Taking the Yankees Analytics Quiz
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 10. 2023
- Link to friends book on Amazon: www.amazon.com/How-Completely...
Their video on the misprint: • We bought 2000 misprin...
Link to quiz: forms.gle/rJxE3MkfJwueMDcB6
Link to Reddit thread about the quiz: / i_applied_for_a_baseba...
Link to Reddit responses: / would_you_give_rbaseba... - Sport
![tattoo printer tutorial[제품단순선물]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/g40_GwEJak0/mqdefault.jpg)
For a Yankees screening test there was a surprising lack of questions based around acceptable grooming and presentation standards of players Hair.
Well, it explains the quality of the field more and more
Those teams won titles, this team spent 300 mill and won 82 games
Shave those sideburns Mattingly!
Question 26 Is not clear at all. Like you said you shouldn’t think about specific situations or context. Both teams would benefit equally in run value. Sure if you try to say 88 win team is trying to get farther in the playoffs but u could also say the 70 win team is trying to make the playoffs. They both benefit the teams equally towards the playoffs and/or run value if u take face value of the question. Without more context that question sucks
@@soysauske5768except if we take WAR at face value then that 70 win team will maybe turn into a 73 win team, still nowhere near the playoffs. A 70 win team needs way more than just one player to become a good team, and so the 88 win team that is barely out of the playoffs benefits a lot more from that one better player.
> "Hey man, you're benched because you only had 2 hits in your last 35 PA"
> "But... but... I had 33 walks!"
My grandmother walks every god damn day, On this team we do runs. You want to walk go to the park! Ted Simmons to Barry Bonds..... probably.
Walks are for sissies, real men get hit by pitch 50 times a year (Hughie Jennings is the GOAT)
Lmfao
It was at bats but that’s funny
@@TheQuiltedNorthern No, it was distinctly plate appearances, at 6:49 in this video.
Question: You're presented with two players, who will hit in the bottom of the 9th with 2 outs?
Player A: .285/.365/.350 with an ugly girlfriend and 12 homeruns over 450 plate appearances in the regular season.
Player B: .190/.189/.500 but he's a big dog and he keeps stomping up and down the dugout saying "big dogs do what they want."
Big dogs do what they want so you ain't gonna stop him from smacking one 500 ft and stealing the ugly girlfriend of player A
I’m assuming in this scenario we’re down by 1 run. In that case it depends on who will bat after. If it’s a good hitter I’ll take A, as the better table-setter. Otherwise B.
@@chesschad81 wrong answer!
Honestly, your shout out to your friends was genuine and I appreciate it a lot. You were honest about not taking other sponsors and ad revenue isn't the prime focus of your channel. So hats off to you, you're a class act.
Thanks!
Q22 is like asking in 2023 if you want Clayton Kershaw or Madison Bumgartner on the mound for your clinching game.
but mad bum wasn’t ass in the regular season. he was already a good pitcher who took it up a notch in the postseason
Madbum had a 5.15 FIP in his last 175IP as a starter through 2023.
I wouldn't jump at the chance to start Madbum in the playoffs in 2023.
@@BaseballsNotDeadwho knows, maybe he just needs another shot in the postseason
@@wolfboy8667I'm pretty sure he's done, if he hasn't made it official already.
Just bought their book! Artists need more respect in this community! So glad you helped them out
Awesome! Thank you!
One thing that I'd like to note is that people on Reddit are likely giving their genuine opinion, but if they were actually taking a test from an analytics department, they might choose differently. I think this is important, because it was sometimes really easy for me to see what was supposed to be correct even if I didn't personally agree.
Exactly this. I know the purely analytical and stats driven nature of things like pulling the starter after 5, or the 3 reliever with the saves question, but it really doesn't take into account things like leverage and such that are a bit more human
I'd argue that's part of the problem with the test in the first place, because if you are hiring people who think that way, you are hiring a staff of people who ar more likely to ignore the human element of situations because of the numbers tell them something. And that's how you pull Jose Berrios in the wild card game.
This quiz just makes me realize how inconsistent our thinking can be. Sports analytics can be so confusing sometimes. Great video, either way!
Happy to pick up a copy. That's exactly the sort of thing I will support. Keep making great vids.
Also, Clutch exists. J.P. Crawfords OPS with the bases loaded this past season was like 1.974.
Much appreciated!
@@LordHighFixxer Clutch is mostly hindsight and doesn't exist as a useful predictive metric, and J.P. Crawford's 2023 bases loaded OPS is actually a great example of AGAINST the concept of clutch.
Crawford's 2023 bases loaded OPS was 1.897, which is indeed sensational and much better than his general OPS of .818. But then we look at 2022, when Crawford's bases loaded OPS was .444 (with an absolutely miserable .111 SLG) vs a general OPS of .675. And in 2021, his bases loaded OPS was .623 compared to his general OPS of .714.
You could say Crawford *WAS* clutch in 2023 in bases loaded situations, but the previous two years indicate that this stat is a major anomaly with significant year-to-year fluctuation, and Crawford has historically been more of a choker in bases loaded situations. So where's the clutch value? Could you confidently assert that Crawford will have superior OPS in bases loaded situations in 2024? I sure as heck wouldn't.
And that's just looking at one stat with extremely limited plate appearances to go by. If we take the more common RISP stat instead, Crawford had a 2023 RISP OPS of .806 vs his 2023 general OPS of .818. And it gets really bad when you look at his 2023 Late Inning Pressure OPS, which was .758. That's right: Crawford actually batted *WORSE* in clutch situations in 2023, he just had one major outlier stat in very rare circumstances.
Clutch does not exist at the Major League level. Any player that isn’t confident in his abilities in big moments gets weeded out before making the Major Leagues. And the numbers will back this up.
I like the questions I got right and the ones I got wrong are had and probably shouldn't be on the test to begin with. Thank you. That is all.
The other thing about Q21 that incentivizes bringing in a reliever is the stipulation that you have FIVE high-level relievers all with FIPs between 3.20 and 3.40 to cover 3 innings. This allows you to play matchups far better than leaving in your starter against a lineup tailored to hit against him.
i am a very causal baseball fan and you did a fantastic job explaining and breaking down everything! Great video this was awesome
Boone would've failed this test after starting Gardner hitting leadoff for years while he was a .180/240/300 hitter😂
Gardy's worst slash was 222/327/362, and his total production while Boone was manager is 236/327/412
So yeah not an ideal leadoff man (better suited for the number 8 role) but nowhere close to 180/240/300
@@warlordofbritannia his ops was 90 or worse ffs and that last year he was hitting under .200 until he was dropped in the order.
@@ghostofmoredishesmorebitch1507
Oh, you meant he was hitting that badly in the leadoff spot, not altogether?
The real correct answer for most of these questions is, "Screw you, give me more info first." Who's my team's owner? The Riddler?
Got a few wrong due to valuing a few stats more than others. I thought the 5 war 3B would be equally valuable for both teams due to trading, but that might fall under the don't assume they would trade him ordeal. All in all, fantastic video and thank you for bringing the quiz to light!
I also thought the 5-WAR question was poorly worded. We have no idea what the expected records of other teams in each team's division / league are. What if the expected 88 win team is already a pretty good lock for the playoffs; does an extra 3-WAR move them into WS contender? At face value, both teams are increasing their expected wins by 3 games. So I believe the correct answer should be both teams benefit equally (since no other information is given).
For question 12, I picked B. My thought process was that innings are inherently valuable and having your bullpen pitch an extra 1.1 innings every time the pitcher started could strain them over the course of a full season. Over ~30 starts the difference between the pitchers is 40 innings (around 2/3rds of a full time reliever) which could potentially save a roster spot/ reduce bullpen workload. I totally get why I was wrong and would pick A in the future, i just wanted to share my perspective on it
Yeah, although I picked A I could see the difference in innings being a factor. If the difference in ERA was closer that might flip the answer, but as it was, a guy who never gives up a run is just too valuable.
There's no chance a bullpen could absorb that many innings. He's also attributing the 2 runs to 1.1 innings. Why? It's 2 runs over 6, not over 1.1. The difference is between a 0 ERA pitcher and a 3.00 ERA pitcher.
@@JawaPunter Since you'd be choosing a guy giving up 2 runs in 6 innings over a guy who gives up zero runs in 4.2, those 2 runs are a direct trade-off for 1.1 innings. That's a terrible trade-off and of course you can redesign a bull-pen to handle an extra 40 innings a year, though it would stress a bull-pen that's not designed for it.
For question 22, I (and I assume countless others who took the quiz) couldn't get the image of Blake Snell being pulled in the 2020 WS out of my head. I knew the right answer was to pull the starter, but I had to answer otherwise on principle.
Easily my favorite baseball channel keep ‘em coming!
Re: the triple slash question: there's no reason to assume that the player with an OBP of 1.000 has only had 5 plate appearances while the other player has put his numbers up over an entire season. The question also wasn't "Which of these is more realistic?" but "Which would you prefer?" I'd take the guy who never produces an out.
Love question 12 because not only were the responses fairly evenly split, but if you were wrong (like I was) you were WAY wrong and in a way that is easily quantifiable when you stop to think about it.
That was mind-blowing for how many people got that one so incredibly wrong. A pitcher who goes six innings and only (but always) gives up two runs would be a good reliable starter. A pitcher who guarantees 4 2/3 innings per appearance without giving up a single run ever would be a godlike GOAT of sports GOATs; zero contest, no mortal comes close. Come ON, 41.8% of responders.
@@jroggs85"would you rather have a pitcher with an ERA of 3 or an ERA of 0?"
"0"
"WWWRRRROOOONNNNGGGGGG!"
"Every team's ultimate goal should be to win the world series"
Jeffrey Loria: "I have never heard anything so deeply offensive in all my life as a consness man. I mean business trickster. Er, businessman."
If you look up the guy who gave the "the bad team can trade the 5 WAR player for prospects", I'll bet you find someone who works in the Mets' FO.
For question 21 you could disregard this entirely and pull your starter before he goes through the order a second time.
I call it the Blue Jays Front Office Method(tm)
This is one of the best CZcams videos I have ever watched. Instant sub ❤
The problem with using the Rays with the openers question is that they've had so many injuries to their arms over the years.
Tbh I don't think the opener system is the biggest contributor to that, but it most likely does factor decently into it.
This is awesome. I did pretty well, but a few of the questions really stumped me. This is a phenomenal video!
Question 26 is interesting to me because a 5 war player would make up a higher percentage of a 70 win teams war thus making them more valuable to that team than the team that won 88 games. Also in this instance the league average starter he’s replacing would likely have another spot to move to making the war shift higher as the 5 war player would likely be replacing a replacement level player vs an 88 win team he might be placing the average starter straight up
I was thinking the same thing, but in terms of the %, the question would have to be worded like "Which team would the 5 WAR player be more valuable for", vs. "which team would benefit more". And you can't really make any assumptions about moving the player being replaced, his contract could just be over.
I'd be perfect for the Yankees FO, cuz I put too much stock into recency bias, trusted worse stats to determine good players, and barely understood most of the deeper analytics
As someone who is only casually into baseball but very good at test taking, I was able to do better at this than I think I should at a test designed for a screening like this.
FWIW, front offices are probably very much looking for nerds who are good at test-taking lol
Q21. You stick with what’s working til it’s no longer working. This is why great regular season teams, ie the Rays historically fail in the playoffs.
Game 6 of the 2020 World Series immediately came to mind
i shot about 50% from the field on the questions, but this was still very entertaining. well done.
Great video as usual. Favorite baseball creator 👍
I think Q #21 is really interesting in terms of question design. When dealing with a question with this many numbers thrown in it, my approach is to discard irrelevant stats as quickly as possible. I tossed IP and current score instantly, but in doing so, I was ignoring the entire phrase of "five shutout innings (18 batters faced)" - literally didn't even notice that it told me the # of batters. That left me with just pitches (low enough to not matter... much) and FIP. Given FIP(Starter)
I made a video going over what Tom Tango and Lee Panas said about clutch hitting in "The Book" and "Beyond Batting Average" and how clutch hitting is much more than BA with RISP and how many RBIs a player has. You always pick the player who is better with a larger sample size rather than great in just a few games. Thank you for highlighting this quiz, It gives good insight into what some teams are looking for in stat analysis.
Stoked to see this video, haha. I was one of the people arguing about the 1.000 OBP question, but really my point was always that both interpretations are possible. I think you convinced me, though. It's a good point that the sample size issue is more of an assumption to make in a standardized test setting than a hypothetical impossible stat line being real.
When he compared it to question 12 and said "no one objected to the concept of a pitcher going 4.2 and giving up 0 runs every single time", that alone was enough to convince me, given the fact that I had gotten that one right.
The old addage that a team's most cherished asset is its outs remaining is why I picked the 1.000 OBP dude.
I knew a 1.000 OBP was ridiculous, but the imaginary scenario of getting a free baserunner every time the guy came up to bat was just too OP. Given no other info (and that's the key thing) you gotta take it.
@@Jlundeen Not to rehash this whole thing, but everyone arguing agrees that a batter who magically gets on base every single time would be the right answer. The argument is that, "given no other info", you would infer that the 1.000 OBP is due to a very low, entirely non-indicative sample size, and the right answer is to take the really good batter instead. That's the right answer in a real world scenario (well, really, it's to get more info) - but almost certainly not on the test.
@@cool_scatter With no other info one must take the stats at face value. Obviously it's not a real-world scenario; it's a thought experiment. If the sample size was low, which the question gives no indication of, the other hitter's stats are equally suspect (you can't claim low sample size for just one of them). Gotta just go with the stats given. It's pretty clear.
Love this and your thought process throughout was on point. One disagreement though - on Question 26 I feel like you violated some of your own rules. You made an assumption that Team B was on the brink of being a contender just because they are at 88 wins, but that is not necessarily the case. Take this year's AL East for example.
I interpreted this as a trick question when I took the quiz. If both teams have the same WAR at 3B, and both teams sign a new 3B with +3 WAR, then both teams gained 3 wins above replacement. To me, the win count is there to throw off the test taker. The net gain for both teams is +3 WAR, and equal benefit. Going further than just taking the additional WAR requires making assumptions.
The point about the worse team trading the player for prospects is a good one, but its also an assumption. To me, both the prospect-trading scenario and the 91 wins = contender scenario are equally invalid given the context of the questions. They are both assumptions, and therefore are outside of the scope of the question being asked. Both teams gain 3 WAR at 3B, simple as that.
I'd like to end with saying that your channel is VASTLY underrated and you should have 10x as many subs as you have. Keep up the great content.
My man gets it.
i have a follow up for question 13
if you have a player that walks 100% of the time, do you:
-keep in the line up
-use him as a pinch hitter the first time you have base loaded to walk in a run
Been on a shitty van tour. Love baseball. Love your channel. Pujols destroying Lidge forever the first clip of your intro. I may even buy two! Keep it up, Dead Mr. Met!
Thanks!
I got almost all of these, but did get tripped up on the "4.2 IP no runs pitcher vs. 6.0 IP 2 runs pitcher" question, because I was thinking in terms of "eating more innings = better", without considering how the former pitcher with any reliever would still prevent more runs over six innings on average than the latter pitcher does.
Well this has worked out great for the Yankees in recent years.
I can say having taken this quiz last year, we were only given 15 minutes to answer the 30 questions. That being said, the instructions mentioned not having to worry about the time and just to answer the questions to the best of your ability. Seems as though they were stressing people’s thought process more so than how quickly you got through the questions. They also wanted you to maintain consistency throughout the questionnaire
THIS WAS SO MUCH FUN
Perfect score, woo! Obviously, this quiz was supposed to be as misleading as possible. If I wasn't sure, then I imagined what my dad would say and picked the opposite 😅.
This was a great video! I wouldn't have got them all but I think once you spoke about them, I'm pretty on your side with what you picked
6:01 It's funny you mention this, because I also applied to this position and when they gave me this test, there was a 15 min time limit.
Amazing how baseball existed without this stuff for over 100 years.
For question 21, a fun example: The Phillies pulled Suarez vs. the braves after 3.2 shut-out, 1-hit innings this week. They went on to shut out the Braves, the best offense in baseball, leveraging their bullpen strength. Of course, nobody is complaining about that decision anymore. We have absurd levels of bias in how we cover and blow up very specific examples of starters getting pulled. We NEVER reward a manager for pulling a pitcher early even when the stats back it up. It's so tiresome.
And in the next game they left Wheeler in an inning too long with a bunch of great relievers on the bench, and he gave up a 2-run homer which got the Braves back in the game.
Strong agree. additionally, with the Blue Jays series, pulling Berrios when they did was an objectively successful move. They got through the game allowing only 2 runs. Reactions to it strongly felt that pulling Berrios lost the game, despite the offense scoring 0 runs. What are the chances Berrios makes it through 3-4 more innings while allowing less than 2 runs? If he allows even 1 run the outcome of the game is unchanged
I’ll definitely buy a book from ur friends band, looks cool!!
Awesome. Thanks!
I think one question that I disagree on is:
True or False: An elite reliever is worth less to a team that already has six elite relievers than to an overall equally talented team that has only one elite reliever
- True because the first team doesn't have as many high-leverage innings to spread around.
- False because you can never have enough elite relievers, and the first team might end up having injuries.
You picked true since it's a good strategy to avoid answers with never in them (as you said, you could theoretically have 30 elite relievers). However, the question itself says six elite relievers, so in that case I feel like False is the better answer, and the "you can never have enough" is just a turn of phrase more than a definitive statement. I don't think you can go wrong with 7 elite relievers, to me that 7th reliever is equally valuable. Going into the postseason with 7 elite relievers is a cheat code.
That 7th elite reliever adds incrementally less value than the second elite reliever on the other team though. Like the true statement says, there aren't enough innings to spread around and that 7th guy is going to be pitching in blowout games that don't matter while the 2nd reliever on the other team would absolutely be pitching important innings.
Since the teams are "equally talented" that first team is way top heavy on relievers versus other positions and would get way more value improving those other positions instead of their bullpen.
The one that gets me the most... is the last question.
You mean to tell me, that if youre the dodgers. and you just watched kenley jansen blow games 4, 5, and 6 in the world series, youre going to send him out there in game 7 to try and save the game? Recency bias aside, you would have to be a lunatic to do that.
Now i do understand the concept of larger sample sizes and law of averages, but this is baseball after all. The weirdest game in the world. A team went 7-25 for a stretch this year, and has gone undefeated so far in the post season, on the road, about to beat their second division winning team. It may not happen at all though, the second team may come back and win the next 3 and the first 4 didnt matter. Thats baseball though, and the better overall team winning.
When it comes to playoffs, i think the smaller sample sizes matter. you face the toughest competition the most high leverage situations. if i have two bench bats to face kenley jansen and one is a 200/200/200 (400pa) guy for season, but in 20 ab's vs kenley and he is a 400/500/600 off the guy, the other bat is 300/350/450 (300pa) in the season with 0 hits in 20 ab's vs jansen, im gonna send the first guy up even though in the season hes the personified version of water in batters box facing anyone other than kenley.
I understand the point of this question from the analytical standpoint, and that this is an analytics quiz, but man that one gets to me. There are just certain pitchers you see in your life that you know you own. Its impossible for them to get you out. And others that will dominate you for no reason other than it being baseball. Just cant figure them out.
Analytics are weird when it comes to this sport. So weird when they work, and then when they dont work its even more weird.
Great video! As a player i hated it, as a stats person i loved it. (sorry if thats all over the place, its still early)
Following this season, it makes sense
Yeah I agree with you on pretty much all of this - got 3 wrong mostly on some of the disagreeable ones. (And I just completely forgot what BABIB was lol…)
Only one I disagree on is the pull your starter question - I feel like there is value of keeping a starter in with a 3.5 FIP (counting the 3X penalty) vs a 3.2 reliever, you need 4 innings so you need your top 3-4 relievers - so you are really replacing your solid starter vs your 3rd or maybe 4th best reliever with an unknown FIP, the FIP of just your top two relievers isn’t actually that relevant to the question. Also the pitch count was low so the starter had the range to go an extra inning.
Edit : just reread it and it was 5 rested relievers - saw the numbers and assumed it was top two… yeah you’re right haha.
I answered these not as a standardized test but as actual questions another human being might ask me, and thus gave short rationales
Q1: I can see a situational argument for B, as you want to ride the hot hand in the crucial game
Q2: Mutually beneficial--Xander Bogaerts used his opt-out and while the Red Sox could have used him this season they certainly wouldn't need him for the next 11 years at 28 million per, for example. On average it benefits the player, of course.
Q3: Player B is the better answer, though there's a fair argument for A
Q4: BABIP, though this is such an odd question as a .350 average is due for regression anyways (unless you're Ted Williams or Ty Cobb)
Q5: Among the options granted, posting the 3.00 ERA is the most likely outcome anyways
Q6: Pitcher B, I'm a sucker for consistent innings-eaters
Q7: Again, an oddly worded question but I'm taking True. The Law of Diminishing Returns is stronk
Q8: I would take FIP if I had to choose just one, WHIP would be second
Q9: False; this is baby's first sabermetrics question
Q10: True. Any strategy born from weakness is, by its nature, not preferable to the mainstream alternative...also the Rays are just magic. I'm a Red Sox fan, we know.
Q11: 1 Out; I remember from Little League to never make the first out on the basepaths. They never said why, even when I asked--it was only years later that I realized the rationale of taking greater risks when you have fewer resources to use. It's not the "smarter" ie most mathematically efficient choice, but if you're asking this question I'm presuming a certain level of urgency that overrides the usual probabilities
Q12: Pitcher B, again I'm a sucker for those innings-eaters. Plus, the offense should be scoring more than 2 runs per six innings anyways so the decline in efficiency will have little practical adverse effect
Q13: Hitter B, you can't get that mfer out!
Q14: Team B, no one's beating my team 7 times in a row lol (also yeah, sample size)
Q15: I don't know actually, but I'd guess defense on batted balls
Q16: Catcher A, that OPS difference tells me more about his true talent than the ERA--he could just be working with worse pitchers afaik
Q17: Hitter C, gimme that OBP
Q18: wRC+
Q19: OBP
Q20: Hitter B. I'm a simple man, I see an OBP starting with 4 and I click
Q21: An old-school answer, but I'm sticking with my starter until his pitch count closes in on 100 or he starts allowing hard contact
Q22: Pitcher A. I'd rather lose knowing I went with my best than getting cute with small sample sizes
Q23: False, obviously. I mean, having balance is certainly a plus but plenty of teams have won the World Series with only one power hitter (if that many)
Q24: K percentage. Relievers, especially in high leverage, are best when they aren't leaving things to chance (ie, letting the ball get in play). Guys with filthy stuff are going to have high K/9 and low LOB% anyways
Q25: Runner B, the over-under on stealing is about 70 percent success rate
Q26: Team B. That three games from 88 wins to 91 is the difference between just barely making the playoffs and having a fun October. 70 to 73 is just a slightly worse draft pick; even signing and then trading him for prospects...well, that 15 million could be spent for several such players instead of one.
Q27: Pitcher A. Dat 9:1 K/BB ratio is gooooood stuff
Q28: wOBA or xwOBA is not a stat I'm overly familiar with, but I'm guessing unexpectedly weak competition is the most likely to consistently skew the results
Q29: I'm a big believer in the predictive power of K/BB ratios for both hitters and pitchers. I think some folks get unnecessarily lost in the horde of analytical stats we have available to us when relatively primitive tools are just as good or better for estimating future performance
Q30: Pitcher A; beyond the small sample size, what are the odds of a guy blowing four saves in a row? It has to be less than converting four consecutive opportunities
The thing about quizzes like these when you are taking them, you ask yourself is this the answer they want to hear. So many questions on this quiz will not evaluate what a person thinks but rather reenforce the teams's current prevailing wisdom. If a team were to give this quiz 30 years ago the answers would be different and you would never hire the guys that rewrote theway we look at stats.
The answers would definitely be different 30 years ago because FIP, wRC+, wOBA, xwOBA, and OPS all wouldn't exist.
I would argue on a few of the questions that the player psychology also plays a big role since the numbers can look good but if someone is not in the right headspace then their numbers could drastically change
That sounds like "other information." We don't take kindly to those things on this quiz.
Exactly! That is the difference between reality and a test. If Rivera had some blown saves, everyone, including Rivera, would chalk it up to bad luck and move on.
However, there are times when you can absolutely tell a closer has lost it regardless of their past performance.
So for question 30, the "correct" answer is pitcher A in the test context, but could easily be pitcher B if the psychology on player A is the reason for the blown saves.
It COULD be the case, but you currently don't have that information. This is similar to evaluating potential trade/free agent acquisitions: you don't really have much insight into the minutiae that might build into performance, as someone outside the clubhouse. And, as a front office members, you honestly shouldn't put too much stock in your ability to read a baseball player's mental status - that's your manager and coaches' job.
The old hats are wrong that sabermetrics can't create winning rosters, but they *do* have a point about those some personnel not having much insight into what it's like to actually play baseball. Sure, it's easy enough to tell if a reliever is completely rattled by three consecutive wretched outings, but you should probably just trust your manager/coaches to handle that - especially if you're the GM who hired them.
Your intro is a great sales pitch for why standardized testing is not the answer for everything or everyone. Well done
I agreed with you on the vast majority of questions. For #21, I know the correct answer is bring in a reliever, but what I would really want to do is have the bullpen ready to go, bring the starter out, and let them keep going until they give up a baserunner. I'm sure the numbers don't agree, but I would be scared to count on that many pitchers to be "on."
Yeah but it's a 1-0 ball game. That first baserunner is the tying run on base. That reliever is then coming into to pitch with the go ahead at the plate.
If it was a 2-0 ball game, fair enough.
Q26 also sucks cuz there's no indicator within the question that Team B would or wouldn't make the postseason with or without signing the 3B. I answered "both" because both teams would hypothetically get better by the same amount, although I admit B is definitely "correct".
I really think the answer is both. Both team get 3 more "wins"
34:45 I think this Kershaw line was funny since I'm watching this after his start today against the Dbacks. Sometimes I wonder whats in the air in October that makes his ERA jump 2 full runs.
Yea the irony of Kershaw giving up 6 runs with a 2.46 season ERA after Nola went 7 shutout innings after posting a 4.46 season ERA is palpable
@@pedro3131 As a Phillies fan that was one of Nola's best starts all season too if not his best. Difference between a guy who dials it up for the playoffs and one who struggles in the spotlight I suppose. Nola gassed out last postseason hopefully a bit of extra rest during the year this year paid off.
At the same time, in their previous 20 IP in the playoffs prior to this game, Nola had a 6.30 ERA (4.26 FIP) while Kershaw had a 4.50 ERA (3.46 FIP).
Even if you disagree with going with the larger sample size and stick to recent playoff numbers, you would've gone with Kershaw.
@@BaseballsNotDead oh 100% playoffs are the ultimate SSS. It's just ironic. My favorite Jeter stat (as a non yankees fan) is 'Mr. November' only has an OPS like 20 points off his career average. Get enough playoff ABs and everyone regresses to the mean.
Most pitchers in general have worse career postseason numbers, look at all the HOF and will/would be HOF pitchers from this century, and only a few of them actually have a postseason ERA lower than their career ERA. It's not that the October air magically makes pitchers worse or that these pitchers "can't handle bright lights", but a combination of facing better hitting teams, fatigue from after a long season, and good pitchers getting used more in the postseason (including frequent short rest starts and starters coming in as relievers), that naturally lead to a decline in performance. Postseason pitchers like Mariano Rivera that maintained or exceeded their regular season norms are the anomaly.
As someone who took the Questionnaire last year and was just asked by the Yankees to take it again today, the questions are now different lol. Similar concepts though with a couple of the same questions sprinkled in
Same here. I went right to this video to see if anyone else got it today
@@donnysavitsky967 What were your thoughts on it?
My missed questions, according to this video.
Question 11: I argued it would be better to send runner home with 0 outs, since sending home with 1 out could result in an inning-ending double play.
Question 16: I put too much stock into catcher ERA.
Question 23: I fell into the always/never trap. They made it so appealing and I fell for it.
Question 24: I said LOB%, figuring a reliever's ability to leave inherited runners on base was more valuable than his ability to strikeout hitters. But I definitely see that point made that LOB% is too much of a luck stat when compared to K%.
Question 26: I viewed that as being too tricky and a bad question. I answered that both would benefit equally, as a 5WAR player is a set value more than a 2WAR player, regardless of the team's record. I feel like your answer of Team B is assuming that an 88-win team is close to playoff contention; I will counter your assumption with another, that 92-wins is needed to make the playoffs. There is no way of quantifying whose assumption is more valid, so I stand by my answer of Both. But I also agree that this is a bad question.
i stuck with my starting pitcher until i let them strike out a qualified bats-man, and i never said thank you to the man i owe my life. thanks, jean parmesan, love ya!
czcams.com/video/Sx6qfur2Cuc/video.htmlsi=ctnwKkFV17WSr4dn
great videos!
I have to disagree with you on question 17, the question asked is who should start today. So today you give your best hitter the day off and give the player with the best stats off of today's starter the start. You could always pinch hit him
At the end of the day I feel like the contentious ones just come down to your philosophy on baseball. For instance I believe that since baseball players are people you have to take the mental aspects into account and with that in mind I'd much rather have the slightly higher fip closer who hasn't just blown three saves in a row and is likely to be feeling down on his abilities. Same logic applies to the which team would you rather face in the playoffs question. But I also understand that given this is a test for the analytics department why they'd want you to answer the statistically best outcome
That's also where the "no other information" caveats come into play. As you said, since this is for the analytics department, your job is to simply provide the "best" mathematical options and it's up to the manager to weigh those versus human nature/feel/whatever else from an actual baseball standpoint
Book pre-ordered. Hope it helps
Awesome! Thanks!
I didn't have a good understanding of which stats were most valuable (like OBP vs SLG), and I appreciate all the explanations. In the quiz I caught on immediately, though, to the small-vs-large sample size tricks. That said, does recent performance mean absolutely nothing? Is there no such thing as a hot or cold streak?
It's the Yankees. Of course hot and cold shouldn't determine if you start a player. That's why Josh Donaldson was on the roster so long, his career stats said he was due to improve 😂
Just want to add a defense of question 26.
Imagine that in some exotic scenario, you have 40 units of a vital resource to split among 8 people, but each person needs at least 6 units of that resource to live. The wrong answer would be to divide the resource equally, thus killing everyone. Now imagine you have 41 units. The most people will survive with 6 people receiving 6 units each. But what do you do with the remainder? Do you give it to someone who will use it and still die, or do you increase the safety margins of some number who have enough to survive? You should do the second.
The point is that in some kinds of scenarios, thresholds matter. In this case, the threshold is making the playoffs or not.
I'll grant that the question perhaps should have asked where the 5 war player would be more valuable THIS SEASON, but if you're part of the baseball business world, you have to understand that thresholds matter.
The issue with analytics is it cannot predict pressure like the playoffs. Take Clayton Kershaw. A sub 3.00 Career era in the regular season. A 4.42 era in the playoffs. He has a much larger sample size from the regular season however he is a different pitcher in the playoffs. Part of that is playoff teams have better hitters where as in the regular season you can get fat off of weaker comptetion.
So, I took this test as recently as last week and I hope I had watched this video first. Tho I believe they changed some of the questions. Anyways, I feel like these are up to discussion rather than just right or wrong questions (yeah there’s always a better answer to it) but if I’m the interviewer, and I’m doing a screening I would want to know the reasoning behind one of the answers because that would give some insights to how someone processes and applies information.
Question 3 I disagree not because of the question of if clutch exists. It says game on the line with runnerS in scoring position so the OPS is less descriptive for this situation. A base hit almost certainly drives those runs in. If the higher OPS guy has a lot of home runs then I’d want him if we were down 2, but down 1 or tied a guy who’s less likely to get a base hit but more likely to have that base hit be a home run doesn’t help as much.
In question 3 i think we do note have enough information. OPS is a great stat but doesn't put avg in count so in The question says hit not on base so i think that The avg in scoring is The only that gives a clue about The avg of The hitter
OK, i purchased the graphic novel. Hope it helps your friends recoup and journey on.
Thanks!
This was really cool. I’m a data scientist with a degree in statistics who’s a huge baseball fan, and I got 2 wrong: the opener one and the 5 war 3rd baseman one. I understand the implied “always” in the opener one and agree with your explanation, but I do not agree with your answer for the 5 WAR 3rd baseman question. I guess I assume that both teams would benefit equally because given 50th percentile outcomes, they would each gain 3 wins, and the goal of all teams should be to win games. No analytics department will actively be partaking in the tanking of a baseball team. They will suggest ways to win games. For me, it is the same as the MVP debate. If Mike Trout puts up 10 WAR on the 70 win angels, that is just as valuable as if he put up 10 WAR the 100 win Astros. I guess I just contest the idea that player value is dependent on team success.
Regardless of this quiz, the actual analytics the Yankees use:
-If a player is on fire, bench him immediately
-No matter how small the sample size, if a batter has success against a pitcher, put him in the lineup
-If a player has good career stats but is in a massive slump, he must not be benched or moved in the order
-If a reliever is struggling several games in a row, you must change nothing about how he is used
NEW FOR 2023
-If a player has a preseason wrist injury that makes him unable to hit, hide it and let him tank the team's offense
-If a player has an obvious concussion and suddenly can't make good contact with the ball, just let him keep trying without changing anything
-If you let your left fielder leave as a free agent, the best possible replacement is not replacing him and leaving a hole in your lineup
I got a lot of questions wrong. But, I also have appeared in the same number of World Series as the Yankees since 2010. So who’s to say?
Third time through order curse is an assumption. Even if it is significant, show me the proof that fatigue is not a contributing third variable. Assuming that there is fatigue goes against every other type of logic that is supposed to be used on this test, which I generally agree with. I firmly believe the state of the science is behind on this if it is truly accepted that you must pull starter to avoid this curse without evaluating any third variables.
One thing about question 3: it just says "game on the line", it doesn't necessarily say that there is a RISP. Maybe I'm overthinking it. But I also think the right answer is B.
Do you think confidence (both self confidence and confidence in the specific matchup) should be considered while making these kind of decisions in the actual situations presented? For example, in question 17 (26:17), even though his overall numbers are worse than hitter C, hitter A would probably feel very confident in his matchup against this pitcher, and likewise, the pitcher’s confidence in himself would surely be way lower against hitter A rather than hitter C.
I know this ain’t analytical and definitely not what this quizz was aiming for, but I do believe there is something to be said in favor of this kind of intangibles.
For question 8. The question is "of the following pitching stats, which is more robust (i.e., value-driven, all-encompassing)?"
The question is not which is better at predicting future era. Fip might be great predicting future run prevention, but there is no inherent value to run prevention that has not happened yet. Era is more value-driven, because actual run prevention does have inherent value. Era is also more all-encompasssing than fip, because fip only considers walks, strikeouts and homers. Therefore the correct answer is era.
But ERA is dependent on defense and other factors not in the pitcher's control such as the scorekeeper's opinion, so is it really value-driven when it comes to the value of the pitcher?
@@BaseballsNotDead
I see your point. You've convinced me. I guess I was confused about what value-driven means in this context.
For Q3 I do think it is A, just because it’s asking for a hit and not getting on base. Walks heavily influence OPS
Asking who you want "to hit" just means who you want at bat, it's not specifically saying you want a hit as the outcome. Walks are still very, very valuable in that situation.
Your example for Q23 is pretty much would you rather have the 2023 DBacks or 2023 Dodgers. As a Dodger fan, this is very conflicting
I am definitely going to buy a copy, are the misprints the ones for sale or are they also for sale?
All the books out in the world are fixed, proper copies with no missing pages at all! Anywhere you get it should be good
They're not planning on selling the misprints because they don't want bad versions of their book out there. They're really putting their belief in the story over their checking account on that one.
Next time I'm studying for a standardized test, you know where I'll find the best information 😂
38:40 The whole premise of this question relies on projected wins being an accurate measure of a team. I would argue the answer is both teams benefit equally since you can’t trust a win projection.
We're given no other information, so it's the best information we have to go off of.
I think that for some of these questions, like the 3 blown saves vs 3 consecutive saves, momentum is very key. Baseball is very much dependent on hot streaks, and usually the team that is hot come playoff time is the team that lasts.
I feel like I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't mention the hot hand fallacy.
@@BaseballsNotDeadthe true fallacious thinking would be dismissing any player with a "hot hand" via such ludacris dehumanizing dismissiveness as "oh it's actually a fallacy to believe that if someone has been doing well they well do well next time the averages say so"
Not dismissing the player with the hot hand, just in the vast majority of cases players play to their underlying large sample stats and not their most recent small sample.
@@BaseballsNotDead well there could be some mistranslation in what we each think of as a hot hand, too
@@andrewkelly1337 I don't think it's a mistranslation. You're definitely not on common ground here. The data is clear that a "hot hand" is a poor indicator of future performance. It's simply a question of whether recent performance or FIP is a better metric in terms of predictive power, and that question absolutely has a right answer with mountains of evidence behind it.
Analytics does not factor in the feel for the game. Question 14 you answer fundamentally incorrectly because its not about the overall record but the performance. Go ahead and walk through the last 10 postseasons based on match ups between teams during the regualr seaosn and who won and come back and answer the question. If you win 5 out of 6 games in the regular season against a team, you've got their number. Its a mental aspect of the game. Hard to beat teams that pry on your weakensses better than others
First team to look at is the Rangers and they clearly weren't impacted by regular season matchups in 2023...
vs Diamondbacks, 1-3 in regular season, 4-1 in World Series
vs Astros, 4-8 in regular season, 4-3 in ALCS
vs Orioles, 3-3 in regular season, 3-0 in ALDS
2023 Diamondbacks
vs Phillies, 3-4 in regular season, 4-3 in NLCS
vs Dodgers, 5-8 in regular season, 3-0 in NLDS
2023 Braves
vs Phillies, 8-5 in regular season, 1-3 in NLDS
There's way more examples throughout the years. For instance, the 2019 Nationals...
vs Cardinals, 2-5 in regular season, 4-0 in NLCS
vs Dodgers, 3-4 in regular season, 3-2 in NLDS
vs Brewers, 2-4 in regular season, 1-0 in WC
You can't just say "go ahead and walk through the last 10 postseasons based on match ups" when you clearly haven't done that yourself because it does have very little correlation with winning playoff series.
bASEBALLS NOT DEAD BUT THE yANKEES SURE ARE!
Isn't the flaw with question 23 the actual use of the word "balance"? What constitutes balance between the ratio would be entirely up to interpretation, no?
Speaking of question 23. I wanna ask everyone. You can only have a team of 1 player and 8 clones of that player. Defense does not matter. Who are you taking.
For me I'm going prime Ricky Henderson. Solid homerun pop. Amazing discipline. And the stolen base speed.
A team of 9 Rickeys would be fun to watch.
Prime Ichiro would be fun. He did have power when he felt like it, famously claiming he could hit 40 homers if he was allowed to bat .220. So in this hypothetical team, why not?
Of course, Secret Base did the Team Ohtani Fumble Dimension video
For question 13 (the one where the guy walks every time), OPS for the first guy was better, at 1050. Over the course of a season, having someone who can hit some homers will probably score you a point more often than always starting at first base.
OPS overvalues slugging versus OBP. For wRC+, the 1.000 OBP guy trounces the other guy.
@@BaseballsNotDead if you used that lineup simulator you showed, where all other 8 players are normal MLB players, would the always walk guy be better for runs?
@@leobarlach Yes.
On the 15 singles and 1 double vs 12 walks, I'm going to say putting the ball in play is way more valuable than just getting a walk. The maximum runs you can score on a BB is 1 and the bases have to be loaded for that to happen. That's a maximum of 12 runs. Given the same situation, bases loaded, those 15 singles and 1 double could result in up to 3 runs each. That's 48 maximum possible runs. To me that's a significant difference in offensive potential, especially when you look at all the potential outcomes and common situations you'll face that aren't bases loaded. Putting the ball in play will always result in more runs being scored and therefore a higher likelihood of winning a game.
"The maximum runs you can score on a BB is 1 and the bases have to be loaded for that to happen. That's a maximum of 12 runs."
That only assumes the person that walks will never come around to score.
Yes, a single will be worth more than a walk with the bases loaded or someone in scoring position, but that's a huge minority of at bats.
@@BaseballsNotDead I'm just talking about the AB itself, like what are the run scoring potentials per outcome for those results. But good point, isn't hitting with RISP is by far the most likely and common way to score runs though? Outside of a HR. So the potential is 24 vs 64 runs if every walk scores and so do all the hits. Still, that's a big difference in potential offense to me. But then again what if the walk is a passed ball? Also a rare occurrence but still possible. I'm always going to side with contact over walks given the minute differences. Or just start both players. Great breakdown, I'm much more of a "strategy" guy than a pure numbers guy so it was interesting to agree on most things. I guess I'm just not understanding your value of walks in that particular situation.
That's why I also did the simulated lineup of each player to show hitter B clearly comes out as the best statline for run production.
@@BaseballsNotDeadI see my error, I mistyped 15 and went with it after the video was done. Yeah, 6 hits (1 2B) vs 12 walks is literally a 2-1 split in "chances to score". So yes, you're totally right. You can see why I'm not a math guy.
I think this postseason might call into question number 14
35:28 obviously this isn’t a statistical analysis, but Coney talked about how having the balance between multiple approaches always made his day a lot harder on Toeing the slab. So I’m just going to trust the man especially since he isn’t disconnected like a lot of ex players.
I think I knew almost every answer I figured the test wanted me to pick, except the wOBA stuff I know nothing about that stat. So that's nice. However, I know for a fact the Yankees, or at least Aaron Boone, and many other teams seem to put a lot of stock in small sample sizes over larger ones when considering batter/pitcher matchups vs each other as its often used to justify lineup decisions during interviews. It seems even the Yankees would not get a perfect score on this test.
I wasn't sure about the wOBA one either but if you know about the concept of expected stats vs real stats in general, it makes sense. Just like with xBA, xwOBA would take real defense out of the equation and focus purely on the EV and launch angle. (I got it wrong too but put two and two together after the right answer was revealed)
The thing with question 13, .000/1.000/.000 is useful in fewer situations than .300/.450/.600, because to assume that no one is ever on base for him, or to assume that the bases are loaded, is fallacy. Hitter A has a better OPS and will allow other players to move farther along the basepaths.
OPS is flawed in that it treats each point of OBP and SLG the same, which isn't true. If you calculate these statlines into wOBA, Hitter A has a .400 wOBA while hitter B has a .698 wOBA. Hitter B is WAY more valuable and it isn't close at all.
Maybe I will just say the obvious joke for the hell of it. Based off this quiz its no wonder the Yankees are in their Series drought. lol
Question 22 I agree unless Pitcher A is Clayton Kershaw lol
I’m struggling with the 5 WAR 3rd basemen. It should be equal especially when using your logic of not assuming anything. I think by choosing team B you’re assuming they’ll have a similar record and that they’re not trading their entire team away (extreme case). Taking the assumptions away I feel like it has to be equal for both teams.
Not assuming anything outside of the information given. The information given is their current projected wins so the best way is to take that at face value and assume nothing about how the team treats the rest of the roster.
@@BaseballsNotDeadI think maybe the problem with that question is that the definition of "benefits" (or whatever the word was) is up in the air. If you're looking at predicted x more wins, that's a quantifiable benefit, independent of the assumed goal of making the playoffs. Still, I interpreted it the same way that you and the quiz did.
Keep the full picture in mind: this 5 WAR player also comes with an expensive $15m/1yr contract, and you're talking about a (projected) 70 win team vs an 88 win team. The 70 win team, which needs to focus its resources on rebuilding, gains nothing from a few extra wins from a player who's on his way out at the end of the season. Going from 70 wins to 73 wins, or even a few more, doesn't help them at all; they're still definitely missing the postseason if the team plays roughly to projection. The 88 win team is changing its postseason prospects; maybe they go from the wildcard to a division winner with a home seed, or from just missing the playoffs to squeaking in, and their team is that much stronger in their push for the WS. And whatever trade value that player has for the 70 win team, it has that same value for the 88 win team.
I just disagree the more I think about it. If 2 people want to buy a car for $100. Guy A has $75 and Guy B has $30. There is a raffle that both guys are in for $25. Which guy would value the $25 more?… I think the answer is both guys value it at $25!
@@davidruehrdanz9680 You don't have playoff or World Series considerations when buying a car.
Love the catcher ERA question. The folk who voted for the lower catcher ERA would have taken Eddie Perez (mediocre hitter, Greg Maddux's personal catcher with the Braves) over Javy Lopez (good power hitter, rarely caught Maddux).
Yeah I got tricked by that one. I assumed the catcher ERA stat was adjusting for that sort of thing, but clearly I was wrong to assume that. If there was an adjusted stat over a large enough sample size I would stand by the catcher lowering his pitchers' ERA over the guy who hits better.