This is my new mantra. Well, actually, i imagine people have assumed that that has been my mantra ever since i laid eyes on the all you can eat buffet. But this isn't about being as big as a house. It's a phrase that Billy Beane's right hand man, DePodesta came up with when he became assistant GM for the A's. In short, his goal was to give his organization the house edge. The house always wins in the long run b/c it has the odds in it's favor. Granted, the edge might only be slight, and on any given chance they could lose a single event, but in the long run, the house will always win.

By now, I'm sure you all have heard about the shift in what are considered the "important stats". Just as OPS is becoming mainstream, it's already outdated in certain circles. While the backlash against the stat-heads and sabers is strong, watching the paradigm shift has been truly remarkable. When steve is going around quoting neyer, you know things have changed.

Depodesta's latest analysis of his own circumstances and baseball in general was a fascinating read. Here is the link:

http://www.csfb.com/thoughtleaderforum/2003/depodesta_sidecolumn.shtml

His points don't just apply to baseball; they can be used for all walks of life. I guess this is common knowledge, but i had never heard of the "naive question" before. Basically, all you have to do is ask "if we had never done 'this' before, would 'this' be the way we would go about doing it?". Too often, we do things a certain way just because that's the way it has always been done. So much inefficiency could be avoided if people were just willing to question everything. Unfortunately, we live in a society where the desire to just accept things the way they are is growing rapidly.

There was one paragraph in the article that absolutely blew my mind. Not because of any new revelation, but rather b/c of the very opposite. The following paragraph SHOULD be common sense. However, the fact that the VAST majority of people don't accept it as truth is truly scary...

"I was in Las Vegas for a weekend playing blackjack. A person at the table to my right had 17 and said they wanted a hit. The whole table stopped and even the dealer asked if he was sure he wanted a hit. Finally he said he wanted a hit. The dealer deals the card and of course it was a four. What did the dealer say? “Nice hit.” But I'm thinking, you're kidding me. It was a terrible hit. Even though it ended up working out, it wasn't a good decision."

Common sense right? But how many of us have later questioned a decision because of the results. A results based analysis is asinine. The best you can do is make a decision based on expected results. You attempt your best to refine you expectations based on objective criteria...the rest you leave to fate. I can't go into this any further, b/c either you get it or you don't. and my biggest fear is that you "don't" and there's nothing that can be done to convince you otherwise.

It should be noted that last night i couldn't sleep for numerous reasons. And while i was watching "espn news" for the xth time in a row, i couldn't stop thinking about how ridiculous it is that people evaluate a DECISION based on the individual result. I thought of this EXACT example (the blackjack. My personal example that i've used in numerous arguments {usually with a certain maria} is that making a 10 dollar straight up bet that the lottery ticket in my hand will win is a STUPID bet even if it turns out that it was the winning ticket. Her response of "well, if i won, how could that be a bad bet," usually results in me banging my head against the wall. Uh, do i need to close parentheseses here? i've lost track. oh well. )]}. This then led to a revelation at about 5 in the morning that i will have to write a separate post on. in fact, i think i'll do that now. So if you read the kant post first, maybe now it makes sense.

that is all.