Whitlock: "Stat geeks are ruining sports"

[mothershipconnection]

Maybe it's like Angels in the Outfield, and sometimes angels come down to earth to make a guy play out of his mind so that a father and son can become closer.

[Funketown]

Maybe it's like Angels in the Outfield, and sometimes angels come down to earth to make a guy play out of his mind so that a father and son can become closer.

Well, I guess you can't argue with science.

 

Laettner played for Duke so he was clearly summoning up the spirit of Kutulu. He isn't clutch, he just has the dark lord on his side.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I disagree here, why was it not possible? I don't think it is an obvious common sense thing. You don't think it was possible for him to just take it 1 shot at a time, focus on perfect form/follow through?

 

If I told you that you had to make 3 straight free throws or you would die don't you think you would approach them differently than if they were 3 random free throws in a pick up game?

If you think players can will themselves to having a 100% chance to hit a free throw (or have 100% chance of hitting a free throw for any reason), we will have to agree to disagree. I find the very suggestion, silly and all the math is on my side. This conversation has turned into trying to argue against the existence of god.

There is no math on your side since you don't know if it possible to have a 100% chance of making 1 free throw, if that is possible the math is on my side.

 

What are the variables involved? How many of them does the player have 100% control of? If the player has 100% control of all variables involved then how do they not have the ability to increase their chances to 100%?

If the odds of something happening are 100%, they might as well not have the sporting event in question.

[cwolf2012]

"What are the variables involved? How many of them does the player have

100% control of? If the player has 100% control of all variables

involved then how do they not have the ability to increase their chances

to 100%?"

 

If someone can will themselves to have a 100% chance of performing, why in the world would s/he not do that all the time? If you have 100% control over all variables, why would you ever swing it any way but the way that helps you the most?

 

If a shooter makes a shot, would you argue that before the shot was ever taken, that he had a 100% chance of making it?

[JimH5]

People don't have the ability to "will themselves" to have a 100 percent chance at anything, just as I couldn't concentrate hard enough as a child to make myself float in midair.

 

But people handle different times in different ways. Some get all panicky in pressure filled situations, while others are just fine with the moment. Some freeze in public speaking, while others handle it just fine. I just don't know how mathematical models can predict that.

 

And go to a new restaurant where the place is jumping, and workers are performing with enthusiasm and confidence, and then look at a place that's dead, and watch how people drag around the place. Why wouldn't sports be the same thing?

 

There are times when we are absolutely locked into a sitation, and there are others, where we're not. Yet we expect hitters on a last place team in late September to take the same approach as they would in a pennant drive? That seems counter to regular human behavior.

[DuWayne Steurer]

People don't have the ability to "will themselves" to have a 100 percent chance at anything, just as I couldn't concentrate hard enough as a child to make myself float in midair.

 

But people handle different times in different ways. Some get all panicky in pressure filled situations, while others are just fine with the moment. Some freeze in public speaking, while others handle it just fine. I just don't know how mathematical models can predict that.

 

And go to a new restaurant where the place is jumping, and workers are performing with enthusiasm and confidence, and then look at a place that's dead, and watch how people drag around the place. Why wouldn't sports be the same thing?

 

There are times when we are absolutely locked into a sitation, and there are others, where we're not. Yet we expect hitters on a last place team in late September to take the same approach as they would in a pennant drive? That seems counter to regular human behavior.

Jim, I don't think anyone's honestly saying that there's no mental factor to baseball (or sports). I honestly don't believe that at all. I know that it's not measurable.......but the truth is, if someone is playing with a mental edge, it will show up in his stats. If he's 'hot' because he's locked in, it's already showing up in the numbers. What some are arguing is that it's impossible (and always will be) to separate the mental aspect from randomness or luck.

 

I don't even think Topper would argue that there's not some luck involved in going 10 for 10 from the floor. I'm sure there's a strong possibility that on a given night, a guy may give maximum effort, just get great looks at the basket, and just 'try really hard', but I don't think anyone could conceivably argue that one could 'will' themselves to a 100% shooting night on a basketball court. And there's still no way to even say if giving max effort on a given night makes a 57% shooter a 60% shooter, with that other 40% being accounted by luck. We're arguing something that simply can't be quantified in any way. I think it's more luck/random variance that leads to a 10/10 shooting performance, but some will disagree, and that's ok.

[homer]

 

But people handle different times in different ways. Some get all panicky in pressure filled situations, while others are just fine with the moment. Some freeze in public speaking, while others handle it just fine. I just don't know how mathematical models can predict that.

 

And go to a new restaurant where the place is jumping, and workers are performing with enthusiasm and confidence, and then look at a place that's dead, and watch how people drag around the place. Why wouldn't sports be the same thing?

The theory for baseball is that to get to the majors you have to be a mentally strong person in the first place. So to say one guy chokes while another thrives in a tense situation isn't all that accurate since they are all more or less the same in terms of mental fortitude.

[FVBrewerFan]

I'm 100% discouraged that this debate has become centered around Christian Laetner.

[JimH5]

homer wrote:

The theory for baseball is that to get to the majors you have to be a mentally strong person in the first place. So to say one guy chokes while another thrives in a tense situation isn't all that accurate since they are all more or less the same in terms of mental fortitude.

----------------------------------------------

 

But we can agree that Gary Sheffield had some sort of issues during his Brewers days. Starlin Castro was called out on national tv earlier this year for not having his head in the game. Mackey Sasser, Steve Blass, Chuck Knoblauch & Rick Ankiel had significant hiccups during their careers. John Lackey has been affected by off the field stuff this year.

 

I agree that new stats are better than old stats--but my issue with new stats is that they are too often used to predict the future, as if a guy will be able to perform because he did it before--without any regard to the context of individual moments.

 

We allow our minds to accept that golfers get the yips, or collapse under pressure. But we don't want to allow ourselves to consider the frailties of the human psyche in baseball players. That would interfere with our VORP.

[RightFieldCoder]

I saw this cartoon on xkcd and thought of this thread.

[reillymcshane]

I think Whitlock just posts crap like this to get people like us linking to his site and giving him traffic. Too bad we oblige (I know I went and read it).

[homer]

JimH5]

homer wrote:

The theory for baseball is that to get to the majors you have to be a mentally strong person in the first place. So to say one guy chokes while another thrives in a tense situation isn't all that accurate since they are all more or less the same in terms of mental fortitude.

----------------------------------------------

 

But we can agree that Gary Sheffield had some sort of issues during his Brewers days. Starlin Castro was called out on national tv earlier this year for not having his head in the game. Mackey Sasser, Steve Blass, Chuck Knoblauch & Rick Ankiel had significant hiccups during their careers. John Lackey has been affected by off the field stuff this year.

 

I agree that new stats are better than old stats--but my issue with new stats is that they are too often used to predict the future, as if a guy will be able to perform because he did it before--without any regard to the context of individual moments.

 

We allow our minds to accept that golfers get the yips, or collapse under pressure. But we don't want to allow ourselves to consider the frailties of the human psyche in baseball players. That would interfere with our VORP.

I think you are posting outliers for the most part in regards to baseball. Some of those guys had real mental disorders which is, in terms of performance, equivalent to having a physical injury. And yes I think some guys can let off field stuff affect them but I think on the whole they just use it as an excuse for a down year. Some years you don't get breaks, some years you do. My overall point is that the mental stuff, while having an effect, is way overblown. Guys get hot, guys get cold. Who knows? Maybe streaks are mental and we as humans are just incapable of maintaining the mental fortitude to keep a hot streak going. No one can be perfect 100% of the time (unless you are Michael Jordan and even he probably failed in the clutch a time or two) But in the end that all shows up in the stats.