Several weeks ago I noticed a book lying on a buddy’s desk at work. He’s a pretty thoughtful fellow, so I figured if it was worth his time, then it just might be worth mine as well.
As subscribers to the Ducksnorts newsletter know, I’ve been trying to write something intelligent about Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini’s Inevitable Illusions (affiliate link) for a while, but I’ve had trouble expressing my thoughts in a meaningful manner.
The challenge has been in trying to figure out ways to apply concepts in Piattelli-Palmarini’s book to baseball analysis. They pop up in decision theory and economics, so I’m thinking baseball shouldn’t be too far of a leap. Unfortunately I’m not smart enough to make the connections on my own, and that’s where you come in.
The Hot Corner Ain’t So Hot
One current real-world scenario in the land of the Padres is the situation at third base. Veteran Vinny Castilla hasn’t produced, and we periodically fantasize about other possible solutions — Mark Bellhorn, Justin Leone, or even Paul McAnulty.
Leaving aside the question of which option might be best, let’s look instead at which is the most likely to occur. Consider first the following observation from Piattelli-Palmarini (p. 59):
We are spontaneously conservative when it comes to winning, and adventurers when we face loss.
He houses his discussion in the context of wagers, submitting that we will choose a sure gain over a probable gain, but choose a probable loss over a sure loss, even when the amounts — the “calculus of expected values” — are identical. The example provided, from studies conducted by pioneering researchers Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, is as follows:
- Sure gain of $75.
- 75% chance of winning $100, 25% chance of winning nothing.
- Sure loss of $75.
- 75% chance of losing $100, 25% chance of losing nothing.
Given the choice between A and B, more subjects chose A. However, given the choice between C and D, the majority chose D. This doesn’t make sense because both A and C represent certainty, while B and D involve risk with no additional overall reward. Either A and C should be preferred, or B and D. There would be consistency of thought here. Preference for A and D violates any concept of rational decision-making.
Risk Something? But I’m Winning
How many times have you seen this: The person with more to lose isn’t willing to put as much on the line. It’s why incumbent elected officials tend to be more boring than their challengers. It’s also why football teams use the ironically named “prevent defense” when they’re ahead late in the game. All else being equal, we are less likely to take chances when we have something to protect.
In the case of the Padres, they’re the defending NL West champs and are again atop the division 69 games into the season. Jettisoning Castilla in favor of another third baseman might help the club win more games. But what if it doesn’t? What if Bellhorn, Leone, or McAnulty takes over and the Padres fall out of first place?
Well, if it’s Bellhorn, at least you tried a guy with a track record — a spotty record, to be sure, but someone who has had success at the big-league level. Leone probably is too great a risk because he hasn’t had much experience, and you don’t know how he’ll react down the stretch. If you’re the Kansas City Royals and have nothing to lose, then maybe you stick Leone out there and see what he can do.
McAnulty? Please. It’s great that the Padres are giving him time at the hot corner in Portland. I love Grady Fuson’s thinking — maximize the kid’s value so that you can use him to help your own club or to fetch someone else from another organization to do the same. But realistically, what are the odds that the Padres would actually put McAnulty into a game situation at a position he’s just now learning, while they’re trying to win the division? Hint: Ask former Cal third baseman Xavier Nady.
The Padres, at least partly due to their position in the standings, have been reluctant to move Castilla off third base in favor of someone who might be better equipped to help the club achieve its goals of winning the division. Castilla is the known quantity, the sure thing. Remember: “We are spontaneously conservative when it comes to winning.” It is less of a risk (or perceived risk) to keep running Castilla out there every day than it is to try someone else who may or may not be any better.
Navigating Mental Tunnels
The unfortunate fact is that it’s hard to innovate when things are going relatively well. The even more unfortunate fact is that it’s hard to keep things going well without innovating.
We need to find a way through this “mental tunnel.” We need to challenge our own thought processes and continue to innovate despite the potential risk to current success or else we risk “losing” additional future success. I’m mostly talking about baseball here, but it could be anything.
How do we get to that point? How do we avoid the trap of mindless risk aversion when all is going well — especially when millions of dollars are at stake?
I don’t have an answer to these questions. Like I said, I’m not smart enough to figure it out on my own. But I’m sure folks have some good ideas.
Okay. So, what are they?
Speaking for myself, I would choose D over C because with C the loss is a sure thing, and at least with D there is a 25% chance to avoid any loss at all. I, however, would also choose B over A because at worst I would come out even and the odds would still favor my winning more than the $75 that is a sure thing in A. If I’m gambling, I would take the 5/8 chance of an overall $75 gain over a 3/8 chance of an overall $25 loss. The long-term odds favor the gain, IMHO, over the “sure thing” of running in place by picking A and C.
Vinny Castilla’s current offensive numbers are horrid – 8th worst VORP in major league baseball, and worst of 3B. But they are also a partially dead issue.
The question should be whether Castilla’s expected numbers from this point forward, and he has been improving lately, can be substantially bettered by replacing him with another third baseman.
Leone has fallen way off; McAnulty is probably a horrid defensive 3B at this point – those risks might be too great in comparison to expected rewards.
Picking up a player that is reported to be available – like Huff, Alfonzo, Batista, or Aaron Boone – does not seem like it offers enough reward at this point.
Getting someone who can be reasonably expected to put up a 2.0 WARP the rest of the year, if there are any out there, seems like a solid risk, depending upon the trade price.
Starting with the second to last sentence, I meant to type:
“If I’m gambling, and I have to choose one of both A & B and C & D, then I would take A and D. I would take the 5/8 chance…”
I hate it when work interupts…
I think today in this BP article is vorp .. worst vorps:
link: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5217
-9.7: Vinny Castilla, San Diego
-9.0: Aubrey Huff, Tampa Bay
-6.1: Adrian Beltre, Seattle
-5.3: Tony Graffanino, Kansas City
-3.5: Batista
we could have over the hill Tony Batista before this guy.
Defense and pitching, defense and pitching. Unless one of those replacement dudes can be at the same level or higher defesively then Vinny at third, Vinny will continue to be the guy. I think the key is to get Vinny to hit better and thus Mags is out and Merv is in and we’ll see what he can do with Vinny and Khalil for that matter.
As for mistakes in reason applied to the Vinny Question (VQ), you left out Vinny’s defensive ability which I think is the only reason Vinny is not on the street. None of the other choices show even remotely decent odds of return on the defensive end of the equation, so in this case, there is no mistake in reason. Vinny’s defensive skills are greater then the need for a hot bat at third.
But, it would be fascintating to look at recents trades to see where reason mistakes were made. Cameron/Nady-did the Mets gamble that Nady would produce (chioce b)? It worked out, but it was definetly a B chioce. Young/Eaton/Otska-did Texas gamble that Eaton’s finger was healed? Yes, and that did not work out. In both trades, Kevin made reasoned decisions (chioce A), although there was a risk that Mike might not be the same after his NASCAR-like collision last year. So Cameron for Nady is an A choice for the Padres, for a B-choice for the Mets. So, could the mets afford a B-chioce for Nady and therefore midigate some of the risk? Probably.
Good stuff, GY. OK, back to Saduko.
GY – your presentation presentation of “sure thing” vs “might”s and “risk”s seems to be based on a rejection of what I think Bill James proposed many years ago now that minor league performance can & does predict major league performance. That’s *NOT* to say that since Leone and/or McAnulty are OPS’ing .800+ in AAA that they will OPS .800+ in MLB … au contraire … but there are MLE’s (Major League Equivalents) … which are what BP’s PECOTA are based on … either we believe in the stats or we don’t … do we think they are worse then lies?
Good stuff, Geoff. Hopefully, I’d have more to share once I finished the book. But, this article is very good.
I think PM is correct in that Vinny as a package (glove+bat) is probably better than the unknown (Leone, PMac, etc). Whether it is better than having Bellhorn at 3B full time is unknown. Bellhorn is a streaky hitter and his glove is rumored to be not as good as Vinny. Unless, the Padres happened to be riding the Bellhorn streak at 3B, then the gamble would fail. On the other hand, having Vinny made mistakes a la that one game when he got gunned down at homeplate to end the game would be bad too. Would Bellhorn have made the same mistake, I don’t know.
The problem, however, is thinking that Vinny’s defence is that much better that the Padres can afford to have not production from him and that the defence of the unknown would be that much worse that even a better bat wouldn’t make up for the dropoff.
I think the Padres are doing something about it by mixing the unknown with Vinny this month. Maybe making 3B a platoon for now is the right thing to do in the absence of a sure answer or even a potentially better answer.
PM: I disagree with you about the X-Mike trade. I think both the Padres and the Mets were in the B mode. There was no sure thing that Mike Cameron was going to be the fielder he was before. As for the Mets, they didn’t need two CF and they have Victor Diaz who was pretty good at RF. Granted Nady turned out to be better for the first month than expected but the Mets didn’t take any bigger chance with the trade than the Padres.
Right now, if I am Towers, I keep looking for better alternatives at 3b but I would also keep a cautious eye on Vinnie. As Bochy aluded to, Vinnie seems to have found something in his swing and is hitting the ball much better lately. His .275ba/.800ops in June is more than sufficient for our needs when combined with his defensive skills. The main problem is, can he maintain this new found hitting skill? I sure hope so but I wouldnt bet any large sums of money on it.
I don’t think choosing A and D is inconsistent…the rationale is that breaking even is okay, even desirable…which makes sense if the status quo happens to be good (winning).
In this specific context, though, Vinny Castilla is not desirable. 3B is only a piece of the greater status quo which is winning.
btw, Vinny’s .275 June BA is with 0 BB’s, i.e. .275 OBP. Terrible.
Just FYI, Leone played 2B last night for Portland and made error #11 … The Hammer played 3B … so that tells me that the Padres’ brass really doesn’t think Leone is a viable option beyond just some worst-case-scenario-insurance.
With Leone playing 2B and McAnulty playing 3B, it reminds that one of the things I remember WC @ BP saying frequently is that injuries seem to be more likely for players after a position switch … just food for thought.
Matt Antonelli ended up 0-for-3 with a BB last night … http://tinyurl.com/pjmkr … hmmm, actually got pulled for a PH??? (note: the PH got a hit and walk on a very-high-offense night … the Ems catcher, who has played some games for Mobile & Ft Wayne earlier in the season, was 5-for-5 with HR #1)
Jackson Quezada goes for Eugene tonight … short-season ball has begun
So I’ve heard the Andy Marte rumor that apparently went nowhere but I’m kinda curious if there are any other 3B prospects around the league anyone would like to see in a Padres uniform. I mean obviously i’m not talking about about a one sided Pads fantasy trade I’m talking about a realistic trade possibility for a decent prospect or younger player. Also if you were KT and looking for a prospect like he apparently was with Marte what would you be willing to give up in return (carillo, Khalil, Ben Johnson)? I know that Marte was an elite type prospect so KT must have been willing to offer something that could have realistically gotten him. I don’t know I’m just curious of what everyone else thinks. I would love to see this team get younger.
I honestly don’t care about wins as much as I care about a championship. Winning the west does nothing for me. Mediocre baseball is awful. I want to see a team like the Indians, Braves, or Marlins of the 90′s. Building a talented team of young guys that could really contend to win a world series in a few years is what I would love to see. I feel like with Peavy, Young, and Hensley and even Thompson here now and possibly Carillio, Ramos, Wells etc. in the minors pitching is looking okay. What we need is some young bats.
” I feel like with Peavy, Young, and Hensley and even Thompson here now and possibly Carillio, Ramos, Wells etc. in the minors pitching is looking okay. What we need is some young bats. ”
That’s what happens when your GM only know half of the game. KT was a pitcher and has an eye for them, unfortunately he can’t figure out what it takes to be a good hitter in the majors.
The organization has already come out and said that they will not go after a big name this off-season, and with Roberts, Cameron, Woody, Chan Ho, Blum, Klesko, Brocail, Estes, Belhorn, EY, Embree, Piazza and Castilla all coming to the end of their contracts would you guys rather see the pads pull up the young talent in their system (McAnulty, Johnson, Wells, Hill, Cust, ect…) and see who can make it along with Greene, Barfield, Bard and Gonzalez or would you rather have the pads do what they did this last off-season and sign a bunch of vets at the end of their career and hope to catch lightning in a bottle?
We rented cameron for a single year? I didn’t know that. He might be worth a resign, no?
I guess I just dont have high enough standards. I am perfectly happy with a .275 obp attached to a .275ba/.800ops hitting in the bottom third of the batting order..driving in runs in crucial situations.
I expect you are going to be spending a whole heck of a lot of money to get a 3b to live up to your expectatiions. Seems Vinnie, hitting in the bottom of the lineup, has as many rbi as Giles(the teams best hitter) for the month of june despite a despicable .275obp.
The pads have an option with cameron but i want to say its for like $7 Mil or something like that.
After seeing the top young talent on a team like the Dodgers and the Marlins I have a really hard time believing that a team with Mcanulty, Cust, Johnson, Leone and whoever else is in the system would even be on the same par. Those teams have top prospects and we have potential role players. Like I said I like the pitching and I know the last couple drafts have gotten us some guys who could be real good down the line but are still really far away.
I think next year Johnson should get a full time job (if we don’t package him for a 3B) but I mean other than that we don’t have anyone that’s going to be anything better than average. Barfield was the last jewel we had.
Oh and let me just say I’m going to be pretty pissed if we let Nady go to rent Cameron for a year.
Do you think the pads will pay cameron $7 Mil next year?
I understand that the pads do not have great talen in thier system, that was not my question, it was do you think it would be better to see kids with some potential or vets who are giving it thier last shot before getting kicked out?
I think Cameron is worth signing for a couple of years max. I don’t think the Padres have any CF in the wing. Maybe a trade for Anthony Gwynn Jr. could be in the card?
Johnson should get a call up and depending on how he performs, could ended up with the LF starting job. Doc should be a backup, though. As he is much more valuable than EY is to the club as a backup/weekly starter. That would give the Padres Ben, Mike, Brian as OF with Bard/Bowen, Adrian, Josh, Khalil as IF with whoever 3B will be. I don’t feel that Bobby Hill is the answer there nor is he that young anymore. Wells is probably not ready for another season, at least should test AAA competition.
The Padres, however, should get a backup infielder that’s better than Blum to spare Khalil and Barfield. A legitimate PH a la Sweeney/Fick last season and a fourth OF. PMac, Cust, Leone may end up with the roles. Are they any good at being contact hitters with power?
I do not, however, want another tryout for veterans at the end of their careers. The best of these for the Padres was Rickey Henderson but there was and will be only one Rickey.
3B scares me next year, they will not go out and sign anyone with talent and they have nothing to trade for a good young prospect.
More than a 275 OBP is hardly expensive. Vinny is still the worst offensive regular on this team and one of the worst in baseball. Kids making a prorated 330,000 would outhit him.
Castilla’s had an 800 OPS for 40 at-bats and now he’s an 800 OPS hitter? All right. We’ll just forget the months of April and May entirely. The games we lost then because of a sluggish offense don’t count. I wish it were that easy.
What are the chances Antonelli stays at 3B? I think a high OBP, good fielding, athletic third baseman would be a nice fit in Petco. Granted we’d still need to find someone for the next year or two.
What they do with Antonelli may depend on what Chase Headley does, even though that didn’t work out so great last time they tried it by moving Nady and Gautreu to second base. They’re both high OBP types without big power, but Antonelli is the better athlete. Headley would stay at third and Antonelli would shift to 2b or CF. Or they might just leave him at 3b and worry about it when they’re both closer to the majors.
It is impossible to debate a point when your point is constantly being distorted to fit someone else’s justification.
Regardless, I think that should Vinnie continue his ways, he would be sufficient to man 3b without replacement.
Miguel Cabrerra.
MC for Carillo, Kottaras, & Headley
Great discussion, folks; I knew I could count on you! I’ll address a few points quickly here, and we’ll probably end up coming back to some of this stuff in a future post. There’s a lot more in the book that I’d like to discuss.
TF: The point about production going forward is a good one. That’s actually the reason I find Huff intriguing. He’s just 29 years old and he has a career line of .283/.340/.469. He seems like a good buy-low candidate, and in light of how little Tampa Bay was willing to accept for Joey Gathright, now might be the time to grab him.
LM: Great point about MLEs. Actually, those are translations of minor league stats to major league stats. They are as predictive of future big-league numbers as are current big-league numbers. In other words, the fact that a guy has an MLE of 850 OPS doesn’t mean that’s what he’ll hit in the majors, it means that’s what he would have hit there. Seems like splitting hairs, I know, but it’s like the difference between, e.g., Huff’s 853 OPS in 2004 vs his 749 OPS in 2005. In this case, his actual big-league numbers weren’t predictive of future production. The short answer is, I don’t think MLEs should be ignored, but neither should they be treated as gospel — they’re another tool for evaluation.
Steve, KRS1: I believe $7M option is correct. After seeing what a difference his play in CF has made, I’d be surprised if the Pads don’t pick him up for another year.
PF: I would do that deal in a heartbeat, but I’m not sure I see Florida dealing Cabrera for anything less than Peavy. Honestly my hope with Cabrera is that he doesn’t end up in the NL West.
Good stuff, as always.
Geoff: To your point, “He seems like a good buy-low candidate, and in light of how little Tampa Bay was willing to accept for Joey Gathright, now might be the time to grab him.”
That’s a pretty good observation, honestly. Tampa likely will take below-value for Huff because of his contract, and with that said, take a look at Huff’s second-half splits. There is lots of talk about being upset over the possibility of trading Nady for a season’s rental of Cameron, but how would Padre fans feel about trading a lesser prospect (or prospects) for the kind of potential second halves Huff can throw up, plus a puncher’s chance at signing him long-term?
Best case scenario, you get Huff leading the charge to another playoff run (with some protection for Giles in the middle of the order), and worst case, you get just slightly better production than Vinny. I don’t think you really lose either way, depending on who goes back to Tampa.