs. the value of trying to get a runner to 2nd base and how much of an improved chance does it REALLY have in bringing in a run (and/or decreasing your chances of having an even bigger inning if you didn't play for just the single run).
But there really is more to it than that.
They might say that moving the runner to 2nd isn't that great because your chances of scoring him from 1st are still high enough to warrant NOT sacrificing him over.
What they fail to acknowledge is that it's the THREAT of the sacrifice that gives the improved chance of scoring him from 1st in the first place.
If the pitcher isn't worried about keeping the runner close to 1st...and if the infield isn't constantly moving to cover a jumping runner or the bunt possibility....then they wouldn't have as great a chance of scoring him from 1st.
The THREAT of advancing that runner has to be there.
And if you don't employ that threat than the opposition is going to get wise to you and the percentage of times that you are able to succeed WITHOUT the sacrifice will go sharply downhill.
This is what the numbers-crunchers don't realize they are ignoring when they say something as simple as "the sacrifice is over-used and over-rated".
The article reminded me something of my (and others) discussion with Barry Greenstein about his Ace on the River book.
I (and others) argued that there wasn't THAT much revolutionary in there and that it isn't exactly THAT important even for the high-limit players.
Barry plays in the $4,000/$8,000 game (whereas I play 4/8 and 5/10....so I'm 1,000 times lower than Greenstein who can conceiveably have up to million-dollar swings in a day).
Barry argues that poker is more than just the numbers that the 2+2 following internet-type players always want to break it down to.
I think that is a BIT unfair as I believe he underestimates how much we rely on things OTHER than just basic math.
But I understand his point...that you can't JUST play by the numbers at the biggest games in order to succeed. Whereas just playing basic ABC-style WILL be enough to succeed at my levels.
The little back-and-forth we had on this issue came to mind when reading this baseball article.
Barry telling me that I essentially "just don't get it because I'm not there" sounded very much like LaRussa telling the numbers-crunchers "Look....you don't even know the game at this level. And it's more than JUST about the numbers. There is so much more involved in this than you realize. So much more, in fact, that you aren't even aware of what you are missing."
something like that anyway.
interesting article.
NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/weekinreview/28leon.html?ex=1126065600&en=f1671b94c4fdad4b&ei=5 070&emc=eta1)
I've decided to share my take on it with the forums (for whatever it's worth):
Yeah. I can see some analogies to poker as well as investing.
You seem pretty interested in these baseball number-crunchers types.
I think the numbers have their place...but Larussa is most definitely correct that being a part of the game is relevant as well.
But it's also true that some of the old-time Tommy Lasorda and Sparky Anderson types probably go more on feel than they should.
The numbers crunchers will weigh the value of an out vs. the value of trying to get a runner to 2nd base and how much of an improved chance does it REALLY have in bringing in a run (and/or decreasing your chances of having an even bigger inning if you didn't play for just the single run).
But there really is more to it than that.
They might say that moving the runner to 2nd isn't that great because your chances of scoring him from 1st are still high enough to warrant NOT sacrificing him over.
What they fail to acknowledge is that it's the THREAT of the sacrifice that gives the improved chance of scoring him from 1st in the first place.
If the pitcher isn't worried about keeping the runner close to 1st...and if the infield isn't constantly moving to cover a jumping runner or the bunt possibility....then they wouldn't have as great a chance of scoring him from 1st.
The THREAT of advancing that runner has to be there.
And if you don't employ that threat than the opposition is going to get wise to you and the percentage of times that you are able to succeed WITHOUT the sacrifice will go sharply downhill.
This is what the numbers-crunchers don't realize they are ignoring when they say something as simple as "the sacrifice is over-used and over-rated".
The article reminded me something of my (and others) discussion with Barry Greenstein about his Ace on the River book.
I (and others) argued that there wasn't THAT much revolutionary in there and that it isn't exactly THAT important even for the high-limit players.
Barry plays in the $4,000/$8,000 game (whereas I play 4/8 and 5/10....so I'm 1,000 times lower than Greenstein who can conceiveably have up to million-dollar swings in a day).
Barry argues that poker is more than just the numbers that the 2+2 following internet-type players always want to break it down to.
I think that is a BIT unfair as I believe he underestimates how much we rely on things OTHER than just basic math.
But I understand his point...that you can't JUST play by the numbers at the biggest games in order to succeed. Whereas just playing basic ABC-style WILL be enough to succeed at my levels.
The little back-and-forth we had on this issue came to mind when reading this baseball article.
Barry telling me that I essentially "just don't get it because I'm not there" sounded very much like LaRussa telling the numbers-crunchers "Look....you don't even know the game at this level. And it's more than JUST about the numbers. There is so much more involved in this than you realize. So much more, in fact, that you aren't even aware of what you are missing."
something like that anyway.
interesting article.