Game Theory Application in Pitching Sequences

game theory

 

noun

a mathematical theory that deals with strategies for maximizinggains and minimizing losses within prescribed constraints, as therules of a card game: widely applied in the solution of variousdecision-making problems, as those of military strategy andbusiness policy.

Through my time as a professional poker player in college, I dabbled and experimented and educated myself in any way possible to gain an edge on the competition. For those of you whom are not aware, poker has adapted (especially online poker) from old school degenerate gamblers who are dumb as rocks, to extremely intelligent and talented mathematicians who are ready and willing to exploit any edge they can identify. It has adapted beyond a game of cards, into a smaller, less complex version of the stock market.

One of the topics I found extremely interesting was game theory. In essence, what game theory teaches you, or attempts to teach you is the way to "solve" a particular set of problems. In reality, that's what any game is: a set of problems that must be solved as efficiently as possible to achieve the greatest result. As in poker, there is a few players who are so talented mathematically that they have "solved" heads-up limit hold'em to create a situation where no opponent can achieve an edge more than 50%. Incredible, but even a computer cannot beat these brilliant minds when playing optimally over a big enough sample size.

Baseball analysis is advancing at light speed. The terms the average fan uses now were advanced concepts 10 years ago. The thing that GM's are using now are ways to come as close to an optimal decision as possible, all things considered of course. They may not be right every single time, but they're right more often.. and that's all you can really do in business, in the markets, and in life. Using mathematics with an ever-increasing sample size is allowing the brilliant minds to undercover things the naked eye can't and won't see. 

About a month ago I was on a plane and thought of how many similar parts there are to poker, investing and baseball. So I proposed a question that I still don't quite have the answer to: Is it possible to apply game theory to pitch selection. And if so, are pitchers and/or pitching coaches currently using these methods in pre-game preparation and analysis of opposing pitchers? If a pitcher throws a 3-2 fastball too often, he's not optimally presenting enough of a portfolio of pitches and will likely be hit hard. Almost anybody can figure this out, but is there room for improvement and who is capable of doing this?

The first guy that comes to mind is Cliff Lee. He is mechanically sound, and doesn't give away what he is throwing. He is able to throw 5-6 different pitches and command/control them all with great proficiency. He often throws a pitch that you don't expect him to because he has the ability to locate every pitch in his arsenal. But is that feel, or does he apply math to his pitching sequences? I have no clue because I am not his pitching coach, but it's interesting to think about and if this is something pitching coaches and organizations have philosophically taken on.

What do you think?

How a players character impacts their value

While watching the Carlos Zambrano show this week on Sports Center and Baseball Tonight, I began to think about players coming up who have had character issues and how they were dealt with. Jim Bowden, former GM of several MLB clubs was discussing Elijah Dukes and what his philosophy is regarding players who cause more issues than they solve. It is incredibly difficult to just boot a player off of your roster when they have a ton of natural talent. After all, your role as the GM of a club is to make it win and talent ultimately wins championships.

Bowden calmly stated how he would have handled the Zambrano situation if he were running the Cubs by stating "I would cut him". An $18 million dollar per year player being let go with nothing of value gained whatsoever.. I guess the economy isn't all that bad, especially if you're a member of the Ricketts family. Now these are the obvious situations where a player is clearly regressing in pure talent, and his attitude (previously accepted) no longer has a place on the team because his value just isn't there to justify the aggravation. But what about guys like Hanley Ramirez and Alex Rios? What about guys like Colby Rasmus and Milton Bradley? These are the types of things that managers deal with that we only see on occasion unless it translates onto the field performance.

Although all of those players have their own set of issues, it's widely known that some type of character problems have arisen but their natural talent and/or contracts keep them around. Tony LaRussa ran Rasmus out of town to get the command-less Edwin Jackson and some other scrap-heap pieces. Alex Rios was a waiver claim that the White Sox gave up nothing for, but also assumed the massive deal he had in place. He has shown flashes of not playing hard and feeling like he has somewhere better to be despite enormous talent.

Bradley was very talented. A switch-hitter who could hit for power and some average and ran pretty well in his prime. However anybody who watched Bradley can tell you how volatile his emotions were and still are. Then there's Hanley Ramirez. This guy has more talent than all of those players previously named, but shows a general lack of interest in baseball on a fairly consistent basis. There's no doubt Hall of Fame ability shooting from his veins, but it won't be reached and I'm fairly certain about that.

The bottom line is that some guys can be taught. Some just get it one day and realize that this is a short life, and an even shorter playing career. Some guys just don't ever get it, and they're often gone before we can say "man, that guy had all the ability, but...".

What This Season Means to Pujols Future

Is it me, or has some of the shine worn off of Albert Pujols? The slow start aside, he seems to be genuinely aggravated by the entire free agency process. Every interview he is asked the questions over and over again, and it seems to be wearing on him a bit. I remember spring training and the big questions were all about Pujols and what the Cardinals will do if he leaves. Then Wainwright went down, and the notion was that the Cards would just float through this year and try to rebuild when Pujols leaves. Maybe they would make a run, but the general opinion was that they didn't have a team good enough to win it all. And in all reality, that couldn't be anymore true as you watch their season. It seems to lack that one big piece to put them over the top. Not to mention Chris Carpenter is most likely leaving at the end of the year, and there is a strong possibility that Cardinals fans have seen the last of Adam Wainwright because his deal ends shortly as well.

Through 488 PA's, Pujols is posting a 3.8 batting WAR (Baseball Reference), the lowest of his career. Granted he's still got ~200AB's left before the end of the season, and he has heated up quite a bit over the past month and a half. However that is a great margin to make up, even for a player of Pujols caliber. A lot of conversation has been swirling that it's possible that the team who acquires Pujols in the inevitable mega-deal this off season may make a potentially crippling decision. Is he in decline? Is this the beginning of the end for the best player I have ever watched with my own two eyes? Even though some out there would argue that may be the case, it's highly unlikely.

Now that the same sizes have started to make sense, you can see some evidence that this is either A. fluky or B. he's hurt/distracted or maybe both. This year Puols' BABIP is .259, that's 37 points lower than his career .311 mark. His walk rate is 8.8% compared to a career 13.2% career mark. So some of the regression is due to the fact that he's getting unlucky when he makes contact and that is further illustrated when you look at his K-rate.. it's 9.0% with a career mark of 9.5%. So he's doing all the right stuff, but variance is not on his side for the time being.

Maybe for one team out there they'll get a discount if some scouts and front offices have soured on Pujols. That team may get a steal, because it's my opinion that he will return to his old self and perform at a high level for another 2-4 years. After he starts to regress with age, it won't be elite performance, but he will still be very valuable and put together quality AB's.

The Future of Assigning Player Values and Contract Size/Duration

While sitting at Panera Bread having dinner today and following a trip to take advantage of the Borders Book Stores closing and buying plentiful amounts of baseball books that will take me months to read, I had a thought. I was listening to the owner of Baseball-Reference.com on the Baseball Today podcast talk about the difference between theirs and FanGraphs.com WAR ratings, and it got me thinking about the future of player values and their reflection of contracts.

So.. will there be a day where there are no longer a need for agents? Will the ability to effectively peg a value to a certain player be so perfected that we no longer need to argue over years and dollars? What if it becomes so spot-on that there is no negotiating.. the science and math of analysis of performance, ROI, expected outcome and player value is so concrete that players are paid a certain amount as a rookie and then paid FOLLOWING their season based on WAR. The players union would hate it, but in all reality wouldn't it make sense? Jayson Werth, closer your ears my friend, because there may come a day where the industry looks back and says "what the hell were we thinking?!"

As someone who follows the evolution of how organizations are progressing, and how statistical analysis has come such a long way in such a short time.. its completely conceivable that negotiating will no longer have a place in the game and that performance and expected return will speak for itself. Players who perform are paid an equivalent share of the teams income based on their ability to drive revenue (contribute towards wins). Crazy? It may seem as though this is logical, but FAR FAR from reality, or at least modern day reality. At least then we would truly put the logic of statistical analysis to the test as brains in baseball will overtake feeling.

What do you think?

Strasburg to begin rehab assignment

The most hyped prospect that I have ever encountered since getting serious about the game in about 2008 is entering his rehab assignment in A-ball after having elbow reconstructive surgery just 11 months prior. Strasburg came out of the gates blazing once called up to the Nationals but subsequently blew out his elbow not long after leading to Tommy John surgery and a lost year. In the meantime however, Strasburg has been reported to have upped his workout regimen in an effort to increase his durability and endurance during games. Strasburg told reporters he believed the reason he was injured last year was due to fatigue later on in games that put additional stress on his elbow leading to the surgery. This would make sense in some fashion, because if you are not getting on top of the ball driving it downwards, it puts additional stress on your elbow to keep the ball from rising up and out of the strike zone.

Although logical, I don't have a short memory and a lot of scouts and talent evaluators don't either. The initial prognosis of Strasburg's mechanics are not very good dating back to his days as a minor league prospect. The stuff is unquestioned, his legs and midsection are strong and durable which help create the ability to throw at the velocity that he does throughout his outings. However when you take a look at his arm action and upper body separation throughout his delivery.. it has a tremendous resemblance to another stud turned burnout: Mark Prior. That's a scary comp, but looking at video of the two side by side, just looking at their arm action, you'll see where it comes from.

The delivery looks smooth to the casual observer, although Strasburg is much more of a max effort guy than Prior. However effort level (although relatively important) isn't as important as how someone is proficient with their key mechanical points. For a good example of this, watch Tim Lincecum. Although very high in effort, he's mechanically sound at the critical points in his delivery. If he weren't, I can say with almost certainty that he would have been hurt several times now with the amount of splitters he tosses during each game.

Much like many other baseball fans, I got chills watching his debut against Pittsburgh. Every one of his 14 strikeouts weren't just dominant, they were overpowering. It would be awesome to see the Nationals with Strasburg, Zimmerman and a core of other young arms leading an up and coming offense, but looking at the facts in front of me I don't see Strasburg staying healthy for any great length of time.