Monday, November 20, 2017

The Pros of WAR

Dave Cameron responds to the Bill James criticism of WAR:

For the MVP voting, perhaps WAR is less useful than James would like it to be. On that point, I agree, and I used other metrics when filling out my MVP ballot when I was assigned to be a voter. But for many cases, the questions people are attempting to answer by using WAR are better answered by a context-neutral metric. It might not answer those questions perfectly, but it at least aligns with the questions about which fans are curious.

Is there a place for a context-dependent version of WAR? Perhaps. But then again, we’re already accused of undermining the model’s credibility by having multiple popular methods of calculation. And as James himself found when developing Win Shares, tying individual player performance to team wins isn’t quite as easy as one might hope.

I have no problem admitting that WAR as a model contains a number of flaws, or that our specific implementation of the framework is also flawed. There are a lot of areas for improvement. Forcing it to account precisely for the exact number of wins with which each team finished, though, would probably make it less useful overall as a measure of individual performance.

This quite reminds me of arguments between my mother and father, in that they argued topics upon which they agreed. They were really arguing about how to properly express that agreement. If I may be so bold as to summarize the argument/agreement:

  • James: WAR is good for future evaluation, but does a poor job of capturing the actual value of a player for an MVP vote. Win Shares is better for this as it captures context.
  • Cameron: WAR is context neutral, so use other measures in addition when casting an MVP vote. Creating a single number that combines value and context is tough. Win Shares only includes situational context for the batter, not context created by the batter.

In general, I like having multiple measures of player quality. Often, the aggregate of different measures is better than the results of the best measure. So we should be happy we have different versions of WAR, and Win Shares on top of that.



from baseballmusings.com http://ift.tt/2B61XTn

Sunday, November 19, 2017

Kapler as Manager

Via BBTF, players discuss Gabe Kapler‘s one-year managing in the minors.

Start in the weight room because everyone from the 2007 Greenville Drive has a Gabe Kapler workout story. Like the time they were on the road, maybe in Hickory, N.C., and Kapler joined a pregame session with his players. The manager grabbed a 50-pound dumbbell, outfielder Matt Sheely said, and put it between his legs.

“We sat there and counted,” Sheely said. “He did 50 pull-ups with a 50-pound dumbbell between his legs. We were all like, ‘Holy crap.’ I don’t care who you are. Oh my goodness.”

Or when Still, a fourth-round pick who was 6-foot-2 and 210 pounds, realized his manager had topped him.

“I thought I was lifting a bunch of weights,” Still said. “I look over and, of course, Kapler is curling 20 more pounds than I was on each arm. Wow, that’s pretty embarrassing when the manager is in better shape than you are.”

Based on that, I suspect every Phillies player will be in the actual best shape of his life when the season starts. It’s a fascinating read, as Kapler appeared to successfully combine intensity with a connection to his players.



from baseballmusings.com http://ift.tt/2mFefic

Saturday, November 18, 2017

Extra Rates

I was curious to see if triples were continuing to disappear from the game, but thought it would be good to look at the rates of all three types of extra-base hits over time. This spreadsheet contains a graph of extra-base hit rates per game since 1957 (the period covered by the Day by Day Database). The moving average is based on four seasons.

First, triples do continue to disappear. After making a comeback in the 1970s, triples have declined in every decade since. Triples are comparable to one-run strategies like stealing bases or bunting to move runners. Taking an extra base is worth the risk of an out when runs are scarce.

Note that doubles and home runs tend to move in tandem, although from season to season, home runs tend to spike more than doubles. During the 1980s, for example, the doubles tend is fairly flat while the home run trend shows a nice hump.

Note two that the end of the PED era* saw a shift from home runs to doubles, as the two-base hit took longer to go into decline. Maybe balls that would have cleared the fence earlier became wall scrapers.

*That is a convenient name for the era. There were trends in ballpark construction, valuing hitters over pitchers, maybe even changes in the baseball that contributed to the rise in home runs.

Right now, the double rate is not really following the big spike in the home run rate. Players are hitting more doubles, but not a lot more doubles. Home runs blew past the 2000 season peak, while doubles have not approached the 2007 peak.



from baseballmusings.com http://ift.tt/2zPE3hc

James Against WAR

Bill James uses Jose Altuve and Aaron Judge to demonstrate a flaw in WAR for rating the win value of players in a given season:

We reach, then, the key question in this debate: is it appropriate, in assigning the individual player credit for wins, to do so based on the usual and normal relationship of runs to wins, or based on the actual and specific relationship for this player and this team?

I have been silent on this issue for more than 20 years, and let me explain why. In the 1990s I developed Win Shares, while younger analysts developed WAR. At that time it was my policy not to argue with younger analysts. I was much more well-known, at that time, than they were, and it’s a one-way street. When you are at the top of a profession, you don’t speak ill of those who coming along behind you. It’s petty, and it’s just not done. Some of those people did take pot shots at me and some didn’t, but. . .well, it’s a one-way street. I’ve got mine; I’m not pulling up the ladder behind me.

But that was a long time ago. We’re not there anymore. WAR is not an upstart statistic; it is the dominant statistic. We can debate its merits on an equal footing.

This is an important article. The quick summary is that WAR is good for predicting future performance, but not judging the value of a player in a given season.



from baseballmusings.com http://ift.tt/2irTpOL

New Ideas Don’t Have To Be “New”

We constantly struggle with innovation and insight,  whether it’s for our own organization or our work with customers.

To be honest, I think we make innovation and insight far too complicated.

I don’t know how many “innovation” session I see organizations conducting.  Usually, it’s a group of people sitting in a circle.   Perhaps they are surrounded by white boards, there are pads of different color “Post-Its.”  There may be a facilitator taking the group through a number of “mind-freeing” exercises.  Inevitably, they struggle.  The groups stare at each other, toss out some ideas, but struggle with really new ideas.

Likewise, we struggle with “how do we provide insights to our customers?”  We do research, we assemble groups, we try to discover new perspectives that might catch our customers’ interests.  But often we struggle in developing insights.

Part of the problem is our approach to innovating and developing insights.

We do it through some sort of groupthink process, perhaps getting our best sales people together, or getting marketing/product management together to come up with new ideas.

The problem is, we are all prisoners of our own experience.

If our source of ideas is from a group that has the same shared experiences, it’s virtually impossible to come up with something new.  Too often, it’s just a repackaging of the same old stuff, perhaps with newer/cooler words, a veneer of technology, or just better graphics.  But we really haven’t innovated.

It’s similar with insights, our perspectives are limited by our experience and those of our customers.  When we look at similar things over and over, we are blind to those things we don’t look for.

In addition to being prisoners of our own experiences, I think our concept of innovation and insight may limit us.  Too often, we think it has to be something “new.”  Perhaps, not solving world peace or world hunger, but at least in our domains something brand new.

In reality, I think much innovation and insight doesn’t really have to be new, it just has to be new to us or our customers.  Something we’ve never seen or considered before.

If we’re doing our jobs right, if we are researching our customers and their markets, of we are looking at competition, it becomes very difficult for us to see something new.  Copying our competitors is not innovation, it’s just following.

So how do we make innovation simpler?

We have to look in different places, we have to source our ideas from areas we’ve never looked at before.

It can be as simple as looking in different places in our own organization.  Perhaps, it’s sales and marketing looking at engineering and manufacturing, seeing if there are ideas, methods, and approaches we can learn and adapt to what we do.  (I happen to believe there are huge lessons sales can learn from these areas–here’s a series of articles on that)

Or maybe it’s looking in completely different disciplines or markets.

Some years ago, we ran an innovation workshop with a couple of clients.  One client was a giant in sophisticated electronic components, the other was a fashion company, specialized in motorcycle apparel.  On one side of the table were a row of people in powder blue shirts and khaki’s, on the other were people in leathers, full sleeves of tattoos, gang colors, and the visible piercings were in very interesting places.

As we started, both groups looked at each other, then they looked at me.  The same look was on each person’s face, “WTF???”

After a bit of a rocky start, they really started engaging each other and learning.  The electronic components people started seeing things the motorcycle people were doing.  While they were old and, perhaps, stale in the motorcycle industry, adapted to electronic components, they were new and innovative.  Likewise, the motorcycle people were discovering things the electronic components people were doing, tweaking them to work in their industries and markets.

None of the ideas were new, but they were new to each group.  They could be tweaked and adapted to each different industry/market segment.

Likewise, look at wildly different disciplines.

Recently, I was talking to a nephew.  He’s getting his PhD in Microbiology from Harvard (says the proud uncle).  We started talking about his research, which involves mice, rats, and insects. As we discussed what he was doing, what he was trying to learn, I started seeing some ideas that could be interesting to explore in business.  I would never have thought of these, but for that 30 minute discussion at the breakfast table.

Again, the ideas weren’t new, they were just new to me.

As we look at some of the “break through” innovations we read about all the time, for example SaaS, the Cloud, even Smartphones, Uber, AirBnB, much of it is really not new, but artful synthesis of ideas from a variety of other disciplines and markets, packaged in a way that is new and innovative for our markets and customers.  For example, the concept of subscription based software is an adaptation from newspapers, magazines, and media.  Cloud existed as timesharing decades ago, but has been made more powerful by innovations in networks and software development.

Innovation and insight don’t have to be that difficult.  We just have to look in new places, taking ideas and methods, adapting and tweaking them for our markets and customers.

 



from Partners in EXCELLENCE Blog — Making A Difference http://ift.tt/2zTcPnk

Friday, November 17, 2017

I Left My Hart

John Hart resigned from the Braves Friday:

John Hart left the Atlanta Braves on Friday, less than a week after being stripped of his role as president of baseball operations.

The decision was not unexpected given the hiring of general manager Alex Anthopoulos, who is now in charge of all baseball-related decisions. Hart was bumped to the role of senior adviser, but clearly had no real power.

The situation in Atlanta is messy, and while Hart may not have known about the rule breaking, the buck stopped with him. He was given a push out the door, and decided to take the hint and leave. Will another team hire him? I suspect the result of the MLB investigation into the Braves front office will weigh heavily on that decision.



from baseballmusings.com http://ift.tt/2hHXTnE

Stop Reading (Just) Sales Books!

Reading is important to our professional development and growth (not to mention the scientific evidence of how it improves our cognitive capabilities).  Far too few business and sales professional actively read as part of their personal and professional growth.  (Perhaps, that’s part of the reason we consistently see the stunningly poor data on results.)

Every week, however, it’s gratifying to talk to sales people and executives who’ve made reading part of their daily professional development.  It’s not just blogs or trade magazines, they are actively reading books, doing deep dives into their own professional development.

I love learning what they are reading, partly to help me identify books I need to read.  (By the way, I’m super thankful when they list Sales Manager Survival Guide as a book they’ve read and value.)  But I get concerned when I hear they are just reading books on selling if they are sales professionals, or marketing if they are marketing, or leadership…

Don’t get me wrong, there are a lot of very good books on each of these topics.  But, to be honest, it’s hard to make big break through’s in your own professional development if you just read books from the same genre.  Honestly, most of the books offer different perspectives, new data, and different ways to think about the same ideas.  They are valuable, they help us think about different approaches, perhaps incorporating some into our own work.  But it’s hard to get real innovation or new ideas.

We won’t find the break through’s we need by reading the same subject matter, we have to look more broadly to find ideas in other disciplines or subjects, figuring out how we can adapt them to what we do.

Recently, this lesson was vividly reinforced in a conversation with a client.  I walked into their offices.  Normally, I turn right heading to the executive offices or the sales/marketing teams.  On this particular morning, I turned left (I think it was because the coffee machines are on the left side on this particular floor at the customer).

As I was walking through the open workspace, the EVP of Operations saw me and yelled, “Dave, I need to talk to you!”  I knew Peter from having participated in executive meetings, but he and I had never had much more than passing interactions.  The client is a construction company, and Peter is responsible for the construction of $100’s of millions of buildings.

Peter started walking to me and I noticed he had a copy of my book in his hand.  “Dave, I wanted to talk to you about some of the ideas in your book….”

I was a little startled, “Peter, I’m very flattered that you are reading my book, but why?”

You could probably guess his response, “Dave, I’m reading it, because there are some good ideas that I can adapt to what we are doing in operations.  I want to learn how we can leverage them to improve our own performance.”  We had a 90 minute conversation about a lot of the things I had written in Sales Manager Survival Guide, exploring how they could be tweaked to help his organization be more effective (He also gave me a lot of new ideas–at least new to me).  At the end of our meeting, I asked him what other books he was reading and managed to add a number to my own reading list (many that I never would have thought of–or that Amazon would never have recommended.

At the moment, I’m reading Walter Isaacson’s Leonardo Da Vinci.  One of the things I’m learning about Leonardo Da Vinci’s genius was his insatiable curiosity about a wide range of topics, whether it was anatomy, geometry, astronomy, engineering, how light works, materials, drama, music…. Leonardo was constantly learning about the widest array of topics, incorporating what he learned into what he was doing at the time, whether painting, staging a play, designing a machine.  In everything he did, he blurred the lines between disciplines, incorporating ideas from many into each project.  Part of his genius was even blurring the boundaries between fantasy and reality.

I believe our greatest source of ideas and innovation in sales (or whatever function you choose), comes from outside our discipline.  I believe the break through ideas come from the artful adaptations of ideas in other fields to what we do, I’ve coined the phrase, artful plagiarism.

Don’t stop reading books on sales, but make the majority of what you read something outside your professional interests.  Study those books, thinking, “How can I take these ideas and apply them to what I do?”

 



from Partners in EXCELLENCE Blog — Making A Difference http://ift.tt/2hykWgL