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?
Recent Comments