FIRE JOE MORGAN

Thank you to the 1,420 people who sent us this link.

Sigh.

Sox may have (computer) chip on their shoulder

Rick Morrissey

If computers ran the world, Steven Seagal probably would have won a few Oscars by now, assuming they judged him on the $2 billion his movies have earned.

That's unfair to computers. Not even computers could find value in Hard to Kill, Marked for Death, Out for Justice, or any of the other Adjective Preposition Violent-Thing movies he's made. (I realize Hard to Kill is actually Adjective Violent-Infinitive, but you get the idea.)

If computers had a way of measuring acting ability, he'd be running a martial-arts school in a strip mall.

Which is probably roughly what he is doing, now, in the world of humans.

But they don't run the world, yet, which means we can still type in our credit card numbers online without worrying that all our money is being sucked into a fund earmarked for global dominance by a dastardly computer.

I actually do worry about that, but it's because humans control the computers...for now!!!!!

Computers have no use for heart, or least they can't quantify it. They can't analyze what's inside an athlete, for example. They can't tell you who has the heart of a lion or the backbone of an earthworm.

Actually, the new MacBook Air has a program called iGrit, where you can enter a player's physical attributes, family history, propensity for diving, and which college he punted for, and it will give you a % by which his stats should increase next year. Macs can do anything.

Computers can't tell you that White Sox first baseman Paul Konerko is upset with how he played last season. All they can tell you is that he hit .259 in 2007, that he just turned 32 and, therefore, he must be on the downside of his career because that's what the model says is supposed to happen to him.

32 isn't like crazy over-the-hill for a 1Bman. He could bounce back nicely and match 2006, or 2005, even. But yes, it is most likely that he moseys a little further down the long lonely road known as statistical deterioration. Unless...no. Forget it. I was going to say: unless maybe, just maybe...he has heart!!!!!!

If you saw the piece about Baseball Prospectus' 2008 predictions in Sunday's Tribune, then you know the publication's computer has the Sox going 77-85 and finishing third in the AL Central, and the Cubs going 91-71 and winning the NL Central.

I know as much about computers as I do about astronomy, but I believe the computer term for Baseball Prospectus' Sox prediction is "fatal error."

Nothing better than the profession of complete ignorance, followed immediately by a pronouncement of certitude. "I have never heard a piece of orchestral or chamber music in my life, but I can say conclusively that Dvorák's Piano Quintet in A Major, Op. 81, is a piece of shit."

I have the Sox winning 85 games and giving Cleveland a run for its money for second place in the division. I know, I know: The Indians are loaded with talent, and if it weren't for Detroit spending gobs of money, they'd be the favorites in the AL Central.

But, again, what about heart?

What about "heart?" What about Miguel fucking Cabrera? What about Grady Sizemore and C.C. Sabathia and Justin Verlander and Fausto Carmona and Magglio Ordoñez? Heart? How about starting pitching? How about the fact that Jose Contreras is 62 years old?

I think Quentin and Swisher make this team a lot better than it was last year, but in that division they just don't have a chance, I don't think. Maybe I'm wrong.

Hal (or Smitty or Shecky or whatever the computer's name is)

My name is PECOTA. I will destroy you.

and I pretty much agree about the Cubs, which, given my track record on predictions, should make Hal/Smitty/Shecky do a lot of soul-searching, which is impossible because it doesn't have a soul, just an evil chip that makes it want to mate with Marie Osmond and produce robots that sing show tunes.

I am a computer and even I know that Marie Osmond is a hacky reference. Also: what are you even talking about?

The Cubs will win 92 games. They will win the NL Central. They will win the NL pennant. They will get trounced by whichever American League team has the inclination to do a little trouncing, the way a bear commences to eat after it gets done playing with its food.

First of all, thank you for the food metaphor. (Update: it's actually a food simile, so I'm adding a new tag.) Second, you seem awfully sure of yourself for a guy who has been talking about how nothing in life is certain thanks to indefinable qualities that cannot be evaluated or measured. Third: thanks again for the food metaphor. (Update: simile.)

The cold, hard facts might back up Baseball Prospectus' opinion that the Mets will beat the Cubs in the NL Championship Series. New York acquired Johan Santana from the Twins, shifting the balance of power eastward in the weak-by-comparison National League.

But ...

...Johan Santana has a heart condition? The Mets are earthworms? Your knees ache, portending humidity? The entrails of the goat you just slaughtered say that the Gods are upset and we should move our armies West through the mountain pass? Poseidon may take vengeance upon the Greek fleet because Athena zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Do feelings count? Or hunches?

Not really, no. I mean, they're fun. They're fun to toss around and stuff. But they don't "count" when you are trying to scientifically project a team's performance. That is kind of the point of scientifically projecting a team's performance.

Where is there room in computers for the inexplicable? Does the fact that it's the Cubs' 100th season since their last World Series title mean anything in the computations?

Oh my God does it not mean anything.

Does it mean anything that the Cubs could be driven by the challenge of a century of dryness or, conversely, that they could cave in under the pressure of it and finish 10 games below .500?

Look, man, I know that psychological factors sometimes play a part in a team's season. I'm a Red Sox fan, for cripe's sake. But if the Cubs finish 10 games below .500, it won't be because a bunch of grown men suddenly felt the weight of their temporary employer's century-long drought. It will be because they got injured and/or underperformed. I'm sorry, I just don't think that professional ballplayers, who change teams constantly and are hugely rich, are going to deeply internalize their city's historical misfortunes, no matter how many stupid articles to the contrary get written. I personally guarantee that Alfonso Soriano cares way more about the history of the DR little league team than he does about that stupid goat. And need I point to how little history mattered to recent Sox-based teams in the face of good starting pitching, power hitting, and (yes) luck?

I believe the Sox are embarrassed by what happened last season and, not to belabor the point, there is nothing in a computer's innards that can measure the effects of that. But it is one of the great motivators in the human makeup.

True. They might pull it together and have a nice season. But that would be an aberration. The point of computer modeling isn't really to try to take possible nebulous aberrations into account. It is to try to predict what is most likely given the evidence at hand.

That is the least amusing paragraph you have ever written.

Shut up. Go Google something.

Baseball Prospectus was dead on last season, when it predicted the Sox, whom it saw as aging quickly, would win only 72 games. That's exactly what happened.

And yet, here we are, reading this article. Kind of makes you wonder: why are we here, reading this article?

That the Sox dropped from 90 victories in 2006 to 72 games last season was one of the shocks of the baseball season. But not to Baseball Prospectus, and the people who run it deserve their props. They chalk up a lot of what happened on the South Side last season to the inevitability of time catching up with older athletes. I chalk it up to a number of players having down years at the same time.

...Those are kind of the same things.

Isn't there room for a number of Sox to have good years at the same time? Say, in 2008?

Sure!

If Jim Thome --

-- Turns 37 years old this year, hasn't played a full season since 2003 --

stays healthy, he could have an excellent season. It's a big "if," of course, but not like wondering if, say, the rain can hold off in Seattle for a month or two.

There might actually be a better chance of a dry spring in Seattle than of Jim Thome playing in 140 games.

The Cubs don't have a good enough rotation to do the impossible and win the World Series, but perhaps Carlos Zambrano's feistiness becomes contagious and the staff starts pitching like the '69 Mets did. Can a computer comprehend feistiness? I don't think so.

Well, this is kind of disingenuous. I mean, creating a computer than can comprehend feistiness is like the holy grail of artificial intelligence research. It's going to take years and years, and billions of dollars -- from both the public and private sectors -- before we can program a computer to understand and (hopefully) generate feistiness. But when we do, the world communities will come together as one, and marvel at the accomplishment, and they will stand up and say, en masse: "What a colossal fucking waste of time."

This is the time of year for predictions, so it's not surprising there would be a few bad tidings, especially for the Sox.

The problem with computers is that you can argue with them until you're blue in the face, and they don't even blink in response.

That is because I do not have eyelids.

There's no satisfaction in it. You can, however, achieve a higher level of contentment by hitting them with a baseball bat.

I'd like to see you try, Morrissey. I'll take you down, son.

How's that for feistiness?

Labels: computers, food similes, pecota, rick morrissey, white sox

Go here. Scroll down, and look at what the Baseball Prospectus PECOTA system predicted would be the final standings for this season in MLB. (Look also what Nate Silver's personal system predicted -- it's just to the right of the final PECOTA predictions.)

Then send the PECOTA computer a nice email and tell it how smart it is, and that you celebrate it, because it has a very fragile ego, the computer does, and it needs a lot of praise.

It's not perfect. But then again, nothing is, and this is pretty damn good. For a computer.

(Note: BP is a subscription site, so the link will not work if you're not a member. We have no affiliation at all with BP, but I do recommend joining. It's really fun to look at what PECOTA predicts for various players.)

Labels: computers, pecota

Reader Chris writes in with some updates on our favorite MLB announcers:

In the bottom of the sixth, Hawk and DJ have eclipsed all past displays of ignorance. In regards to the abysmal season the White Sox have been having (and, as a Sox fan, it's been excruciating for me), the two dropped these gems:

DJ: ...Not in the minds of the coaching staff or the front office.
Hawk:  Well, nobody could see it coming.  It's just that simple.

Then:

DJ:  Nobody knew or could have foreseen the Sox playing the way they
have this year.  If anybody could have explained it to them earlier in the
year [Ozzie] probably would have slapped him in the head and walked
away.

later...

DJ:...It's been uncanny, nobody could truly explain it.  Nobody foresaw
this kind of turnaround.

I will refer Messrs. Hawk and DJ to this post from March, referencing an article that discusses how a computer predicted the ChiSox would go 72-90.

And I would also invite Ozzie Guillen to "slap [the computer] in the head and walk away." Because I would like to see what that looks like.

Labels: computers, hawk harrelson and dj, ozzie guillen, pecota, white sox

So you can go ahead and attack them. It's fine. They don't care. You might want to think twice before you accuse them of not giving a team enough "respect," though. 'Cause that sort of sounds like a feeling, you know, and like I just said, computers don't have feelings.

Dave van Dyck of the Chicago Tribune, what do you think?

Computer crashes White Sox
Statistical program predicts aging team will win only 72 games

It's funny, the legitimate-sounding rationale for the prediction is already in the subhead. (It's aging.)

TUCSON, Ariz. -- After winning a World Series and more games the last two seasons than any team in baseball except the New York Yankees, the White Sox should have earned a little respect.

Right?

Well, again, it's not really about respect. It's about looking at strikeout rates and walk rates and aging curves and ... there are a lot of variables. It's a computer program that does a better job on average than one person just making a guess. Except you're right, they probably only inputted a 3.9 for the White Sox' Respect Over Replacement Team (RORT) when they should've obviously given at least a 5.4.

Well, maybe from real baseball people, but not in the surreal world of computers.

Got it? Anyone who has ever touched a computer is not a real baseball person. They are imaginary, and they hate baseball. And they (cue reality show confessional cam) don't give us enough respect!

(Warning: people who use computers may in fact be computers themselves.)

Baseball Prospectus, considered the new-age statistical bible, projects the White Sox to finish with a 72-90 record this season.

Van Dyck's been reading Murray Chass. Don't do that, van Dyck.

Re: new age -- please read the following, reprinted from February 27.

"New age" is touchy-feely. New age is spiritual. New age is intangible. VORP, Mr. Chass, is not new age. It may be relatively new, but it is not new age. It is the opposite of new age. It is an attempt to quantify, to measure, to analyze. You know, a more scientific approach to knowledge. Science -- that thing that humans do to find out more about the world around them. Not new age -- a fake thing that involves pan flutes and rubbing crystals on your body.

A statistical bible is not new age.

What the White Sox will be battling, however, are their own statistics, their ages, historical comparisons and myriad other data fed into the PECOTA system at Baseball Prospectus.

Exactly. See, it isn't so hard to figure out how this stuff works. People are working on this system. They tinker with it to improve it. It is not a random number generator.

How the computer arrives at its final projections is way above the average baseball mind, a sort of "objective" analysis of what the computer predicts is going to happen.

Dave van Dyck has a low opinion of your mind, fellow baseball fan. He is the kind of guy who would put finger quotes around the word objective if he were reading this article out loud.

And the scary part is that the computer can be accurate much of the time. It projected five of the six division winners last spring and predicted the Detroit Tigers would finish with a better record than the defending champion White Sox.

That's good. Good predicting. A computer did that? A surreal-world-living computer?

But 72 victories for a team that has averaged 95 the last two seasons? How could that be?

Well, they won 90 last year. And their Pythagorean was 88 wins. So let's start there.

Last year, four batting men on the White Sox accounted for 28 WARP1. It's true. Those men were Jermaine Dye, Joe Crede, Jim Thome, and Paul Konerko. Now, if you follow baseball at all, you might know that Dye had an insane career year, Crede performed better than he ever has, Thome bounced back from injury and put up big numbers at age 35, and Konerko -- well, Konerko stayed good and stayed healthy. PECOTA, not unreasonably, projects Dye to return to Earth, Crede to come back to his previous levels, 36-year-old Thome to be banged up, and Konerko to decline a bit at age 32.

All told, for these four guys, the 2007 WARP projection is just 15.9. 28 minus 15.9 is 12.1.

88 minus 12 is 76. So we're basically almost there already. Just with these four guys. Dye is the main culprit. At age 32, he posted an 8.5 WARP1. This is what the last six years of his career look like: 4.5, 3.4, -0.5, 2.4, 2.9, 1.9. So you can forgive PECOTA for being skeptical.

Pitching-wise, PECOTA isn't optimistic for a bounceback to 2005 levels. Mark Buehrle, for instance, is predicted to continue being 2006 Mark Buehrle, and again: pretty defensible. The man had a K/9 rate of 4.0 last year.

But, Williams was reminded, the computer says the Sox are a year older.

"Maybe we're a year better then," Williams said.

Um, what?

Labels: dave van dyck, ken williams, pecota, white sox

And Keith Law is pretty close to right on. Not only that, I am "dumb." Certainly possible.

Nate Silver is a writer for Baseball Prospectus, and he didn't call me dumb specifically, but he did say it's dumb to use ERA as a predictive statistic.

To reiterate, the key difference between these two sets of projections boils down to the predictive value of ERA; if Zito’s ERAs were an accurate reflection of his ability (as our “dumb” projection assumes), then this contract would have been perfectly reasonable. But while ERA is a very useful backward-looking metric — it’s helpful in settling Cy Young Award debates, for example — it’s not such a good forward-looking metric. A pitcher’s peripheral statistics predict ERA much better than past ERA itself.

So what does PECOTA predict for Barry Zito?

PECOTA is not terribly optimistic about Zito, whom it regards as a just a hair better than a league average starter.

Wow. And what is he worth?

It thinks that Zito’s next seven seasons are worth $43 million in present value.

An average annual value of just over six million dollars a year.

We can't take this as gospel, of course. PECOTA is far from perfect. But it's probably better than a rough-hewn guess, which is certainly what I (or most people) would be able to manage on their own.

So who's buying this? Do we trust PECOTA and the peripherals? Is Barry Zito really going to be a league-average starter for the next seven years? Somehow, it's hard to swallow. Mostly because if he is, I'll have to apologize to Keith Law in 2013.

One more thing: are there instances of pitchers who consistently outperform their peripherals -- that is, guys who, year after year, allow fewer runs than you might predict?

Labels: barry zito, pecota