FIRE JOE MORGAN

I'll be watching at least part of Game 5, so I'm going to try something new and post any comments I have under this post.

Labels: live blogging, world series

Last night, ESPN Radio. I wish I knew who it was -- someone doing post-game commentary with Dave Campbell.

"If you scrapped the rosters for these two teams [Cards and Tigers], and started over by holding a draft between two managers, there are a bunch of guys who would be drafted ahead of David Eckstein. But if you ask the same managers: 'which player do you think is most likely to be on the winning team?', then David Eckstein will be the first name on that list."

That makes sense to everybody, right?

Cool.

Labels: david eckstein, world series

1. Were I a member of Eric Byrnes’ immediate family, I might be more than a little worried about the current state of his mental health.

2. Fox has still not granted women the right to predict who will win the World Series. (Kennedy: Tigers in 6; Byrnes: Tigers; Zelasko: toss to commercial)

3. Nothing – and I mean nothing – represents the zeitgeist of the 2006 Detroit Tigers better than Architecture In Helsinki.

(I tried to get this up 4 hours ago but Blogger has been down. Oh well.)

Labels: eric byrnes, fox, world series

I'm not a huge fan of making predictions about who's going to win a given series, or the whole postseason, or what have you. I very much enjoy talking about who has a better chance of winning, and for what reasons, et cetera. But I see little reason in saying anything like "I'm picking Twins in 6." I guess maybe it's fun? (Not a big fan of fun things.)

So generally speaking, I don't really care what people's predictions are.

But then...once in a while...19 baseball experts from the nation's leading sports network try to predict which team will win the World Series, and not one of them even picks a team that makes it to the World Series, let alone wins it.

And that, I kind of feel like, is worth pointing out.

I know what you're thinking: what are the chances that this could happen, assuming even that the ESPN analysts have monkey-throwing-raisins-at-a-dartboard level of guessing ability? And by "this," I mean 19 picks for World Series champs not even making the World Series.

Well, the chances that any given ("random") playoff team makes the World Series is 1 out of 4. In this case, 19 people missed what would have been a 1 out of 4 chance, if they had just simply "guessed" (at random). To measure the probability of this, we have to think in these terms: 19 people in a row "hit" a 3 out of 4 chance. What are the chances of that? .75^19 = .00423, or .42%

In other words, the anlaysts could have thrown all of their baseball knowledge out the third floor window of the Bristol megaplex, picked a random team to win the World Series...and there would have been less than a 1 in 200 chance that zero of their picks would get to the World Series. (Which, just to remind everyone, is exactly what happened.)

But wait! It gets better.

Looking further at these picks -- and I'm sure someone pointed this out before -- not one single person picked the Tigers to even get out of the ALDS. And only one person picked the Cards to beat the Padres in the NLDS.

Which means (stay with me) in the combined series of: Yanks / Tigers ALDS, Padres / Cards NLDS, ALCS, NLCS, and WS, the 19 ESPN experts went a total of 1 for 95. ONE FOR NINETY-FUCKING-FIVE.

If you let 10,000 teams of 19 monkeys randomly pick winners in those series, those monkey-picking-teams would average 30.9 out of 95. (.5 for 38 DS picks + .25 for 38 CS picks + .125 for 19 WS picks)

Congratulations to Enrique Rojas, the only person who picked either the World Series bound Tigers or Cardinals to win even one series. He also picked El Duque as the WS MVP in a victory over the Twins.

EDIT: I'd like to take a second to address two categories of e-mails I'm getting from a lot of readers.

Category 1 is best summed up by e-mailer CJ:
"You're giving them too much credit. Each of nineteen guys failed to connect on TWO one in four chances. If everyone picked at random, the probability that any one guy would fail to pick either wold series team is (.75 * .75) = .5625. Raise that to the 19th power and you get 0.0000178, or 1 in 55933."

On its own, this is true. And "more" impressive. As for accusations that I was wrong, however (which were often made), I stand by my original numbers. I was looking at the chances of a different phenomenon. ("And by 'this,' I mean 19 picks for World Series champs not even making the World Series.")

So, dudes who wrote -- excellent point. The chances of going 0-38 in CS Champs picks are even more astronomically difficult than going 0-19 in WS Champs picks not even making the WS. But I was right also. Sweet.

On to Category 2 now, as written by the beautifully named Alessio, who is probably a dude but in my imagination is a gorgeous 23-year-old woman from like Monaco who loves baseball and statistical analysis. I quote him (her? please?) at length because it's easier than writing this all out myself:

I'm no statistician, but I think you made an analytical error in your post on "picks". The chances of what happened are not nearly as distant as you calculate. In fact, you're far more likely to get such results from intelligent decision makers than from random chance.

The fact that human beings are picking will tend to "bunch" the picks a lot more than random chance. For example, let's say the Yankees are better than the Tigers, and everybody recognizes that. Everybody will pick the Yankees, so the picks could rationally be 19-0 even though their actual chances of winning might be something like 55%. When the Tigers beat those odds, all of a sudden you have 19 wrong picks, although there's only one upset in the series.

Now, when you have three or four series upsets (nothing unusual there), all of a sudden you have a whole lot more than 19 wrong picks.

When you have a consensus on the various team strengths, combined with just a few upsets, you get the seemingly anomolous result of a bunch of prognosticators going 1-for-95. A random picking system would almost never be that bad; but on the other hand, it would almost always be around 50%. The humans could just as easily have been around 90% if those series had gone the other way.

Alessio. My sweet, innocent Alessio. Alesssssio, my princess of Monaco... [daydreaming now: playing with Alessio's hair; engaging in conversation about VORP vs. WARP3 over mussels and wine...now realizing instead that Alessio is almost certainly a 45-year-old dude from Canton, Ohio or something, and on top of that, feeling the obligation to publicly apoligize to girlfriend about the whole Alessio-fantasy situation]...sorry, what now?

Oh, the numbers thing.

Yeah. Well, Alessio, you fat fucking ugly monster of a man, you make what I guess is a good point. I guess my response is: yes, of course. Of course humans will, over the long haul, be better than random-team generators at predicting who wins certain games / series / whatever. I realize why, especially in this case, the experts were especially bad at picking winners. Your point is spot on: a rational human being will pick the 55%-likely-to-win team, and, likewise, so will 19 rational humans. I'm just trying to put a scenario together that sort of points out the whole ridiculousness of "predictions" in general.

Listen: It's a cheat. I cheated. And that's the kind of thing you do when you run a blog devoted to making analysts look silly.

You take advantage of a combination of hindsight, upsets, and odd numbers, and use them in a way to make people silly. And you sort of hope, I guess, that people make their own conclusions about just how much these numbers actually mean.

To me, the overall point is not that we should let monkeys throw raisins at a dartboard instead of letting experts make their predictions. But rather, isn't it kind of silly / interesting / amusing that in this particular case, a team of monkeys would have been almost a sure bet against these so-called experts?

That's all. Interpret at your own risk.

Sorry / Thanks to Alessio, whose appearance and gender remain an absolute, delicious mystery to me.

Labels: espn, predictions, world series

Sorry for the delay folks. Let's chat this shit up!

Buzzmaster: Send in those questions. Joe will be here shortly!
Buzzmaster: So, what's on peoples' minds today?

Mark: Buzz, any sign of Joe?

Buzzmaster: He'll be here at 11:30 ET. Joe's a busy man. We're kind of at the mercy of his schedule. We get him when we can.

dak: Joe is too busy not watching baseball games and not keeping up on his favorite players to give vague and wandering answers right now. Sit tight.

Heath (NYC): Joe, how do you explain the A's getting hot seemingly every August?

Joe Morgan: They've done that a couple of times. Last year they got hot earlier, but then couldn't close the deal. They haven't played well in September the last few years. We'll have to wait and see how they do this year. They have more veterans to deal with the situation this year.

dak: So, listen. I'm filling in for Ken Tremendous. He ususally takes the JoeChat; Junior's filled in a couple of times. But this is my first crack at it in a while, and I realize now the hardest part of this thing is simply where to fucking start.

Let's start with the obvious: he doesn't answer the question. At all. Doesn't offer any single piece of explanation. More amazingly, he misses a free shot at Billy Beane and the modem he uses to make trades. Haven't we all heard that the A's have been great second half teams at least in part because of the trades that Beane has made in past mid-seasons? Wouldn't Joe Morgan want us to believe this is wrong?

Then there's the thickheaded fallacy: wins in September are more important than wins in, like, May. The season is 162 games long. Every win counts the same, except, one might argue, for games that are played against the team directly above or below you in a pennant race. Sure, games in September seem more important; there's only like 15 games left, you're down 2 in the standings or whatever...I can understand why they seem so important. I can even understand why they seem more important. What I can't understand is how a baseball analyst can get away with implying that they actually are more important.

And oh! the ridiculous, yet difficult to disprove: the key factor in wins down the stretch will be veteran leadership. That's right folks: Frank Thomas is going to teach Eric Chavez how to win in September. I mean, what did you think -- that Major League baseball players were born with the ability to win in September? No. They have to learn from sage veterans like Jay Witasick.

Bonus wrongness: I realize that this isn't exactly the same as having veterans around, but it's worth noting that this year's Oakland A's team is slightly younger on average (28.5 years old) than last year's team (28.6 years old).

What's that? Keep it shorter?

Tim (Rochester, NY): Joe, Have not heard about Johnny Bench in a while. Can you tell me how he is doing?

Joe Morgan: He just had a son, Justin Palmer. He was born April 1. He still works with the Reds, he has some title. He does a lot of appearances, speaking. I talk to him a lot. We talk on the phone a lot.

dak: I did a little internet research, and it turns out Joe Morgan is totally right about the name and birthdate of Johnny Bench's son. And as a result, I'm a little disappointed. So that's what my life has come to, I guess.

I like the Yoda-ish sentences in the middle, though. And the vague details. Joe, you sure he works for the Reds? "He has some title." Oh, ok. Mea culpa. You really talk to him a lot? "We talk on the phone a lot." Oh, the phone. Yeah. I guess you do.

Jim (Det): Joe, how impressed are you with the Tigers?

Joe Morgan: I've been very impressed. I think they'll finish strong. Success breeds confidence.

dak: "Success breeds confidence?" What the hell does that mean?

Joe Morgan: They've had a lot of success, so their confidence is high.

dak: Nonono. I mean, "what the hell does that mean?" as in, "what the dick kind of meaningless baseball pseudo-psychology is that?" Not "explain to me what 'breeds' means." Christ, Joe.

Ben (NY): You know, I don't think the MVP award is all about stats. Stats aren't everything. Do you agree?

Joe Morgan: There is a criteria for the MVP award. It goes something like character, contributions to baseball, contributions to your team, so there are more than statistics involved.

dak: "There is a criteria?" Did you mean, perhaps, "there are criteria" or "there is a criterion" or even "there is a a set of criteria"? Paging Doctors Strunk and White, am I right you guys? Haha!...ha. [Coughs quietly to self.]

I don't think that stats are everything when it comes to MVP voting. Of course, in essence we're looking at how good a player was in a given year, and the easiest way to quantify and compare these things is...well, it ain't stories, anecdotes and gut feelings.

However, character should be an issue (and it is -- more on this later). And I'd even go so far as to say that "clutchness" should play a factor.

Now, let's get it straight: do I think players should be rewarded a little more for putting together a number of so-called "clutch" hits in a season? Yes. A little. Do I think that players are born with a preternatural ability to perform in the clutch? Not really / I'm not sure / not significantly more or less than their almost-equally talented peers.

From JoMo's description of the criteria for MVP voting, it sure sounds like they make a big deal out of "contributions" and "character" and everything. Sounds more like we're voting for Secretary of Lincoln High's Key Club.

Now, here's what the BBWA says about MVP voting (which, incidentally, is surprisingly hard to find anywhere on the internet):

There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.

The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:

1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.
2. Number of games played.
3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.
4. Former winners are eligible.
5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.

Break it down:

1. "Strengh of offense and defense." I see little use in anything other than numbers to help me reach my conclusions of how strong a players' offense and defense are.
2. Albeit a simple one, this is a straight-up statistic. (How many people, by the way, had "number of games played" as their guess for second official criterion for MVP voting?)
3. Okay, fine, character. And of course, loyalty, which unfortunately rules out Nick Punto this year, who was found guilty of treason. Tough break, Nick.
Let me throw some names out there: D. Ortiz; T. Hafner; J. Mauer; D. Jeter; J. Giambi...whoever. Do any of these really stand out among the others in "disposition"? "Effort?" Hey, I'll consider it in my hypothetical voting -- it's in the criteria listed by the BBWA -- I just don't see it making a big difference in the way I hypothetically vote.
4. and 5. They must have meant something about "contributions."

El Centro, Ca.: Joe, will you ever manage in the majors?

SportsNation Joe Morgan: I don't think I will manage in the major leagues. I never use the word never. I did have some interest at one time. I went to sleep one night thinking that I would take a job and woke up changing my mind. I've done that twice since I retired.

dak: Note that JoMo doesn't say anything about how interested teams were in him -- only that he was interested in managing. I like to think that he just went to sleep one night after not watching baseball, thinking, "I'm going to call the baseball teams tomorrow and take a job as a manager."

Come on Joe, get crazy!

Bob Mozitis (Philadelphia): Are you excited to be doing the Little League World Series? Those kids play with passion and don't worry about the stats. They are like Derek Jeter in that regard.

Joe Morgan: I think it's great because it's the reason we all played the game. We just loved baseball and that's all they cared about. I think it's great to see kids play the sport. At one point, I was like they are. I didn't play in the LLWS, but I was at their age playing baseball.

dak: If I'm not mistaken, Joe Morgan just took credit for having once been a child.

Justin (Chicago): Whos the best CF in the game today?

SportsNation Joe Morgan: That's difficult. There are a lot of great centerfielders. Are you saying defensively or overall? Center field is really a defensive position. It's the normal guys you'd look at, Andruw Jones hit 50 HRs last year and won a Gold Glove. Jim Edmonds has won a lot of Gold Gloves. That's a tough question unless you are asking a specific question of whether you're talking defensive or overall.

dak: Jesus H. this guy is lazy. Why doesn't he want to talk about baseball instead finding any excuse to not answer a question? Why not answer the question both ways? Why not assume that he meant overall since that's what people usually mean when they don't specify defense? Why not say Vernon Wells is 3rd in all of baseball with a VORP of 55.9?

Mike (Morgantown, WV): Game 7: Koufax, Gibson, or Clemens...who do you choose to pitch for your team?

Joe Morgan: Obviously, that's very difficult for the first two. It would be either Koufax or Gibson, because I've seen them pitch a seventh game. I've never seen Clemens pitch one. Koufax can dominate a lineup, but Gibson was one of the best competitors I've ever seen.

dak: For those who haven't e-mailed us about this already, JoMo has just told us that he did not watch:

1) Game 7 of the 2001 World Series (the World Fucking Series)
2) Game 7 of the 2003 ALCS (possibly the most anticipated pitching match-up of all time, Pedro v. Clemens)
3) Game 7 of the 2004 NLCS (last game of a fantastic series)
4) Game 7 of the 1986 ALCS (dak was 8 years old and in the stands)

Four Game 7's that Roger Clemens started. Or, as Ken Tremendous likes to call him, Rogcar Clemtron. (He tells me that would have been his name if he were a robot.)

That's our Joe!

Bobby ( Staten Island, New York): When Mike Piazza gets inducted into the HOF what hat do you think he should wear?

Joe Morgan: What we do as the board at the HoF, we look at what team he had the most success and what team he was most identified with. When it's a close call, we do take into consideration what they want. But they don't get to choose, because some teams have offered to pay players to wear their hat when they go into the HoF.

dak: Huh. Okay, I think I knew that already, but that was pretty informative. NOW WHAT FUCKING HAT DO YOU THINK PIAZZA SHOULD WEAR?

Labels: joe morgan, joechat, little league world series, mike piazza, mvp, world series

From ESPN's power rankings:

5. Los Angeles Angels: The next time Mike Scioscia and Frank Robinson exchange lineup cards might be this October in the World Series.