"You can't Neutralize Stupid." an article on Dusty Baker

[George Foster]

http://deadspin.com/you-cant-neutral...not-1442060717

origionally published by Baseball Prospectus.


REALLY GOOD ARTICLE. Below is the jest of the article about Dusty and his decision making concerning line up's etc.


That brings me to Birnbaum’s point: “You gain more by not being stupid, than you do by being smart. Smart gets neutralized by other smart people. Stupid does not.”

[757690]

Well, I can't neutralize the stupidity of that blog. The nicest thing I can say about it is that it is one of the biggest steaming piles of crap I have ever read.

[dougdirt]

Well, I can't neutralize the stupidity of that blog. The nicest thing I can say about it is that it is one of the biggest steaming piles of crap I have ever read.

If there is one thing that I can say about baseball prospectus, it is that they aren't stupid.

[scott91575]

Remember, the website determines the article title, not the writer. I think it would come across a little better with a different name. The name of the article on Baseball Prospectus is "Overthinking It: Dusty Baker and the Modern Manager's Survival Manual." Deadspin obviously wanted to take the quote a little out of context by tying "you can't neutralize stupid" to Baker. The article even states Dusty isn't stupid, but states some things he did were not smart.

[757690]

Remember, the website determines the article title, not the writer. I think it would come across a little better with a different name. The name of the article on Baseball Prospectus is "Overthinking It: Dusty Baker and the Modern Manager's Survival Manual." Deadspin obviously wanted to take the quote a little out of context by tying "you can't neutralize stupid" to Baker. The article even states Dusty isn't stupid, but states some things he did were not smart.

He said he decisions were stupid. Here's the entire quote:

Dusty Baker isn’t stupid. But I don’t think it’s unfair to say that some things he did weren’t smart. As Birnbaum said at the Sloan Conference, “One of the things that analytics can do really well is filter out the really stupid decisions.”.

He also said hiring Dusty as your manager is like hiring your mother.

He claims that Dusty's managerial decisions are the dumbest ones that could be made. That they are the equivalent of having someone with no knowledge of baseball making them. He basically is claiming that they are like batting the pitcher cleanup, or having Corky Miller play SS, or ordering a bunt with two outs, no one on base in a 10-2 game. The decisions that Baker makes that he's complaining about are basically the other side of near 50-50 coin flip, and any decent stat guy knows this.

He claims that Baker's decisions are much dumber than the decisions an average manager makes. That's bull. Baker's decisions epitomize the decisions of an average manager. He plays strictly by the old book. He doesn't do anything crazy or unpredictable, (which I find to be Baker's biggest fault) and yet this guy is writing like that's all Baker does. That's just plain stupid.

[WMR]

The article even states Dusty isn't stupid, but states some things he did were not smart.

Potato - Pota-toe

...

Add enough of those "not very smart" things together and what do you get?

[mth123]

Well, I can't neutralize the stupidity of that blog. The nicest thing I can say about it is that it is one of the biggest steaming piles of crap I have ever read.

It's Baseball Prospectus. They've jumped more sharks than Fonzie. They were good several years ago. Now they are just pompous.

[RedlegJake]

The writer also makes a huge assumption based on anecdotal evidence - the antithesis of sabremetrical analysis. That is - that stupid decisions cost a team far more wins than the two or three that a smart manager can gain. Yet he offers no analysis or studies that back this up - just his gut. The fact is that the huge amount of random variable action in a baseball game may well mask most "stupid" maneuvers. Quite possible an analysis done by numbers would show little real difference. Then again - it might show a significant negative edge. But if you are such a sabre guy - SHOW US THE NUMBERS!

[Red Raindog]

The writer also makes a huge assumption based on anecdotal evidence - the antithesis of sabremetrical analysis. That is - that stupid decisions cost a team far more wins than the two or three that a smart manager can gain. Yet he offers no analysis or studies that back this up - just his gut. The fact is that the huge amount of random variable action in a baseball game may well mask most "stupid" maneuvers. Quite possible an analysis done by numbers would show little real difference. Then again - it might show a significant negative edge. But if you are such a sabre guy - SHOW US THE NUMBERS!

yup --- I kept waiting for his evidence --- but my gut agrees with the opinion - numbers be danged

[UCBrownsfan]

yup --- I kept waiting for his evidence --- but my gut agrees with the opinion - numbers be danged

I don't think it takes much to realize that bad decisions by a manager could have much more of an affect than good.

Give me a job as a manager with the goal of losing 162 games, just based on my decision's - I'm pretty sure I could.

Give me a job where I try to win 162 games, I wouldn't come close.

Basically at the end of the season, it would be like a linear optimization problem, based on the players if you made a correct decision every possible time, you would still have a maximum games you could win as a manager, though obviously that's unknown.

[Bob Sheed]

Yet he offers no analysis or studies that back this up - just his gut.

"That's where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. Now, I know some of you are going to say, "I did look it up, and that's not true." That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut. I did. My gut tells me that's how our nervous system works."

[Hubba]

"That's where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. Now, I know some of you are going to say, "I did look it up, and that's not true." That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut. I did. My gut tells me that's how our nervous system works."

Funny is not allowed here.

[bob jones]

Baker was really dealin" he was big time a gastroenteric neurologist

[Always Red]

Funny is not allowed here.

I have a great sense of humor, and enjoy laughing more than just about anything else in the world. (just about )

Deadspin stealing an article from BP, and renaming it "You Can't Neutralize Stupid: Why Dusty Baker Might Not Get Another Job" places the words "stupid" and "Dusty Baker" in the same sentence on purpose. As a weak defense, the supporters of Deadspin's point say that the author said in the body of the article that Dusty wasn't stupid.

Well, he also said in the title that Dusty was stupid, and especially with a site like Deadspin, sometimes titles are all that some low information folks read.

I don't think it's funny to kick a person while they're down, after they've been fired, and I'm one that does agree with the decision to fire Dusty Baker. The moniker "Stupid" goes past catharsis.

Redszone's better than this, is what I think some people are trying to say on this thread, including me. I hope it is. I think it still is. I'm not holier-than-thou, I'm not a prude, or the thread police. This is a great site, and I don't want to see it regress. I've found myself not coming here as often the last few days, waiting for the "catharsis" of blaming everything bad that has happened to the Reds over the last 6 years on Baker. Because it's boring and tiresome.

[M2]

The writer also makes a huge assumption based on anecdotal evidence - the antithesis of sabremetrical analysis. That is - that stupid decisions cost a team far more wins than the two or three that a smart manager can gain. Yet he offers no analysis or studies that back this up - just his gut. The fact is that the huge amount of random variable action in a baseball game may well mask most "stupid" maneuvers. Quite possible an analysis done by numbers would show little real difference. Then again - it might show a significant negative edge. But if you are such a sabre guy - SHOW US THE NUMBERS!

I had the same reaction. The problem is the evidence isn't there. The Reds scored roughly what they should have scored given the performance of their players this season. In fact, they were slightly above average when it comes to offensive efficiency. So, as crazy as it was to hit Cozart 2nd, the Reds didn't actually pay a price. The reality that lineups largely don't matter seems to have neutralized managerial stupidity.

Last season there was a strong argument that poor lineup construction indeed cost the Reds runs (when the team boasted the least efficient offense in MLB). However, thanks to some luck distribution, the Reds sauntered to 1st place and no one complained overly much. Apparently that can neutralize stupid too.

And what made the offense more efficient wasn't getting everything right down to the last detail. It was acquiring Shin-Soo Choo and hitting him somewhere in front of Votto, who in turn was hitting somewhere in front of Bruce. Baker did the obvious. It generally worked. Neither smart nor stupid had much bearing on how things shook out.