Walter Reed and Confirmation Bias

A quick aside, if I may, on the whole Walter Reed Medical Hospital issue.

It is fitting that the three players who missed the event were Carlos Beltran, Oliver Perez, and Luis Castillo, three of the most universally disliked Mets. Public opinion of these guys ranges from indifferent (for Beltran) to reviled (the others). So how wonderful for the headline writers, that it happened to be those three.

Andy Martino over at the Daily News had an interesting blog the other day where he pointed out what a perfect storm this situation has been for those who would try to sell newspapers or try to run those player out of town. As he mentions, it brings up issues of conformity, the military, performance, and ethnicity.

I have said this before and I will say it many more times - baseball provides an incredible window for us as a society, and individuals, in so many ways. Baseball provides an amazing opportunity for us to view experimentation. To instantly observe the impact of our decisions. To be able to evaluate, immediately and with mathematical precision, the inputs and outcomes surrounding every move. If you're interested in that, these is a phenomenal blog called Management By Baseball, which is one of my favorites, which discusses that kind of thing in every post.

In this case, however, baseball allows us an incredible opportunity to view the phenomenon known as confirmation bias. A quick definition, per wikipedia:

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.[Note 1][1] As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs

When you first heard that Beltran, Castillo, and Perez were the only Mets to miss the trip to Walter Reed, what did you think? What was the FIRST thing you thought? And would it have been the same thing you would have thought if it was David Wright, Mike Pelfrey, and Jeff Francoeur? What if it was a mixed bag of heroes and villians? What if the group was Jon Niese, Francisco Rodriguez, and Josh Thole?

My guess is that your reactions to each of those were drastically different. Even as a guy who openly admits to loving Carlos Beltran, and thinking Oliver Perez is not a super-villian, my first thoughts were not friendly ones. I did not immediately think that maybe they had good reasons for missing it -- but I did, upon hearing it, think "man, there is no way this story is as bad as it sounds, right?"

It turns out, of course, that it is not. But it is the kind of thing that someone - if they were lazy, or uncritical - could use to confirm what they already believe. Others, of course, may simply enjoy an opportunity to take their frustration at those players ineffectiveness on the ballfield and turn it into something personal, something which would allow them to focus their anger.

One more interesting take on this whole debacle before I go. I did not realize that this gentleman was a veteran before now, but a writer named Dave Singer over at NY Sports Dog had a very thoughtful take on things:

The fact of the matter is that this wasn't a visit to the zoo, it wasn't some mandatory fun, it was a visit to Walter Reed to pay tribute to fighting men. Why on Earth should someone be forced to do it? If it was voluntary, then why make a fuss over anyone who didn't attend?
* * *
Here's something you may or may not care about--those guys at Walter Reed get visits all the time. It's not like this was a once in a lifetime opportunity to meet their hero.

He's absolutely right. As always, it is instructive to get the opinion of someone way, way, way closer to the situation before jumping to conclusions. I appreciate the opinion of a veteran on this, the same way that I would value the opinion of a doctor or construction worker in their particular field, and the same way that I am annoyed by non-lawyers who make gross and stupid assumptions about the practice of law.

But baseball is a great sport, in the multitude of ways in which is parallels life. It happens every day, it requires determination as much as talent, sometimes it is slow, sometimes it is fast, and sometimes it's better to be lucky than good. And only baseball can teach things in this special way.

Next time, let's try not to have a knee-jerk reaction to news like this. Let's be aware of the fact that we may be trying to confirm a bias which already exists. Let's realize that there are dozens upon dozens of explanations and factors and influences operating behind the scenes that we have no idea about. And perhaps, next time, if we do all of this, those same people won't have been made to feel like jerks because they jumped to conclusions.

Trade Idea: Luis Castillo to the Texas Rangers

Here's one for you. Starting with facts that we can generally assume:

1. The Mets are, at best, one game better with Luis Castillo than they are with Ruben Tejada.

2. The Texas Rangers are "going for it" this year, acquiring Cliff Lee, Bengie Molina, and Jorge Cantu recently.

3. The Rangers all-star second baseman, Ian Kinsler, is out with an injury. And when playing, is very injury prone.

The Mets should flip Castillo to the Rangers.

THE TIPPING POINT

ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW IS RIGHT THERE IN THE BOX SCORE.

TONIGHT, JOSE REYES WAS 3-FOR-6 WITH A WALK. DAVID WRIGHT WAS 3-FOR-6. ANGEL PAGAN WAS 2-FOR-5 WITH A HOME RUN. CARLOS BELTRAN HOMERED. ALL OUR STARS PERFORMED LIKE STARS.

BUT WE LOST. WHY??

A Phrase You Will Never Hear Again.... Ever

Bet the mortgage on the fact that this will never be repeated:

"Now Castillo, the freshest legs on the field..." - Gary Cohen

Guest Post: The Case For Batting Reyes Second

We are proud to feature yet another guest post this Friday morning at Fonzie Forever. Our good friend Sergio, an avid Mets fan and ballplayer, advocates below for something I've never even considered. I like that outside the box thinking. Anyway, enjoy.

Lineuping is one of my favorite end-of-spring-training things to do. The roster is set and now the serious part of the discussion turns from who should be on the team to where in the lineup the player should bat. I guess the idea in lineuping is to come up with a way to maximize the strengths of players, minimize weaknesses, and when there is a choice between two competing schemes that would each maximize two different players, to ask which one gives you a larger net gain in offense. It is an inexact science and all, which is part of the fun.

When it comes to the Mets, all offseason and spring training the question has been where to bat Reyes – and really the rest of the lineup falls into place when that question is answered. Most threads have argued for or against Reyes batting leadoff or Jerry Manuel’s idea of batting him third. And yet, surprisingly, hardly anyone has suggested batting Luis Castillo leadoff and Jose Reyes second. So after a winter and early spring of hearing a million lineup schemes – and I spent a lot of time on these threads – I say batting Reyes second is the way to go, but let’s look at all the arguments anyway.

The Castillo Situation, Part 2: Orlando Hudson's Price

According to MLB.com, Orlando Hudson is REALLY having a hard time finding someone who will pay him what he believes he is worth:

Since becoming a free agent, Hudson has asked for $9 million, but the Nationals are not willing to give him that kind of money.

This past season, Hudson, 32, made a base salary of $3.38 million, but with incentives, he received close to $7 million as a member of the Dodgers.

According to a published report, the Nationals have offered Hudson $3 million, with incentives that could bring the value of the contract to $4 million.

Wow. Sorry about that O-Dog.

The Castillo Situation

I feel like this issue has already been discussed to death, but since it seems to be making the rounds again, I figure I might as well put the Fonzie Forever treatment on it. Here is a sampling of what has been said recently on the topic:

…like Matt has said over and over again, it would have just made baseball sense for the Mets to sign Hudson and bench Castillo… - Metsblog.com

If we cannot afford to release Luis Castillo and pay his salary without handcuffing the team on the field than we probably have bigger issues as an organization
* * *
Can't the Mets just go out and upgrade 2B, bring in Hudson, and put Castillo on the bench. $6 million on the bench may not be worth it, but isn't it about putting the best product on the field?
* * *
I hate to say this, but let's be a little more like the Yankees, call Castillo a bust, move him, eat the money and do what we have to do to WIN. - Caught Lookin'

The Mets would love to have Hudson, but they're still hamstrung by the absurd 4-year, $25 million contract GM Omar Minaya gave to Luis Castillo in Nov. '07, rendering him completely untradeable. - Sports Illustrated

Guys, come on. The Luis Castillo Situation ISN'T A PROBLEM. Allow me to explain.

Carlos Beltran's Surgery and Moving On, Part 2

So let's say you are not like me, and you don't think that the Mets should stand pat this season and focus on 2010. Let's say that you think the Mets should still be spending money, and still be going for it. If you thought that, what would you want to do? Looking at the Mets as currently constituted, minus Beltran, what is the smartest thing you could do to improve the roster with the remaining free agents?

A few days ago, Sam Page over at Amazin Avenue (been linking to Sam a lot lately) posted a handy chart with rough estimates of how many Wins Above Replacement each of the Mets starters could be expected to provide:



You can quibble with the numbers, but generally speaking I like his estimates. So looking at that -- what do we do? What are our potential areas of improvement? If we were going to take a shot this season, where would we improve? Obviously, there are a few places you can start: First Base, Second Base, Right Field, Starters #3-#5.

As I wrote earlier this month -- not ALL improvements are created equal. In fact, a run prevented is more valuable than a run scored. That being said, if I were the Mets and I were going for it this year, there is ONE place that I would start.

Starting pitching.

If the Mets are still in it to win it, they are going to have to take some chances. Lucky for them, there are chances still out there to take. Here are my boys - the "Mets Are Still Going For It" all-star team:

1. Erik Bedard

Bedard is a huge talent, no question. As we all know, however - he is injury prone. Over the last two seasons, he has pitched 81 and 83 innings. However, he IS only 30 years old. ZiPS projects him next year to reach 106 innings, but post a phenomenal 3.12 ERA and strike out 110 guys in only 106 innings. If he can be had on a short, incentive-laden deal, the Mets should go for it. He may not be ready for opening day, but in his best seasons with the Orioles, he was worth over 5(!) WAR.

2. Ben Sheets

Sheets and Bedard (and Rich Harden) all have basically the same story - great talents with injury issues. I think Sheets will end up being a worse deal than Bedard in terms of dollars-to-risk, based on his better reputation and the fact that he's actually had 200-inning seasons. Ben Sheets has been worth over 3.7 WAR 6 out of the last 7 years he has pitched - even in injury shortened years.

3. Pedro Martinez
4. Chien-Ming Wang

Pedro was worth 2/3 of a win last season in only nine regular season starts. Chien-Ming Wang was worth over 4 WAR a year until his short campaign in 2008.

These are the risky bets. But if the Mets want to compete, they are going to have to take some chances. If the Mets could sign both Bedard and Sheets to slot in behind Santana, they would stand a chance of being vastly improved.

Projecting Bedard at 3 WAR (he posted a WAR of 1.9 last year in only 83 innings) and Sheets at 3 WAR would improve the Mets my a whopping six games. The rotation would then be Santana, Bedard, Sheets, Pelfrey, and you choice of Niese, Maine, or Perez. One of the great things about improving your rotation is that you can sometimes move a starter into the bullpen, fortifying that unit as well.

Compare those acquisitions to the acquisition of Orlando Hudson to play second base. The Mets might be better if they signed him --- but the marginal improvement he would make to the team wouldn't even make a splash. As we wrote here in November:

Orlando Hudson is not really that much of an upgrade over Castillo... His batting line last year was a paltry .283/.357/.417 with 9 home runs and 8 stolen bases. He was basically Luis Castillo with 30 less points in on-base percentage and 70 more points of slugging. A few more home runs, and a dozen less steals.

In fairness, Hudson does tend to rank better than Castillo when it comes to defensive metrics... Therefore, even with their hitting being comparable, Hudson came out as worth $13.0 million last year compared to Castillo's $7 million.

However, we are comparing Castillo's age 32-34 seasons with Hudson's prime years of 30-32. It is probable (or definite) that Hudson's fielding is going to see a severe drop in the next couple of years.

I LIKE Orlando Hudson -- he's a nice guy, a great interview, and seemingly a good clubhouse presence. But don't be fooled -- making the swap of Castillo for Hudson most likely won't make the Mets better, and stands a chance of making them worse.

We need to look NOT ONLY at what our money will buy us --- but who the new player will be replacing. Signing Hudson to replace Castillo, or signing Molina to replace Blanco/Thole would make the Mets better -- but those are moves with NO upside. They would improve us by a win at most. In the Mets current position, they need to address areas of weakness with investments which could pay BIG dividends. I hope they look long and hard at a high-reward starter.