The Only Rule Is It Has to Work

[cj]

http://theonlyruleisithastowork.com/

It is about baseball, but is a great read and good for horseplayers IMO.

[fiznow]

Just the sentence alone is very true. Imagine there is a card with 10 races. In the first race someone who uses a self created rating system picks the winner. In the second someone who uses speedfigures, in the 3rd race a pace capper, in the 4th someone who just uses breeding and dosage numbers, in the 5th someone who uses body language, in the 6th someone who just starres at the odds, in the 7th someone who just plays jockeys and trainers, in the 8th someone who just uses stats, in the 9th a class capper and in the 10th someone who just likes the name of the horse (i could continue this up to 100). No matter how you pick your winners, it just matters that you pick them. And when you found a way that works for you don't let anybody change your mind.

[kingfin66]

It does look to be an interesting concept for a book, not to mention for a baseball team to try something different. One thing that does give me pause regarding the authors' research is a line from the website: We meet colorful figures like general manager Theo Fightmaster and boundary-breakers like the first openly gay player and the first Japanese manager in American professional baseball.

The individual who they believe to the first Japanese manager in American professional baseball is none other than Hide Koga who managed the Salinas Spurs (California League) in the early 1990s.

[Valuist]

I listen to him on the Baseball Prospectus podcast. I do agree that analytics are good, to a degree. My problem with them is every new angle the stat geeks come out with is being trumped as the new way to split the atom. It's good to know analytics, but its even better to understand their shortcomings.

When Moneyball the movie came out, every idea the geeks had was gospel. So what are the problems? The way pitchers are judged. Its all about velocity. Strikeouts are good, everything else is bad. In reality, velocity is an important part of the pitching equation but deception is equally important, and they have not figured out a way to quantify deception. Walks are as good as singles (they are not) and conventional "counting stats" (i.e. ERA, batting average) are worthless. The answer is somewhere in between; the new stats have some value, but so do the old ones.

Another idea is the pythagrean (sp) thereom that runs scored and runs against in MLB and points scored and points allowed can be used as a determinant for how many games a team "should" win. This is severely flawed because teams are not rewarded for cumulative year to date scoring. Some teams are bullies, and win by big margins when the opponent is overmatched but against a similar opponent, they struggle. The A's last year had a net positive runs scored thru mid September last year and they were a TERRIBLE team. They were awful in close games but would win an 11-3 type game every now and then. We see this phenomenon in the NFL every year.

I do believe in their idea of sequencing; for instance team A and team B may both have an inning with a walk, double and home run and team A scores 3 runs while team B only 1. It is also used to explain why teams go into shooting slumps or are hot, although I'm not 100% on board with that because we know confidence plays a role in every sport.

Lastly, they believe there is no such thing as "clutch". This isn't surprising since many stat geeks didn't play the sports and don't understand the mental aspect of the game(s). Some teams can play well in low pressure situations but fold like a cheap tent if any pressure situation. Again, they believe everything is random.

[RXB]

Some very good points, Valuist.

That said, I don't think that anybody who is truly analytical ever would've said that a walk is as good as a single (unless it's bases loaded, bottom of ninth, tie game). I believe that over the long run it's 1.4 walks = 1 single.

In the Moneyball days, the A's were actually getting rid of the higher velocity pitchers because they felt that they were overvalued, instead favouring the "deception" guys like Zito and Bradford.

Sme of the "analytics" available to the public are pretty simplistic by today's standards. The things that the teams are using are proprietary and far more sophisticated than the Run Differential = Expected Wins model, which I agree is substantially flawed. Just like the horse racing syndicates have created models to provide mass data that are far beyond anything that I could develop on my own.

The more the A's relied on their computers, the worse their drafting became and it showed when they began running out of talent and started losing consistently. When Fuson came back to their organization their drafting picked up again. The idea that good scouts don't play an important role, I think to anyone but the biggest pure analytics zealots is recognized as obviously wrong.

The horse racing example of the analytics zealot would be the guy who says that you can't get important info from horses' demeanour on post parade or at the gate. Those people do exist but I think most people are not so nutty as that.

[Valuist]

Moving the analytics case to horse racing, Thorograph, TimeformUS figures, Trakus would be examples of analytics. All have value, no doubt. But a dyed in the wool analytician would argue a) there's no such thing as track bias, b) there's no such thing as horse for course, c) there's no such thing as "seconditis", or a horse who repeatedly hangs.

When subjectivity comes in (track bias, pitcher deception), analytics preachers are in denial.

[RXB]

Originally Posted by Valuist

Moving the analytics case to horse racing, Thorograph, TimeformUS figures, Trakus would be examples of analytics. All have value, no doubt. But a dyed in the wool analytician would argue a) there's no such thing as track bias, b) there's no such thing as horse for course, c) there's no such thing as "seconditis", or a horse who repeatedly hangs.

When subjectivity comes in (track bias, pitcher deception), analytics preachers are in denial.

I would say that is the description of an ideologue rather than a true analytics expert. Not that the two are mutually exclusive, of course, but I think that most people are at least a little more reasonable.

[Valuist]

Originally Posted by RXB

I would say that is the description of an ideologue rather than a true analytics expert. Not that the two are mutually exclusive, of course, but I think that most people are at least a little more reasonable.

You'd think so, but listen to some of the Fangraphs podcasts, and you'll see that isn't always the case.

[maddog42]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/4...more-important

A very complex issue. I never heard any of the real sabremetrics guys claim a walk is as good as a hit. But that the ability of a player to reach base and work deep into the count is undervalued.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by Valuist

Moving the analytics case to horse racing, Thorograph, TimeformUS figures, Trakus would be examples of analytics. All have value, no doubt. But a dyed in the wool analytician would argue a) there's no such thing as track bias, b) there's no such thing as horse for course, c) there's no such thing as "seconditis", or a horse who repeatedly hangs.

When subjectivity comes in (track bias, pitcher deception), analytics preachers are in denial.

There’s one MAJOR item that’s been omitted: Insider Intentions.
Keep in mind that the connections (Insiders) know more about their horse at any given time than any statistician or Outsider (using the typical race related data) when it comes to recognizing when they believe the horse is ready to fire.
Whether you’re an Insider or an Outsider (not playing for fun) the bottom-line is making money. How you achieve that goal will ultimately determine your solvency.

If that can be done using a “Single Rule” great, but in my estimation most horse players use a multitude of subjective methods, angles, or what-ever you want to call them in an attempt to unravel all of variables found among hundreds if not thousands of race conditions.

[fiznow]

I agree about insider information. Some say grooms are the best horse players.
Also its true that several factors should be considered like pieces to form the whole puzzle. I think things like surface and distance are often underrated. For example its not true that all horses like to run on turf. And Ive seen horses who did very well over 5 furlongs but never succeeded over 6 . 1 furlong can be decisive.