Puig

I'm not trading this guy for anything...

He's a game changer and he's VERY young and immature, but he's like a kid in a candystore here in the US compared to Cuba hopefully the 'newness' wears off over time...

If I'm the Dodgers, I'm keeping this dude in the lineup and on the field.

I would be more patient than that.  What you have is an uneducated young man experiencing not only his first taste of freedom, but also suddenly flush with wealth beyond his comprehension.  Given his talent level, I think I'd give him more time to grow up.

I was actually thinking how unfair it is that anyone in the world can get caught speeding, even at 110 mph (yikes!), and escape notice pretty much.  But if you're a star athlete, even just a college player, for some reason it's all over the news.

If I were with the Dodgers, I would talk to him about not being so reckless with his own life and the lives of those around him.  But I do think this is not at the level of being caught doing serious drugs, carrying drug dealer-style weaponry, or some of the other things we've seen at times.  This one rates as a young and foolish mistake, though one he'd be well advised to avoid repeating since people who do this regularly have a tendency to end up dead. 

In particular I remember a former Richmond Braves player named Jose Olivo who had some MLB time but who never got to blossom because he wrapped his sports car around a tree while home in the DR.  Much like what happened to the movie star a few weeks ago. 

I would trade him for the reasons mentioned above by Fenway, and a couple of more.  One, his irresponsible behavior may cost him his life, or worse, others.  That leaves you either without a great player, or with a PR nightmare.  Another issue, is you never know if he is really just 23.  

Ha Ha, this BS cracks me up.  Look I hate the Dodgers and hope they lose 162 games every year, I am a Giants fan.  However I am tired of Everyone banging on Puig.  He is a child that has never been taught what to do.  He comes from nothing and is experiencing money and freedom for the first time in his life and he is living it to his fullest.  110?  Really?  Is he a dummy, absolutely!  I have driven 110 on a freeway and I know a lot of people that have done it (BTW it was stupid and I am not advocating it) .  The problem is everyone wants to sit behind there computers and play the roll of Moralistic Moses.  Let the guy be, the Dodgers should never trade this guy.  The GM of the Cardinals put it best when the signed Peralta.  We are not responsible for being the Moralistic Police of the game, the guy served his time and is free to play.  I mean seriously take a look at some of the guys in the HOF that are revered as the greatest players ever and you know what, they are bad human beings.  Ty Cobb was an outright bigot but yet he is considered to be on the Mount Rush Moore of Baseball.  However, pimp a home run, overthrow a cut, go 110 on the freeway and you should be banned from baseball.  What a joke!

Let the Dodgers handle it however they so choose AFTER the court system does. Obviously the "community service" he did the last time didn't teach him much. Call it his second offense for reckless driving and give him the penalty that anybody else would get... if that includes jail time that includes jail time.

Folks,

I'm not sure how this turned into a moralistic discussion.  I don't care what the legal system does to him either.  This is a business discussion regarding one of your employees.  What would you do?   

It doesn't have a damn thing to do with being the moralistic voice of the game.  Baseball is a business, and if people are taking undue risks, it must be factored in along with his other issues.  I simply say he isn't worth the risk. He is a train wreck waiting to happen, and he is putting people's lives at risk by his wreckless behavior.  

I think he is a jackass, and I wouldn't want him on my team.  The Dodgers have the money to sign whomever they want, why waste their money on this fool?

That is my contention as well.  They don't need to invest in him, when they have become the Yankees of the West.  Sign a better person to be the face of your organization.

Good luck finding a player that will provide the ROI he provides at the price they're paying him. 

I am in agreement with Midlo. 

He will settle in, give the guy a break.  No way do you trade anyone with that talent unless that dries up. Yes, he needs a mentor in the clubhouse, and most of them do have guys there just for that reason.

FWIW, you guys have no idea how many HS top paid prospects go through the same maturation process. 

Cardinals young ace Shelby Miller got into some serious trouble while in AA.  Kept pretty quiet, he was experiencing what many young guys do for 19,20 year olds. This is the nature of the business and especially when you give someone (anyone) a LOT of money.

Giving someone millions of dollars doesn't make them automatically responsible.

Fenway - As a business discussion, I'm keeping him on the team, on the field & hitting in the middle of the lineup!  The Dodgers are in the business of baseball, putting butts in the seats & selling shirts.  He helps them do all of those things.  The Dodgers arguably haven't had a more exciting player since Fernando Valenzuela arrived from a small pueblo in Mexico!  Fernando mania has become Puig mania!

Is Puig a little crazy?  Does he make poor decisions on and off the field?  Absolutely.  What 20 something with cash wouldn't go out and buy the fastest car they could find and drive it as fast as they could?

And if you've ever driven across Alligator Alley in the middle of the night you were either driving 90mph or wish you were!

Rich

www.PlayInSchool.com

To the best of my knowledge, every professional baseball player has to sign an agreement with a laundry list of "no can do's". I'm sure speeding/reckless driving is on that list. The dodgers should take the appropriate action as it applies to the agreement.

Baseball is a business, and just like any other business it has to discipline its employees. At some point, the business has to decide if keeping an employee that breaks the rules is worth the risk.

My guess, based on his talent, that he will get a few more chances to grow up. But, at some point, continued bad behavior will effect the business. 

GO GIANTS!

Interesting feedback.  So, most of you playing GMs would keep him around assuming he can continue at his current levels and hoping he turns the corner on maturity.  JH stated his ROI is pretty darn high and would be tough to replace.  I think everyone agrees on that point.  Talent at that price is off the charts.  He is a steal.

As I stated earlier, I don't question his talent or work ethic.  What I see is a stubborn,  uncoachable exciting guy freelancing it with no plate discipline.   I'm not saying these are easy decisions either.  The Dodgers GM and FO has to be hoping and praying this turns itself around because he has 6 years left on that contract.  I can't help to wonder is this guy costing them more games than he is winning.  I think the answer to that question is "no" right now.   But, he has my attention if I'm the GM or FO.

His WAR for a rookie is 2.1, very hard to replace for sure!

And at 6 mil a year he comes cheap!

He was 22 just turning 23 when called up, a guy who grew up in poverty and had a bidding war for his services.

I am not too sure what people expect?

The people at fault are the ones who are paying his check, not the player.

If this is the stat-line for a 22 year-old "exciting guy freelancing it"...:

Games played: 104

Batting Avg.: .319

Hits: 122
Doubles: 21
HR: 19

RBI: 42
SLG: 534
OBO: .925

Gimme, as many as you can of those "freelancers"... please!

I'm reminded of a question once asked Don Zimmer regarding Bill Lee. Lee was very critical of Zimmer. He nicknamed him The Gerbil. He made Zimmer jokes. Zimmer was asked if Lee is funny. Zimmer replied, "It depends how many games he's winning." 

I'm not making a moral judgement on the situation, but when you're employee is worth something on the order of $20M/yr more to you than you're paying him, he's going to get a hell of a lot of rope.  This isn't any different in professional sports than it is in any other high-profile, big money situation.

You left out WAR, which was 2.1, Cano's at that age was 0.2.

I believe a recent world series MVP had two DUI's. The recent triple crown winner had one.  A Cy Young winner got arrested for smoking weed while driving.

So should the teams have gotten rid of them when they got in trouble (which by the way happened in the off season away from the field).  I don't remember seeing any discussion here about any of those incidents.

Point is, if you are a high profile personality, everyone is gonna know your business but its not going to stop you from being who you are, until you grow up.

Fenway,

Not getting on ya, good discussion, but I am standing in young Puig's corner!

This is a simple equation:

Amount of grief an organization will tolerate is a direct function of talent/age. 

Last week, MLB Network re-ran the entire Ken Burns documentary series.  I never tire of re-watching it, and have been working my way through them on my DVR the past several days.

A lot of what we're now saying about Puig was said about another player about 95 years ago.  A young kid whose baseball skills were all that got him out of a prison-like reform school and a likely career in a shirt-making factory, but who had no idea how to behave in public or how to handle himself in the outside world.  He did things like marry a waitress he met on his first day in his new MLB home town; cheat on her serially; frequent brothels all over the league circuit; stay out all night eating and drinking; live fast and big, drive flashy cars, wear furs and other fancy clothes.

His initial success only made it worse for some time, until he hit bottom, and also hooked up with a new woman who rode herd on him.

You might've heard of him, a guy named Ruth.

Fenway, your forbears sold him away.  Was that a good idea?

Cardinal fan here.  Puig is a talent and is very young.  Some people regardless of occupation who find success quickly have a hard time dealing with it.  Puig is no different.  What the Dodgers need to do is corral him some because his actions do pose a possible threat to the general public and to the organization.  In some way treat him the way you would your own child and nurture. 

With regards to the on the field stuff, that is a different matter.  The showboating on the field is hard for me to take.  However, that would be for players from every team in MLB including my Cardinals.  When he does dumb things like his throwing errors, he needs to be coached.  If he is abusive to those coaches and refuses to play team ball, then punish him with the pine or send him down to give him the message.  He is under contract for a long time and so, you have to both pat him on the back and kick him in the butt.  I look forward to watching him play for a long time because I am a fan of the game. 

No sweat.  It's a message board for crying out loud.  LOL!

I brought it up because I thought it was a good discussion point and I've yet to make up my mind if I was the GM.  I mentioned in my initial post that "my first thought is to give him until the 2014 trading deadline to grow up.  If not, trade him and see what you can get. Take the loss if you have to.  My second thought is to trade for a proven clubhouse veteran to turn Puig around."  I asked for thoughts.   I got them.  I have not made up my mind on the topic.

Here is why this intrigues me so much.....team chemistry.   It is difficult to manage 25 guys.  Never mind 25 MLB egos.   We've all seen Puig make the most spectacular plays, and we've seen him make tons of fundamental errors.  In both cases they have won games or lost games.   Everybody is fine with it right now because the Dodgers are doing well. Everybody agrees Puig is more than a handful and is on his own program.   We all know this is a buy low/sell high business.  What if Puig doesn't have a successful sophomore season?  Then are the headaches worth dealing with?  I'm just playing devil's advocate here.  It's a good discussion   Most of us have been around teams with individuals that are extremely difficult to deal with.  If it is one thing I've learned, leopards don't change their spots. 

Midlo - Agreed.  I never tire of the Ken Burns "Baseball" series.  My wife rolls her eyes when she sees me watching it, again.  I could watch it 24x7.   Good point about Ruth.   He turned out decent. 

The Burns baseball series is available on Netflix.

he may turn out great for the Yankees of the West, but I am glad he isn't a Brave!

Fenway,

 As far as winning and losing games because of his errors, he is doing his OTJ training in ML. I am not sure that Albuquerque NM was the right place for him to be in for too long.

FWIW, on several occasions I have seen teams lose on the lower levels because the "star" had way too many errors. That's the nature of the beast.

It's been printed that the Dodgers aren't too happy with him, I understand, he could have killed himself, even worse, someone else.

Funny, IMO, he is still a kid, but probably has seen more than any kid his age might ever have seen, so for that he gets a few free passes, at least.

As a life long Dodgers fan and Southern California native,  I've been very critical of Puig's play in the outfield (missing cutoff man, etc...) and stupid base running mistakes.  However, you can count on one hand the players that I'd choose over him to start a franchise, especially when you consider his current contract and the ROI the Dodgers will receive the next few years...Yasiel Puig is the ultimate five tool player.

Yes, he is extremely immature.  In regards to his speed/reckless driving, honestly, I had a lead foot in my early 20's and drove my vehicles at and beyond Puig's current citation.  Do I condone it?  Absolutely not, but there is a maturation process that we all go through and evidently the young Cuban is still learning?  He's not beating his girlfriend, taking drugs, or committing other felonious crimes...the kid simply needs to learn to use cruise control. 

BTW, I don't appreciate his show-boating and other on field antics, but there's no denying his talent and the fact that he's a major difference maker in the lineup for the Dodgers.  Lastly, he appears to sincerely enjoy the fans, both young and old.  The majority of Puig's problems are reflected with his lack of maturity, and that may take another year or so?  JMO....good or bad.

Good comparison Midlo Dad. Not that Puig will become anything resembling Ruth but that wasn't the point. A lot of young kids from bad backgrounds have to be given time to grow up. After all, they didn't have us raising them or to guide them!

ML talent is too expensive and elusive to just give away in trades especially when other teams sense it is being done because of problems like Puig's. Besides then the "problem" moves somewhere else and the same question about moving him can be  asked of whatever team he lands on.

The question I ask is "Can anyone here take their eyes off him when he is playing?" I think the vast majority of people would answer NO whether they approve of his actions or not. That combined with his raw talent means he is too valuable to give away.

rynoattack, don't tell me you wouldn't take Puig straight up for the nearly useless BJ Upton straight up right now especially when you consider the age and salaries!

Good point by TPM about all the major talents that have done even more serious lawbreaking. At least Puig was apparently not driving while impared as a very recently elected Hall of Fame manager who most of us admire was a few years ago.

The only way any team is going to get rid of Puig is if he becomes a big problem in the clubhouse.  When and if that happens it will affect the entire teams performance and they will want him out.  Of course, there will be other teams that will want him.

His biggest problem IMO is he isn't a smart player.  Time will tell if he becomes one at some point.  One of my problems with using metrics to rate a player is some things just can't be accounted for when it comes to intelligence or feel for the game.  Things like bad positioning, missing signs, mental mistakes, etc.  Without considering things like that the dumb player is equal to the smart player.

Anyway his ability is off the chart.  It's going to take a lot more than driving 110 mph before anyone gives up on him.  What is the worst thing he has done so far?  I doubt it is bad enough to give up on someone with the potential to be one of the best in the game. The best players aren't all a bunch of choir boys. You don't have to have the nicest people and best behavior to be a champion. Also, many of the best could be labeled risk takers or thrill seekers.

The Dodgers have one of the smartest baseball men on Earth running the show. He will know when the time is right to make a change, if one is ever needed.  There's no way any of us could make that decision because we would never know enough about the entire situation. And no matter who the player is... There's always a good trade possibility.

This is the third time he's done this-twice in pros, once in minors. Not the sharpest crayon in the box.

He's going nowhere because he's productive  ON the field. IMO he's another Hamilton who will be assigned a handler to keep him out of further trouble. Would love to see him loose his license for a yr and he can take his millions and hire a driver.

The point that I would like to make is that he makes bad decisions off the field and on the field.  One of these times, he may die because of his bad decisions.  Driving that fast on civilian streets, is wreckless and a menace to society.  Many seem to be acting like it is no big deal.  What happens when he kills someone?  Some are saying, "I drove like this as a young man."  My question is: were you arrested twice in the same year for it?  Also, how do you know he's not doing drugs, driving drunk at times, etc.?  You don't.  

I believe he is headed for serious trouble, and the enabling that is going on is ridiculous.  We as fans aren't any better when we act like wreck less driving is no big deal.  It is?  What if it was you or a loved one who dies because of this fool?

When we bought son a truck for his graduation (at 18) we made sure that it didn't go over 100mph.

I know he hit 100 quite a few times.  It all didn't sink in until he realized he could lose his license. Call it irresponsible, yes I do.  Kids will be kids and boys will be boys.

Now I have a really funny story to share. In PR, there are no buses to take you to games so the players get cars to share for transportation.

One night coming home late after a game, on the major highway, they saw in the distance tail lights which appeared not to be moving. Being unfamiliar with their surroundings they slowed down trying to decide what to do. Should we pull over and get out of the car, should they turn around?  As they got closer they realized that the cars were lined up, for drag racing.

There is no highway patrol in Puerto Rico!

I don't think anyone here is condoning his actions. Do you really think believe the Dodgers are "enabling" him? If I was a GM of another team, I'd be happy to take Puig off their hands. A talent like that with that contract is literally impossible to find on the open market. The Dodgers would be absolutely foolish to give him up if he continues to provide them with the value he provides them. They aren't the moral police, they're businesspeople.

Well, I guess. we will see if they give him a punishment with some teeth.  He obviously isn't learning.  Hopefully, he won't share the same fate as Bobby Phills...

I wouldn't take Puig for Upton.  Obviously, that would be unpopular here.  I prefer to have high character guys on my team.  Is it getting hard to police a whole team and know exactly what everyone is up to?  Sure; it may not be time to give up on him yet, but the warning signs are there.

I had a 67 GTO when I was a kid that I drove a lot faster than 110MPH a couple of times. 

Not that anyone would care on a message board. 

rynoattack- Wouldn't everyone prefer high character individuals on their team? I'm not trying to nitpick, I just feel that your expectations are completely unrealistic. We're discussing grown men, who lead very different lives and have very different personalities. I don't think it's possible-- or appropriate-- to "police" everyone.

For the record, a Vice President of a big league team told me that he "wouldn't touch Puig with a 10 foot pole" prior to any negative attention began to befall him. The character concerns are a legitimate issue, and are not a new concern. But, Rome wasn't built in a day and human beings mature at different rates.

I don't think I am unrealistic at all.  I don't like him, and I don't want him on my team.  I think he is a low character guy, who doesn't make good decisions.  I believe that is a recipe for disaster. I would build my team with character guys.  Does that mean I wouldn't have to deal with instances of guys making poor decisions?  Of course not, but I will have to deal with less, and my team's could focus on what they should...winning ball games.

What if he's the best available option-- by far-- to help your team win? And he comes at a price so incredibly discounted in comparison to a what player of his caliber typically garners on the open market? 

I don't have much to say, other than I hope he matures, and starts to make better decisions.  I wish him well, but I am glad he isn't a Brave.

Actually, that is valid point. Puig is 23. What makes you guys think the rest of the 23 year old MLB players aren't doing 110 in a 70? You know they are! They are just not getting caught. Besides, I doubt anyone was on the road when he wanted to take the Benz for a spin.

He worked hard all his life to enjoy what in Cuba they only hear about through songs and stories. Driving fast in America down the streets of gold.

I understand the implications this has about his character, however I am not familiar with too many young adults who haven't "tested the limits" of their cars.

To me, Puig's story (as long as the problems don't get deeper than this) is an ultimate success story. He came to America to live the dream. LA to Florida, he is doing everything we envy. Whether we can admit it or not- girls, cars, food... baseball! He seems like a fun loving kid with a passion for living life. It's not like he was drunk or hit anything.

My dad brought up an interesting point as well. He has so many people wanting "a peice" of him. I suppose he maybe just wanted to get away from it all. Hop in the car and cruise.

There was an interesting spot on MLB Network the other night about understanding different players and their customs. We understand now that there are players who are more "old fashioned" as they were raised around the game with MLB fathers, etc. Then there are those from poor countries where the MLB gives them so much compared to previously having nothing, and the results are volatile. There are Austrailians now with a new passion for the game. Asians bring an almost taboo approach. We see a case like Dice-K where they would not adjust to him. He wanted to throw hundreds of pitching like was accustomed to, and his change in style lead to his failure. Other pitchers have thrived such as Yu Darvish. The Rangers staff lets him practice his own routines such as throwing lefty!

I think the Puig thing is being blown out of proportion due to how great he is on the field. The media seems to want to make this out to be a battle between traditionalists and baseball progressives. I think that is a problem with sports now, everything has to be so "black and white." Every issue we are forced to pick a side. This reminds me of the Johnny Manziel scenario.

I think we often expect more out of our sports heroes than we do out of anybody else. I doubt any of us would be be gotten rid of by our employers just because we got a ticket or three for speeding or reckless driving in our own vehicle as long as no drugs or alcohol were involved. Even truck drivers probably would have to get the tickets in the company truck before they would be in trouble as opposed to what they do in their off time.

Fenway:

Last summer I shared a story about a high school player who was very Puig-like -- meaning he had a total lack of discipline.  I titled the thread "Divas."

Not trying to provoke you here, but I'm curious: In that situation, you said: "It needs to be handled internally by the team leadership."

I agreed with you then, and while this is different on some levels, it seems the same to me at its core: Immaturity among ball players.

So I'm wondering ... what's so different here that makes you look at this the way you do?

Link to thread:

http://community.hsbaseballweb...330#8050924067928330

I'm not hearing anything about drugs, alchohol, or school zones connected to Puig's  incidents.   If he was arrested doing 110 and none of those were brought up, then he was probably stone-cold sober, yes?  If that's accurate, then I'd say his Stupid Meter registers a little better than about 50% of the guys around the league, including the a lot of seasoned vets. 

I agree it makes good business sense to correct a well-paid asset who takes unnecessary risks with himself, but maybe I'd tap the brakes on the "Low Character"  label until I saw a little more out of him.  (Besides being one hell of a thing to say about a person.)

Owning a a fast car and not knowing what to do with it...now that would border on immoral...

I care, BOF.   My dad had a '66 Pontiac GTO when I was a kid.  That was the first car that I ever drove as a 14 year old in the parking lot of Mattel Toys in LA on a Sunday afternoon.  I remember barely putting my foot on the gas pedal & spinning the tires, which scared the heck out of me.  Needless to say, I guarantee my old man pushed the limit on that car a few times.

The article mentioned in the post says "Puig was arrested Saturday in Naples, Fla., after the Florida Highway Patrol clocked him going 110 mph in a 70-mph zone."

I know when I bought my 2010 Camaro I had it at 115 mph in a 60 mph zone a few times.  And I was 45.  

I know I make trips out to Ohio from NJ on a regular basis. 80 on 80 is considered cruising range for most people even in the more urban areas in NJ. Cars go hauling past me occasional that have to be doing 100+. Not for me and not the smartest thing to be doing, but not as uncommon as this article makes it sound.

Learning from his mistakes is what Puig needs to be doing (the 2nd time getting caught at 100+ is bothersome). Give him time, the talent and upside are just too great not to...

rynoattack, don't tell me you wouldn't take Puig straight up for the nearly useless BJ Upton straight up right now especially when you consider the age and salaries!

John Schuerholz and Frank Wren would have to give up both Upton's (and probably some farm staff) to get Puig, IF (tremendously big 'if') the Dodgers were inclined... Not! LOL!

JP24 - Good question.  I recall the thread.  I would love to see someone like your son get in Puigs face.  Puig needs someone like that IMHO to help him mature, and see this is bigger than him and involves more than him.  My second thought on the original thread post is to trade for a proven clubhouse veteran to turn Puig around which is a nice way of saying he needs a baby sitter.  Actually this may be a less expensive solution than other options which may make greater business sense.  From what I've read and seen, the Dodgers don't have that veteran clubhouse presence (leadership) today.  They have big salaries but very little in the way of veteran leadership.

Your son's real world situation was similar but didn't involve $42M/7yrs for arguably the 2nd best 5-tool player in MLB.   Again, you are hypothetically the GM for the Dodgers.  What do you do with this guy, if anything?  He is winning games because of his physical skills and losing games because he doesn't think.  He is a polarizing figure.   The overwhelming majority of HSBBWeb folks are saying they would do nothing at this point in time.  While I accept that as a sound business option, I've come to the conclusion the time-to-maturity aspect to this will be key.  He has 6 years under an advantageous Dodger contract.  We'll see if he can improve his strengths, minimize his weaknesses and mental mistakes to make this the best contract in baseball for the Dodgers. 

Originally Posted by Three Bagger:

rynoattack, don't tell me you wouldn't take Puig straight up for the nearly useless BJ Upton straight up right now especially when you consider the age and salaries!

John Schuerholz and Frank Wren would have to give up both Upton's (and probably some farm staff) to get Puig, IF (tremendously big 'if') the Dodgers were inclined... Not! LOL!

Like I said before, the Dodgers can have him.  This is at least the third time, he has been driving this fast and CAUGHT.  He obviously, and the majority of posters here, don't see the wrecklessness.  We just had a famous actor die as a passenger, and I am sure that isn't going to help his studio's bottom line.  Again, it is a business decision.

The roads are more crowded than ever before, there are more fast cars, more drunk drivers, more young, inexperienced drivers, old drivers, etc. these fools that think it is ok to drive this fast, and/or race on the streets are idiots.  Just writing it off as being young is not the solution IMO.

As far as the call of him not being a character guy, he is making the same mistakes over and over, does what he wants on the field, he is a me first guy, etc.  You can have him.

Ummm... How many times did Maddon have to bench B.J. Upton in TB for not playing 'team' baseball...?

You act like I traded for him, and that he is the basis for my argument.  He is not.  I love the Braves, and my kind of guys are: Dale Murphy, Hank Aaron, Chipper, the Crime Dog, Terry Pendelton, etc.  

Rynoattack - we get it.  You love the Braves.  I'll go out on a limb and say if Puig called Atlanta home you'd be defending him.  

I can hear you defending John Rocker too!  Lets see, he was a homophobic red neck racist.  What about Otis Nixon?  Crack head.  Andruw Jones?  Wife beater.  Chipper Jones?  Adulterer.

But everybody is going to crucify Puig for driving fast?!  Come on man!

Rich

www.PlayInSchool.com 

Nice!

All of you guys are right, and I am wrong.  It really is no big deal.  Here is a little excerpt from the latest police report:

“Mr. Puig showed willful and total disregard for the safety of his mother and the other passengers…and placed the lives of everyone on the roadway in danger. If Mr. Puig had loss of control, his mother and his passengers would not have survived,” Officer G. Morales of the Florida Highway Patrol wrote in the report.

Driving like an idiot by yourself, while endangering other drivers is one thing, but with your mom and others in the car?  He's a dumbass...

Obviously, every 23 year old who's ever done anything stupid should be immediately fired by his employer.  And don't even get me started on the teenagers. I mean really, anyone who's ever done anything evenly vaguely morally objectionable is clearly an unredeemable POS who doesn't deserve to associate with rest of society anymore.

maybe if it was a first offense. But you have to admit this is ridiculous. Second time in what a year? Not advocating for him to be released but this is just symptomatic of his behavior. When you do something like that with others around who you could possibly put in jeopardy, more then once then that shows his thinking or lack thereof. That is what most posters who are being critical of him are trying to say. And if alcohol is involved most normal people are in danger of being terminated. Especially if there is a stipulation in a contract. Listen, Cespedes, Trout, Harper are not much older and when do you hear of things like this involving them? This is him. If you want him you will live with the antics until someone gets hurt or worse. No one on that team has done much it seems to tone him down. who will mentor him? Hanley? Not hardly. Gonzalez? Not likely. Mattingly is not that type. He needs someone like David Ortiz who will take him by his collar and shake.

http://weirdnews.about.com/od/...Series-Mug-Shots.htm

Some people in this thread seem to think Puig is the only athlete to ever do anything stupid/criminal.  If Puig weren't already famous, this would be a non-story to anyone not directly involved with it.  Which is not meant to excuse the behavior, but unless you're checking the police blotter for every stupid college-age speeder and posting about them online as well, maybe folks should just worry about things that are actually their own business.

He's a public figure.  It goes with the territory...

Really!?! Thank God I wasn't a public figure when i was 23.

Unfortunately, it didn't make me any less of a dumbass. That's what so many 23 year old young men are. 

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/06...rrested__accus.shtml

Todd Helton, anyone?

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports....bation-and-400-fine/

Or how about this?

http://www.nydailynews.com/spo...-law-gallery-1.56536

Trade him to the Rangers please!!!  I bet Wash, Beltre and Fielder could straighten him out and he'd be a beast!!!  And if not, have a good 4th outfielder who is ready to contribute when he kills himself.  If I'm not mistaken, the contract doesn't get paid if he dies, right?  So, get what you can from him while you can.  It's business!

For all of you making light of excessive speed, had he hit another vehicle and people died he would be facing vehicular manslaughter charges and prison. Aside from there would be innocent victims, I believe the Dodgers would be concerned about their player in prison rather than on the field. Or dead rather than on the field. Does anyone remember Drazen Petrovic? He was just driving fast ... until a trailer truck cut him off. Or Danny Heatley? He was just driving fast. He was convicted of vehicular manslaughter when his passenger died. Neither of these involved drinking. Just driving fast.

And Bobby Phills.  By the way, I am surprised there isn't a provision in his contract for this type of behavior.  Most contracts prohibit dangerous activities, e.g. Ryan Klesko wasn't permitted to surf while with the  braves, and Ron Gant's contract was terminated because of a motorcycle wreck.

And the Dodgers would be interested in terminating the contract of someone they're underpaying relative to his performance why, exactly?  So far Puig hasn't come close to doing anything that's going to cost the Dodgers enough for them to want to get rid of him.  As any business would with any valuable asset, I'm sure they'll take steps to safeguard their investment, but voiding his contract over this would likely be legally actionable and, given the market for Puig's skills, abjectly stupid. I mean, if the Dodgers could get away with voiding his contract and were dubm enough to do so, do you really think Puig couldn't sign a better deal with someone else tomorrow?  So now you want to reward him for his behavior?

Hmmm, the Braves could use an OF who can hit...

I don't say they had to terminate his contract to do so.  I would assume that a termination of a contract is the last resort.  I am sure they have steps prior to that drastic of a measure, I.e. Fines, suspensions, etc.

If Peyton Manning got a ticket for going 110 would you say the Broncos should trade him?  What about Tom Brady?   Lebron?  No, no, no to all of them. Just because Puig is a 23 year old kid who has made a few dumb mistakes is no reason for the Dodgers to give up on the guy who could be the most exciting player in the league for a long time to come. 

I don't think that anyone thinks that what he did was right, in fact we all know that it was wrong, but we all know that we and our kids have done stupid things and lucky that no one got hurt while doing it.

In Jan 2012, Dominican all star Starlin Castro was accused of sexual assault, a young kid being at the wrong place at the wrong time. He was being mentored at the time by someone I forgot who it was and just about 23 years of age.

In 2008, Joba Chamberlin was arrested for drunk driving.  He was 23.

this year Yovani Gallardo was arrested for DUI. Age 27.

Not that all of them were found guilty, but reality is they are no different than anyone else.

Would your employer fire you for something that occurred away from the office?

JMO

Actually some employers do just that. Also, I don't really care what the Dodgers do with him. He is their investment, and if he continues to make unwise decisions that put American citizens at risk, he/they deserve what they get.  

Puig isn't Manning or Brady. He's potential, not the franchise. We all know star athletes get preferential treatment. It startsvearly in life. I'm just shocked how many posters are shrugging off multiple dangerous offenses as " boys will be boys."

Nobody's shrugging it off, but if you have an employee who's worth tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to your bottom line and who can't be trivially replaced, he gets more chances than the the guy who you can replace tomorrow and is only worth thousands.  That's not inherently right or wrong, and it's not different in baseball than it is in any other profession.

Let's be honest, there are a lot of people who have a preconceived dislike for Puig for one reason or another (there's all the "play the game the right way" BS, for instance). Those people are looking for excuses to find fault with him for moral failings they already attribute to him, and this is as good a fault as any. Then there are those who recognize that in the pantheon of stupid/criminal things done by athletes/rich/famous people this particular incident is fairly pedestrian, and that while deserving of appropriate corrective action it's not some inherent flaw in his character that makes him somehow special or different than other people who've done similar things.

What he did was stupid and dangerous.  Jason Kidd was much older and wiser when he signed with the Nets.  He didn't play well for them so they hired him to coach the team.

BTW, after three offenses I thought they took away your drivers license. 

Anyway, the most important business decisions made by MLB clubs deals with winning baseball games.  If Puig is responsible for winning enough games, all 30 teams would want him.  Problem is, you can't help win games of you are behind bars or dead.

I hope he figures it out before it's too late.  I hope he becomes a smarter player.  He is a very exciting young player. Most people do get a bit smarter as they age. 

No matter what happens Puig is newsworthy.

I think Puig is perfectly positioned for a spectacular sophomore swoon.  Based upon his late season downward trend,and the horrific series against the Cardinals, I predict this: a sub .270 BA, sub .470 SLG, and greater than 150 Ks. Lets revisit next September, If I'm wrong, I'll eat crow. Then he'll be 24, coming off a mediocre season. It's a shame that the younger guy, playing 40 miles south, who's put together 2 historic seasons gets no pub comparatively speaking.

If Puig plays a full season and hits 256/336/461 (Brian McCann's line from last year, BTW) while playing the same level of defense he did last season he's going to be worth about 4 times what he'll be getting paid. That'd be a mildly disappointing season, but not something for the Dodgers to get too upset about.

Trout gets plenty of press, BTW, and if the Angels weren't underperforming, he'd get more. Puig got all the press he did because his debut coincided with the Dodgers digging themselves out of the hole that almost got Mattingly canned.

"Escape from Cuba: Yasiel Puig's Untold Journey to the Dodgers"

A bizarre story befitting a very perplexing young ballplayer.

http://www.lamag.com/features/...urney-to-the-dodgers

Wow, I had no idea!

ESPN the Magazine had a good cover story a couple of months back as well if you want to read more.

My parents were lucky enough to come to America prior to Castro and the Communists taking over.  

Their are many families not as lucky.

Everybody thinks these young guys that come over with some talent have it so easy.  

Hopefully this article opens some eyes.

He still needs to learn how to hit a cutoff man though! 

Rich

www.PlayInSchool.com/bus_tour

Puig was called up 1 year ago.

ESPN has been talking about all kinds of stats including defensive miscues & running into outs.

Only stat that matters to me is WINS.  LA Dodgers have won 100 games since he was called up.  Most of any team.

Rich

www.PlayInSchool.com/bus_tour

I'm with PIS! Puig is really rounding out into form.  I keep him over just about anybody in the National League.  Now what the Dodgers need to do is deal Kemp and call up Joc Peterson.  I hate to say this because I am a big Kemp fan but "what have you done for me lately" 

Rich,

Agreed on the WINS point.  Puig is sitting at #14 on WAR in 2014.  I think I'll keep my day job.  If Mattingly can pull this off, he gets my vote for manager of the year.  I'd be pounding my head against the wall...Puig drives me crazy with the mental mistakes.  Just think how good he could be if he figures it out.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/war/leaders

forget Puig, though he is right in the middle of it. Its the Hanley show. Remember, he hit about .250 down the stretch last year. The season is from April to Sept. Not June to June. You can make stats say anything you want. He is a talent but he is far from the only reason the Dodgers are winning. He is getting great protection from Hanley.

Does anyone actually think Puig is the only reason the Dodgers are winning?

Lineup protection is a mythical narrative. Puig hits because he's a great hitter. It has nothing to do with Hanley batting in front of or behind him. You can't "make" stats "say" things, they are what they are. Puig has been the best player on the Dodgers so far this year by a lot. He's 23 years old and owed just $42 million through 2018. Ramirez is 30 years old, with significant injury history, and is a free agent after this season. 

Yasiel Puig is one of the most talented baseball players on the planet, and the best player on the Dodgers right now. To me, it's literally impossible to argue that.

You (or anyone) should create a stat that says anything you want, post it, and then let everyone pick through it. It'll be a fun experiment.

Puig is quickly becoming the top player in the NL. He has now played 157 career games and has hit 30 bombs with a .405 on base percentage and a .326 average. His discipline is getting better and better at the plate as according to graphics he is swinging at less and less pitches outside the zone and doing more with the ones that are in the zone. This is showing a strikezone maturity far beyond his years. As we saw with Manny, a guy can be a hitting savant and a goofball the rest of the time and still be exceedingly valuable to a team. He is becoming an absolute monster offensive player headed towards a 7.5 or 8 war season perhaps.

There is no doubt he can improve his baserunning but I feel the light will come on eventually. So much for the sophomore jinx!

Tell Robinson Cano that lineup protection is a myth. And no one is arguing that he isn't playing the best right now. But to say they are winning because of Puig alone is forgive me, is ludicrous. They are winning because they are playing better then the opposition.And please tell me what Hanleys age or free agent situation has to do with this. It matters not how old you are to help a club win. And just point out where I argue about Puigs talent. But it is a fact he hit around .250 down the stretch last year. This year could well be different. And if we look back to last year we will see the Dodgers take off after Hanley came back and started to hit.Put him in San Diego Padres lineup and see if protection is for real.

oldskool take a WAR any WAR number for anyone. That is one stat that depends a whole lot on your team. You can make that number say anything you want. And by the way you will not see me really quoting stats on this site too much. But please read my posts carefully. And yes, you can make numbers say whatever it is you want.

Explain more, please.

I do believe there is an advantage to both great hitters when they hit back to back.  Especially to the first hitter. I believe this advantage can produce better over all statistics.

Maybe protection is the wrong word.  But is it a coincident that Prince Fielder hit right next to the last three MVPs.  Why did Roger Maris have that year in 1961?  Anytime there are two great hitters back to back it requires pitchers to think a bit more.  Buck Showalter wouldn't have intentionally walked Barry Bonds with the bases loaded if another Barry Bonds was on deck.

For some, (Barry Bonds) they will compile great statistics no matter what.  But there is an advantage when two great hitters are back to back.

It will be interesting to see if Miggy has another MVP year this season.  

That said, the new age statistics are here to stay.  Every club is involved.  Puig's talent is astounding!  It will be interesting to see how everything plays out for him.  He does make a lot of mistakes, especially on the bases, but he also does things that most everyone else can't do.

Well, Trout was MVP the last 2 years, just wasn't voted MVP by the holy writers.

Expansion + Luck + Skill = Roger Maris 1961

Asserting this doesn't make it so.  Bill James debunked the idea with Horner and Murphy back in the 80s, and it would be trivial to prove this advantage existed if it did.

The flip side of protection is that hitters without it should get pitched around substantially more, and should perform worse when they don't have it.  Barry Bonds was walked 232 times in 2004, which should tell you everything you need to know about how afraid opponents were of the hitters after him and how rarely he saw strikes, but he hit 362/609/812.

Stanton spent much of 2012 with Logan Morrison (230/308/399) and Carlos Lee (243/328/345 with the Marlins) batting behind him.  Stanton hit 290/361/608.

Paul Konerko (300/388/517) and Carlos Quentin (254/340/499) hit behind Adam Dunn in 2011. Dunn hit a whopping 159/292/277 thanks to their protection.

Putting all stats aside for a moment (because they make my head hurt):

Is anyone saying they pitch good hitter the same if there's a good hitter on deck versus a below average hitter on deck? Not every at bat I know, but say in a spot where the guy at the plate can hurt you?

You go ahead and go right at the good hitter at the plate regardless of who's up next?

So Hanley Ramirez and his .257 average in a third of a season's worth of AB's is why Puig is batting .340 with power? Gee, I thought Puig's talent had something to do with it! 

I think Cano's problems have more to do with no longer playing in that lefthanded batters HR paradise that Yankee Stadium is than what "protection" he gets. He is in a large park and and he was probably not quite the power hitter it seemed. His non power stats are very close to what he was before so the lack of protection protection stand up. He just can't reach the fences in his home park with any consistency. I know someone will bring up the HR Derby that he won but that was batting practice and they say Ichiro is a real slugger in BP and look what he does in games.

Hanley's walk percentage has not gone up appreciably and is way down from his years in Florida so if he is being pitched around it doesn't show in the stats. Part of the problem might be trying to live up to a contract that is way above his talent level.

Does anyone think Roger Maris would have hit 61 HRs in 1961 if Mantle (54 HRs) was not hitting behind him? Still an unbelievable feat!

It makes a difference what the hitting lineup looks like.  It becomes part of the game plan. It's not an every at bat thing, but situations come up. If you have one great hitter and eight bad hitters your mind set is don't let the great hitter beat you. With another great hitter on deck you might pitch differently.  Happens all the time!

I'm going to get less HR balls if the hitter behind me can't hit a home run. Maybe the difference isn't as great in MLB because most teams are strong at the 3 and 4 spots. But there is still a difference unless the opposing pitcher and manager just don't care.  It is exactly the reason Buck Showalter intentionally walked Barry Bonds with the bases loaded, putting the winning run on base. He thought there was a better chance of Bonds hitting a grand slam than the next guy getting a hit.

Maris 1960-1962 batting 3rd (presumably in front of Mantle): .268/.365/.567 (6.7% of his PA's were HR)

Maris 1960-1962 batting 4th (presumably behind Mantle): .286/.390/.609 (7% of his PA's were HR)

Mantle 1960-1962 batting 3rd: .266/.375/.520 (5% of his PA's were HR)

Mantle 1960-1092 batting 4th: .316/.458/.643 (7.3% of his PA's were HR)

Goes to show how misleading stats can be at times.  

Think about this one... In 1961 Maris hit 3rd, Mantle hit 4th, in 139 games. Maris hit 57 of his 61 home runs in those 139 games. 

How are those misleading? They are what actually happened. What actually happened can't be misleading!

Roger Maris hit 61 home runs in 1961 because he was a great home run hitter, not because Mickey Mantle was hitting behind him. There is no proof that lineup protection is a real thing. Over a large enough sample of plate appearances, hitters will hit regardless of who is hitting behind him. Again, not to be argumentative, but stats cannot be misleading. They just are what they are. Stats tell a story of what happens, they cannot be manipulated or made up or misleading. I find it difficult to grasp the concept that people argue against mathematical proof of things. Maybe that's just the way my mind works, I don't know. But when evidence is black and white, it's impossible to make a valid point against it. There is no proof of lineup protection. There just isn't.

EDIT: There is proof that a hitter hits *slightly* better with a high OBP guy in front of him, because hitters generally hit better with runners on base (and, conversely, pitchers generally pitch worse with runners on base). I should specify that my statement pertaining to the fact that there is no proof of lineup protection has to do with a hitter hitting behind another hitter.

Josh, as a pitcher, did you ever pitch differently to a guy knowing he had a particularly good or particularly bad hitter following him?

I didn't notice who was in the on-deck circle. My responsibility was to focus on the hitter in the batter's box, and get him out. I'd worry about the next guy when it was his turn to hit. I would pitch hitters differently based on their individual skillsets, but my approach had nothing to do with who may be hitting after them. I found the concept of lessening your own abilities as a pitcher in an attempt to maximize hypothetical future success completely illogical, and as I've moved on to the other side of the game, I find that the numbers back up that theory as well.

JH,

Hypothetical....Puig at the plate, and swinging a hot bat....if the on deck batter was 0-10, and hitting .200, would you pitch around Puig?

I am intrigued by your statement that you did not concern yourself with the batter on deck.  I wanted to see if that changed in the case of the hypothetical above.

Just for grins I looked at Roger Maris' 1960 season when he won the MVP for the first time just to see if having Mantle bat directly behind him made a big difference. Surprisingly, in 1960, Maris only had 108 of his AB's with Mantle directly behind him going 29 for 108, a .269 average which was LOWER than his .283 season batting average. Strangely, he walked 94 times the year (1961) that he had Mantle batting behind him most of the time but only walked 70 times in an MVP season when he only had Mantle batting 108 times directly behind him. Pitchers were more careful with Maris when Mantle batted behind him in those years than when he didn't.

By the way, I have always felt Maris being the MVP in 1961 instead of Mantle is a greater injustice than Cabrera's two MVP's over Trout. Mantle playing the premier position, having greater speed, burning Maris in OPS( a historic 1.135 to .992), OBP (.448 to .372), slugging percentage,batting average,(.317 to .269), stolen bases, (12-13 to 0-0) ground into DP's (only 2 to 16), and putouts in the outfield (351 to 261), Errors (6 to 9). So 7 Hrs and 14 RBI's and 1 run scored overrode all that? No way!

Where'd you find the information?

Three Bagger- You forgot the big bad WAR, in which Mantle also held a lead by a considerable margin in 1961 . While both years of Cabrera > Trout make no sense to me, there have been many more downright weird MVP awards given out in the history of the game. 

Usually involved Texas Rangers.

"Swinging a hot bat" is dependent on arbitrary start/end dates, so I wouldn't consider anyone that has had a good stretch of small sample hitting to be a "hot bat." Platoon splits exist - and perhaps a hitter like Puig may be a better hitter against the type of pitcher I am when compared to another type of pitcher. That may lead me to pitch him differently. But none of that has anything to do with the batter on deck. I would never approach an at-bat differently because of who is on deck, and I certainly would never encourage any other pitchers to do so. That makes no sense to me whatsoever. 

OldScool2, Retrosheets on EBaseball World allows you to look at a player's game by game results as well as every box score since the early 20th century. Love to browse through it.

JH - I won't sidetrack this Puig thread anymore, however I love your mindset.  I would suspect there would be less intentional or unintentional intentional walks with that thought process.   ....of course walking the batter for force out, double play notwithstanding.

Yeah, I know about Retrosheet pretty well. Did you go through each box score and add it up yourself?

I view the IBB similarly to the sac bunt…there are very few instances in the game when they are warranted. I IBBed one batter in college, in a similar situation you just outlined - with a runner on second base and one out in a tie game in the 9th inning on the road. That is an example of a time it makes sense to me; to set up a force play while allowing a runner on base that literally means nothing in the context of the game. 

I appreciate that you appreciate the mindset. I've always felt that way and I am very happy to see that the numbers back up my mindset.

Oh, and when I IBBed the hitter, the next batter (who I didn't think about while IBBing the hitter) bounced into a double play on the first pitch .

Oh and JH I left out WAR because..well you know...

Yeah I just did a quick game by game look for that season since I saw that Maris didn't bat third all that much. Surprisingly, he batted leadoff the first couple of games that season. He had Moose Skowron and the immortal Hector Lopez "protect" him a lot that season and Bobby Rishardson behind him when he batted leadoff!

Yeah, I bet he protected the #9 hitter pretty well!

If a pitcher isn't aware of the lineup, the manager sure is.  Are we saying pitchers never pitch around a hitter in certain situations. That the guy on deck plays no part in how you pitch to a hitter. This is part of advanced scouting.  It's also about knowing all the statistics of the opposition.  It's part of pregame prep.  Knowing the opposition!  I can almost guarantee that every pitcher that ever faced the Giants knew when Barry Bonds was on deck in an important situation. If they didn't know, the catcher and the manager did.

Of course statistics are what they are.  Roger Maris hit 57 home runs in 1961 in 139 games that Mantle hit behind him.  That is a true statistic!  My comment about statistics meant that we can find a true stat that can back nearly any argument. In this case it is my belief that Roger Maris would not have hit 61 home runs without Mantle hitting behind him.  It's not something that can be proven one way or the other with statistics. IMO

Then again, I could be wrong about all this.  Many years have taught me that I have the capability of being wrong at times.

That Maris hit the majority of his HR with Mantle hitting behind him (as near as I can tell, he actually hit 55 with Mantle in the starting lineup behind him, but I don't feel like being completely exhaustive and it doesn't change the math much) doesn't prove your thesis.  Maris hit 61 HR in 698 PA.  He hit 3rd for 610 PA and hit 57 HR doing so.  If his HR were completely randomly distributed, there's roughly a 20% chance he'd hit 57 or more HR in any given 610 PAs.  That's not evidence that having Mantle behind him offered "protection", especially when we already know that Maris didn't hit markedly better/worse with Mantle behind him over a more substantial number of PAs. FWIW, unless he hit all 61 in the 610 PAs, the odds that it's just chance distribution don't fall below 5%, which is where things might start to look significant.

Not that it matters what the math says, since you've essentially dismissed it out of hand with your last sentence.  Nothing can actually be proven with statistics, but it is possible to show via statistics that there's no real evidence that there is a protection effect in MLB hitters as it's being commonly referred to here. I realize that won't convince you with regards to Mantle/Maris, but until you're willing to actually attempt statistically to prove your thesis that protection exists, your beliefs on the subject are just that, beliefs.

So, yeah…. that Puig guy is pretty good huh!?

PGStaff....I sent you a PM (Dialog)

For the record, this is starting to sound like I don't pay attention to statistics.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  We actually partnered with Baseball Prospectus and TrackMan which should mean something.  I am all for information, the more information the better.  

At the same time I believe there are things that happen that have nothing to do with statistics.  Some of these "beliefs" are based on common sense.  It is my "belief" the batting order plays a part in nearly every game played.  Even more so without the DH.

Does a National League pitcher know when the opposing pitcher is on deck? Does that ever have a bearing on how he pitches to the 8 hitter?  Sure there are situations where this is more important than others.  For sure some pitchers can hit much better than others.

Ralph Houk, the Yankees manager in 1961 put Maris in front of Mantle so he might get better pitches to hit.  That decision has been documented.   This was before we had the sophisticated statistics we have now days.  This decision was simply based on common sense.  That being pitchers are not going to pitch around Maris to get to Mantle.  We might have statistics that tell us it didn't make any difference.  But how do we know for a fact what would have happened if those 600 AB's hitting ahead of Mantle didn't happen? How do we take the other 4 HRs and make sense out of that.  There are lots of guys who have hit 4 HRs in a week, but never come close to 61.

Maybe we should research how many times Maris hit a HR that year when the on deck hitter was the tying or winning run. I just can't wrap my mind around a pitcher not knowing where he is in the batting order.  Maybe sometimes in amateur baseball where there is not as much information about the hitters, but not in the Big Leagues. For sure the manager is going to know and makes decisions accordingly.

So I'm not discounting the value or even accuracy of statistics.  However, they can only tell us what did happen, they can't tell us what would have happened or what will happen with 100% accuracy.

Kind of feels like I'm in a court room.  I'm all for information.  I'm also for beliefs. I'm sure JH and others understand the math involved much better than I do.  

Also, I was a big Roger Maris fan.  I always felt like he was slighted for his accomplishments.  In fact, his son is a very good friend.

PG- As more information has come about, it has been discovered that much of the "common sense" that has been prevalent in the game for so long is, in fact, not sensical at all. For example, to continue on the topic of lineup optimization, it has been proven that the third hitter in the lineup should not be the best hitter in the lineup. The second hitter should be. The difference in production over the course of a season is very small, perhaps a few runs or so, but it is nonetheless relevant. "Common sense" has been proven incorrect.

In the case of Maris and Mantle, and many other instances where lineup protection has been cited as a reason for hitters being placed in the lineup where they are place, the "common sense" that goes into the thinking is also not sensical.

As a pitcher, why would I give Roger Maris a better chance to hit the ball knowing that Mickey Mantle is on deck? Why wouldn't I just try to get Roger Maris out the same way as I would in any other at-bat? I'll never, ever understand why a pitcher (or a manager) should approach a specific at-bat worrying about who is going to hit next. Changing a game plan due to the next hitter is effectively lessening the optimal chance of retiring the hitter in the batter's box. Mickey Mantle was a great hitter - one of the best ever. That doesn't have anything to do with Roger Maris. Statistics, fortunately or unfortunately, support that claim as well.

Roger Maris was a very good hitter, but it wasn't because Mickey Mantle hit behind him. I don't mean to be confrontational, PG, but your beliefs are not supported by evidence. Ralph Houk may have rationalized his lineup decisions based on that same belief, but that doesn't mean it made Maris and/or Mantle a better hitter.

I've mentioned it a few times on this board, and I'd like to mention it again. There is a book entitled "The Book: Playing The Percentages In Baseball" that touches on just about every "common sense" thought in the game. Some of the contributors to the book used to contribute to Baseball Prospectus, which is now one of your partners (wonderful idea, by the way. Seriously.). It's a somewhat cut-and-dry book that doesn't have any type of storyline, but it does perhaps the best job explaining some of the things I try to explain here. 

Isn't this what every announcer says? That the pitcher has to bear down and get this guy out so the 'elite' hitter doesn't come up with anyone on base. And if true, wouldn't that have the opposite effect of protection as traditionally thought and hitting in front of an elite hitter actually make you look worse?

You're conflating different meanings of the word statistics. Baseball "statistics" are a numerical record of what occurred in the course of one or more baseball events (whether those events are PA, Games, seasons, or whatever). We can use mathematical "statistics" to analyze that record and assess the significance of those events.

Using those mathematical methods to analyze the records of MLB, I can state with a high degree of confidence that protection doesn't exist. The fact that Maris hit 55 of his HR with Mantle on deck (he hit at least 2 of his batting 3rd HR with other people on deck) is a fact. Whether that fact has meaning in analyzing your hypothesis of lineup protection is a question of mathematical statistics. Given that I've shown that Maris could easily have that arrangement of his HR by chance alone, that particular piece of the baseball "statistical" record does not really support your hypothesis. We could look at a ton of other factors (opposing pitchers, ballparks, day/night games, etc) that would all have an impact anod further illustrate that there are entirely too many factors at play for when he hit those HR to be able to draw a reasonable conclusion that Mantle's "protection" was the causal factor.

There are very large numbers of "statistical" events in the baseball record. Given that, it's inherently the case that really rare things will happen some of the time. Perfect games, hitting for the cycle, first AB HR, Joey Votto pop-ups. Being human, we like to assign reasons for these things, to find the pattern that explains them, even when a lot of the time there isn't one. Randy Johnson threw a perfect game and so did Philip Humber. If all I knew about them was how uncommon perfect games were, I might be inclined to think that meant they were both fantastic pitchers. I can, however, use statistics to realize that a (potentially large) chunk of any perfect game is luck, and that Philip Humber was just lucky (really, mind-bogglingly lucky) and not particularly good as MLB pitchers go while Randy Johnson was just garden variety perfect game lucky and an insanely good pitcher.

Finally, on the topic of common sense, lots of people believe all sorts of things thanks to "common sense". To paraphrase Lionel Caffey Jr, it doesn't matter what you believe, it matters what you can prove. In all seriousness, http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Common_sense

This is getting crazy.  I "believe" I can get this hitter out doing this.  I "believe" I need to pitch to this guy because Barry Bonds is on deck.  I "believe" I will walk Barry Bonds with the bases loaded because I "believe" that gives us the best chance to win the game. I "believe" I will look for a fastball.  What "proof" do I base these decisions on? What statistic do I use?  Is there proof that walking Barry Bonds with the bases loaded is the right or wrong decision?

When something has already happened, how do you 100% prove it would have happened anyway no matter what took place at the time? You can only prove the things that did happen.  You cannot prove what would have happened.  The information (statistical) has great importance.  It cannot completely cover everything.  

PG- No one is saying that there is any stat that exists that can cover "everything." But certainly there are predictive statistics that enable people to measure possibilities in the future. Denying the existence of- or not using- the statistics would not be beneficial to an organization, knowing that other organizations use data successfully. 

Further using your example, walking Barry Bonds with the bases loaded was never a good decision. Ever. There was never a point in Barry Bonds' career when the chance of him driving in more than one run without recording an out was 100%, so giving him a 100% chance of reaching base and the Giants scoring a run was a bad decision. 

There is a lot of statistical proof of all of the items being discussed in this thread, much of which was also shared here. I'd love to further help disseminate information but to be honest, I'm not sure what else I can provide to explain that a lot of "beliefs" are untrue.

JH, if it's late in a game and you have a multi-run lead, the proper question for a probability analysis is not the odds of his producing multiple runs, but whether the Giants would be more likely to get multiple runs with him walking and the next guy definitely batting, or with you taking your shot with Bonds and then possibly still also facing the next guy.  There was a period in Bonds' career where the odds definitely favored the intentional walk.  Even when the next guy was Jeff Kent!

Incorrect. Barry Bonds was walked intentionally with the bases loaded on 5/28/98. When the run was scored on his intentional walk, the Giants had a 10% less chance of winning the game than before the intentional walk (http://www.baseball-reference....N199805280.shtml#wpa). The RE24 (http://www.tangotiger.net/re24.html) chart remains the same, but obviously a run is added in actuality because in the particular event being discussed, a run was scored in the situation at hand. Barry Bonds should NEVER have been intentionally walked with the bases load. Ever.

Again, I don't mean to sound argumentative, but I don't understand why people keep arguing with the numbers. It's black and white and it's not difficult to understand.

From Wikipedia

In the history of Major League Baseball, six players have been issued intentional walks with the bases loaded (thus giving the batting team an automatic run). This is similar to the intentional safety in American football, which also concedes a certain amount of points to the opposing team in order to avoid a situation in which the opposing team might score more points than the safety itself. This is only done in the rarest of cases, typically when the pitching team is leading by four runs or less late in the game and a particularly feared hitter is at the plate. The six players given such passes are Abner Dalrymple (1881), Nap Lajoie (1901), Del Bissonette (1928), Bill Nicholson (1944), Barry Bonds (1998), and Josh Hamilton (2008). In all six cases, the pitching team went on to win the game.^[4][5]

If this is correct, walking a hitter with the bases loaded has worked everytime. Small sampling, but still 6 for 6! Those are the numbers!

"Further using your example, walking Barry Bonds with the bases loaded was never a good decision. Ever. There was never a point in Barry Bonds' career when the chance of him driving in more than one run without recording an out was 100%, so giving him a 100% chance of reaching base and the Giants scoring a run was a bad decision."

JH,

There doesn't have to be anywhere near 100% chance of Bonds driving in more than one run for this to make sense. If I'm up by 2 or more runs, I may well be better off taking 100% chance of the Giants scoring 1 run by walking Bonds, rather than pitching to him and taking xx% chance of the Giants scoring 2 or more runs and tying or winning the game.  If "xx%" is 90% this is certainly true, and probably true at 50%.  I don't know how low this percentage would have to be to pitch to him, but that's the manager's call.

Every time a pitcher has thrown 12 perfect innings in a game, his team has lost! The numbers don't lie, throwing 12 perfect innings in a game is bad for your team!

Actually, this is an intriguing response. Smitty- correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this has to do with the economic theory of marginal propensity to consume…in this case- accepting the present value of something in return for the future potential results. I think that this particular scenario might prove difficult to quantify the true value of the decision-making process, but in theory, I don't think you're wrong.

It is precisely this reasoning (along with confirmation bias and an inability/unwillingness to understand probability) that makes it possible to play poker profitably (for some of us).

It's also related to why Mitt Romney didn't have a concession speech ready on election night in 2012, or why anyone thought McCain had a real chance to win on election night in 2008.

At a rough approximation the on-deck hitters' OBP has to be lower than Bonds chance of hitting at least a single, which wasn't the case in the circumstances given (it's actually a lot more complicated than that, but the WPA calculation quoted above very likely captures all the permutations reasonably well).

There's also this, http://www.stat.duke.edu/~jerry/Papers/brj04.doc.  If it's generally not a good idea to walk bonds intentionally in less highly leveraged situations, doing so in this one isn't going to be better.

In 1998, Bonds had on base percentage of .438 overall. But when he did not walk he had an OBP of only .309 on 167 hits, 8 HBP's, 6 SF, on 566 plate appearances excluding walks. So if he didn't walk, he had a 31% chance he would at least tie the game with a hit or HBP. This intentional walk took place with two outs in the ninth inning. If he was going to make an out in 69% of his plate appearances when he did not walk then why not pitch to him. Not only that but the HBP and some of the singles would only tie the game. If he made an out and he absolutely was not walked then he would fail to get any run in 69% of the time. Don't forget his off the chart OBP were that way because of all the walks he was given. Now I understand that his OBP would go up because sometimes he walked when a pitcher was NOT trying to walk him but I bet that wasn't many times as one would think. But the whole analogy is NOT walking him here and pitching to him, so it seems that some 69% of the time he would make the last out of the game. Maybe JH or someone here can point out if my math thinking is flawed.

Wouldn't it also matter if Bonds was hitting a lifetime .600 against whoever stood on the mound or .150?

"Specific batter vs pitcher data is probably the worst use of statistics in the entire sport.” - Dave Cameron

http://books.google.com/books?...ge&q&f=false

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs...er-match-up-numbers/

Not really.  The sample sizes for the vast majority of pitcher/batter matchups are far too small to generalize from, and there's essentially no reason to think Bonds would hit like anything other than Bonds vs any particular pitcher (allowing for platoon differences and whatever the ability of that pitcher actually is, of course).

FWIW, coming into the PA in question, he'd faced Gregg Olson twice and walked both times.

Also, to clarify three bagger's post, pitching to Bonds is safer because Bonds can only tie the game for sure with a 2B or better (it's 8-6 when he comes to bat with the bases loaded), though a lot of singles will probably do so as well, and it's probably going to take a HR to win it (his odds of tripling there are negligible).  After walking Bonds, Mayne will tie the game by safely reaching base in any possible way, and will win the game with any 2B or better. So Mayne's only slightly less likely to win the game outright than Bonds is, but he will tie the game much more often (and those ties retain the possibility that the next hitter will win it) with the ultimate result that walking Bonds is a net loser for the DBacks.

Bonds had more career plate appearances against Greg Maddux than any other pitcher, with 157. 

His highest career batting average against a pitcher he faced more than ten times was .667, in 17 plate appearances against Carl Pavano. Using the same arbitrary point for plate appearances, He was 0-14 vs. Chris Peters, 1-20 vs. Ray King, 3-41 against Mike Bielicki. 

For his career, Barry Bonds hit .303/.458/.626 against RHPs, in 8459 plate appearances. He hit .289/.417/.569 against LHPs, in 4147 plate appearances.

None of the matchup totals against specific pitchers are large enough samples of data to form a conclusive predictive measure for results of a particular plate appearance, and his career platoon does not indicate an extremity that would lead me to believe a bases loaded IBB would behoove the team. 

Three responses on the same topic in 7 minutes, all using different data to prove the same point. Go evidence!

I think you are right that in this case 69% of the time he would make the last out of the game.  You didn't say anything about the guy batting behind him (here we go again...) but if I had an 80% chance the next batter would make the last out, wouldn't I rather pitch to him instead? 

jacjacatk said this above: 

Also, to clarify three bagger's post, pitching to Bonds is safer because Bonds can only tie the game for sure with a 2B or better (it's 8-6 when he comes to bat with the bases loaded), though a lot of singles will probably do so as well, and it's probably going to take a HR to win it (his odds of tripling there are negligible).  After walking Bonds, Mayne will tie the game by safely reaching base in any possible way, and will win the game with any 2B or better. So Mayne's only slightly less likely to win the game outright than Bonds is, but he will tie the game much more often (and those ties retain the possibility that the next hitter will win it) with the ultimate result that walking Bonds is a net loser for the DBacks.

As I mentioned upthread, the following batter needs (at a minimum) to reach base safely via any method less often than Bonds' is likely to at least get a hit. Brent Mayne was the ondeck hitter, and his career OBP at the time was about 30 points higher than Bonds' batting average (and that slightly understates the gap for various reasons).

Other than a pitcher (who'd get PH for and so isn't going to happen), there's almost no one who'll fit the bill in this case.

No reason for discussion here. Someone has a stat reference on the internet to dispel what might have been the thinking during the season or the AB in 1961 or 1998, when the stats internet articles didn't exist.

Gonna be watching Bochy to make sure he is on the internet before he makes those double switches.

The math for the Bonds decision was easy enough to do at the time, no internet needed.

Batting Maris in front of Mantle really doesn't make any difference, no matter how it was justified at the time or now.

Strat-o-matic baseball, coincidentally, was invented in 1961. Bill James once suggested that every big league manager should be required to play 1000 (I think that was the number) games of SOM before being given the job, because understanding the math behind the decisions they have to make is fundamental to the job, and knowing how to manage the players as people isn't all that useful if you don't have the requisite knowledge to make good decisions about deploying the human talent you have to work with.

Like I posted, no reason for discussion here.

Why not? Questioning a manager's decision-making has been happening since the beginning of the game. Statistical evidence indicates that several decisions cited on this site were incorrect decisions. Why is that something that shouldn't be discussed?

It seems as though the implication you're making is that us "nerds" just don't get it, but maybe I'm misreading it.

Not sure what the point of posting something to a discussion board is if you don't think it's worth discussing.

The statistical evidence being used to question the Houk decision in 1961 and the possible decisions of pitchers in 1961 is based on statistical analysis in 2014. Same with Bonds in 1998.  To me, it is the ultimate in Monday Morning. The question is how to apply these to in game instant decisions. Do we, in 2004,  pitch to Bonds or walk Bonds when his OBP is off the charts as is his slugging percentage and BA. It is one way to look in the rear view mirror and judge.

It isn't one extreme or another, in my view. The effort to suggest PG, for instance, is all wrong for being alive in 1961(Hope that is right PG)and relating how the game was and Yankees and Maris were viewed from the eyes of 1961 is part of baseball.  PG isn't all wrong, assuming my memory is correct,  and I question if retro stats are so dogmatic to be  right.

To illustrate my point, my post on whether Bonds was hitting .600 or .150 got immediate rejection with internet references.  I have enough experience to know players can go 20-30 in one streak and 0-20 in another.  Within those streaks, I might want to make a baseball judgment for that player at that point in time and that AB, against that pitcher, no matter that a stat guy wrote an article on the internet which says the human judgment element in baseball should be turned over to a computer.

infielddad- I see the discussion from the complete opposite view. Now that we are capable of having such analysis at our fingertips, using retrospective examples of situations that could arise in the future help make our overall knowledge of the game, and the decisions that occur within the game, that much better. Why not use the capabilities to our benefit? What frustrates me is seeing people not willing to take these things into consideration. I'm not here saying anything negative about Roger Maris or Mickey Mantle or Ralph Houk or Buck Showalter or Barry Bonds, and I'm pretty sure jacjacatk isn't either. I'm ABSOLUTELY not questioning Jerry Ford's - or anyone else's - knowledge of the game. I'm trying to illustrate, using relatable examples, that the game can be optimized in better ways with the use of data. 

One question is what is the statistical evidence that the game is played better, in situational situations, based on the statistical look back.

Stated in a different manner, on MLB TV I am listening to nearly identical analysis which I have read and heard for many years. This guy looks like,,,,,,, reminds me of........., projectible body, going to get bigger and stronger....

How is any of the narrative from 4pm, EDT to now, any different in projecting? When dp stats work or not, iin analyzing a baseball situation where they were applied, not looked at in the rear view mirror..  I love reading the Bill James stuff. I also love what Brian Sabean does, for instance.  Baseball has an amazing human element, emphasized today by the death of Don Zimmer. If the statistical elements make the human judgments better, that is all the better.  This discussion, to  me at least, is using them to say past judgments were wrong. Maybe I am misunderstanding but that is what I am reading.

No one's questioning Houk's decision, just whether his stated rationale had any impact on Maris' 1961 season, or whether Maris' 1961 season is good evidence of protection as defined by PGStaff and others (it's not).

Showalter's decision was questioned at the time in 1998 (online even, and I suspect you could find me questioning it with some digging). Heck, IIRC correctly, Showalter's own coaches questioned the decision at the time. In any event, the information necessary to analyze the decision was available then, though it's more trivially available now, but certainly any MLB staff would have had at their disposal the means to realize it was a bad decision if they had wanted to employ that information.

If you're making "baseball judgments" based on whether a guy's in a 20-30 streak or an 0-20 one, you're making bad decisions that are not evidence based. It's confirmation bias waiting to happen.  A guy who's 0-20 who gets a hit was due, and one who doesn't is just still in a slump. A guy's who 20-30 and gets a hit is just red hot, and one who doesn't was bound to cool off some time.

If you could actually predict what players were going to do in their next X PAs based on how they had done in their last Y PAs (where X and Y are numbers like 20 or 30), it would be trivially easy to make yourself rich with that information. And MLB teams would have a lot more variable lineup construction than they actually do.

Like I said, no reason for discussion here!!!!!!

So, if the Yankees had them on the roster and placed Phil Linz or Tom Tresh in the Mantle slot behind Maris, would Maris have hit 61? If the Yankees put a guy who hit 10HRs behind Maris rather than Mantle, who battled with 54 until his late season injury, Maris would still have hit 61?  So much for the old baseball axiom that a guy picks up his teammate. From now on, stats and computers pick them up, not their teammate?

So the 2 points in your eyes is, some of us think we can look back use statistical analysis and say, hey, this did nothing. You think we can’t look back and say it was wrong and that Ralph Houk knows better than we do?

There's a substantial body of statistical evidence that posting about something on a discussion board is a poor way to stifle discussion about it.

I am pretty old but I think my earlier post is I love reading and learning about Bill James and his information AND I love reading and learning of the Brian Sabean approach. They are not the same and for a number of years, I questioned the Sabean approach. Over the last 7-8 years, he has made a huge believer of this guy.

And yes, I don't think you can take current data and put it in the context, pressure and environment of 1961 with Houk. To do so, to me, diminishes Houk, Mantle, Maris and baseball being a team game. Just my view!

"If you're making "baseball judgments" based on whether a guy's in a 20-30 streak or an 0-20 one, you're making bad decisions that are not evidence based. It's confirmation bias waiting to happen.  A guy who's 0-20 who gets a hit was due, and one who doesn't is just still in a slump. A guy's who 20-30 and gets a hit is just red hot, and one who doesn't was bound to cool off some time."

This statement is one that I just don't agree with, and is perhaps the problem I'm having with this thread.  I am a big believer in data, but at the same time I've played enough baseball to know that hitters get hot and hitters get cold.  There are periods of time when you see the ball, when your mechanics feel right, and hitting is easy.  It doesn't matter who's pitching or what the situation is.  We used to call it being in the zone.  There is no doubt in my mind that a hot hitter is more likely to get a hit than a hitter in a slump.  Sure, hot streaks and slumps begin and end, but there's no denying a hot Josh Hamilton is an unbelievable hitter, while a cold Josh Hamilton is a near certain swinging strike out.

The problem with data as it's being used here is that it can smooth out the peaks and valleys.  Averages are just that.  They don't account for the variability within the data.  They don't account for the variances in performance around the mean.  I am not seeing how they account for streaks and slumps.  Perhaps people are doing Monte Carlo or other analysis to factor in these variances, but if so I must have missed it.  I suppose if you don't believe in streaks and slumps than this wouldn't be necessary, but then I would say this is bad decision making.

Smitty- The issue with small sample sizes has to do with the predictability of the results within the sample. A streak is just that - a small sample with no predictive value. Sure, streaks exist and players feel hot and cold. No doubt about it. But it's impossible to predict when those hot and cold streaks will start and/or end. Your Josh Hamilton example is a perfect one to illustrate the volatility and arbitrary nature of streak lengths. Relying on unpredictable data for measurement of future actions, in and of itself, is bad decision making. 

I'd add that this is the same fallacy that leads to non-professional investors selling at market lows and buying at market highs. You can't time the market, and you can't predict hot and cold streaks with any certainty. See Gambler's Fallacy.

In fact, you can probably make a lot of money by betting on regression to the mean. Charlie Blackmon put up a 1034 OPS in April this year, and I'm betting you could have made good money in Vegas betting against him coming anywhere near that in May (when he actually put up a 718). He's much better than even money to end up closer to his current career .774 than to his current .856 by the end of this season

In regards to results based streaks. You can't measure streaks based on results (which is why citing 0-20 or 10-20 is totally useless) in which the inputs are pitcher skill, batter skill, defense skill and luck. You can't detect a true hot or cold streak. Who's to say the batter is really seeing the ball and just roping line drive after line drive but he happens to hit it right at the fielder and goes 0-5. Or let's say the batter really is seeing the ball better but runs into Clayton Kershaw or RA Dickey, or just some random schlub pitching the game of his life and just doesn't do anything. Or maybe he comes to the park sick and miserable with a monster headache, doesn't want to play and goes 5-5 with 3 dribblers down the line and a few bloops off the end of the bat.

So basically what i'm saying is, hot and cold streaks probably do exist in some form, BUT WE DO NOT HAVE THE CAPABILITY OF SPOTTING THEM and anyone who claims they do is lying or a fool.

JH,

what I'm saying is that hitting is not like a coin toss, in which the next flip is completely independent of the last flip.  The probability of a hit is a function of the hitter's performance in the last at-bat, or at-bats.  At least this is my assertion.  However small the sample size, I believe streaks and slumps exist.  Of course they end, but while the streak (or slump) is going the odds are with you if you take this into account in decision making.  They only go against you the time it ends.

If a hitter goes 4 for 4 in Wednesday's game and 4 for 4 in Thursday's game and 4 for 4 in Friday's game, there is no predictive value in that to say he will get a hit in his first at-bat on Saturday. He may feel more confident and in rhythm at the plate, but there is no way to quantify that he will get a hit strictly based on the sample size of the previous streak he had. As a decision-maker, it would be a bad idea to base in-game decisions on small sample sizes of results because of this. I'm not saying streaks don't exist, I'm saying they aren't usable predictive values.

Not for you JH, but maybe this leads to an interesting response. How do you know when the hot/cold streaks start and end and when you're in them.

If the type of streaks that you guys think exist do exist, you should be able to spot them and tell us when they started while in them and notice when they end as they are ending.

JH,

I'm not sure if you and I are disagreeing or getting crossed on terminology.  I am not suggesting that there's an ability to predict with certainty the outcome of an at-bat based on recent performance, but I do believe that the probability of the outcome changes based on recent performance.  Perhaps the math being used to analyze this today is too simple.  Algebra shouldn't be used to solve a calculus problem.

Serious question: what's the difference between predicting the certainty of an outcome and the probability of an outcome?

If you believe that being hot leads to continuing to be hot, why do hot streaks ever end?

If the results of the previous PA effect the next one, why can't I use those results predicitvely?  

Hint, if I could use those results predictively, I could retroactively look at the beginning of a series of ABs that had taken place and predict when a hitter would get hot or cold over the rest of my series of AB, but that doesn't actually work.

If it were possible to predict hot and cold streaks, the methodology for doing so would be worth millions of dollars. There are tons of really smart math people working in baseball and other lines of work who would kill for the chance to make money exploiting this power if it existed. Teams would routinely change their lineups substantially based on who's hot and who's not.  Yet, the Braves gave Dan Uggla 660 PAs of hitting .178 before pulling the plug.

Just for discussion purposes.  Barry Bonds was intentionally walked with his team behind by 2 runs with the bases loaded and two outs.

i would not have done that, but understand the logic. tying run is on 2B,You are facing the very best hitter and power hitter in baseball.  A much less hitter is on deck.  A hit by Bonds either ties or ends the game and a hit, walk, error, etc., ends the game with Brent Mayne hitting.

No matter what the numbers say, the manager's gut told him he thought the best chance to win the game is by facing Mayne with two outs and the tying run at 3B and winning run at 2B rather than pitch to Bonds with the tying run at 2B and the winning run at 1B. Both will end the game if they make an out.  Though I wouldn't have done that, it actually makes some sense In that situation.  Still, It sure took some courage to do it.  Obviously, this would not have happened if the hitter would have been anyone other than Bonds. The gamble did pay off for Showalter!

Joe Madden did pretty much the same thing with Josh Hamilton.  We are talking about two very good MLB managers that have been around the block a few times.

Tying run was on 2nd, it takes a 3B or HR to win the game (JT Snow is not scoring on very many doubles, heck he's probably turning some Bonds triples into doubles).

That you insist that going with your gut instead of logic is correct just because it worked out is whey Vegas exists. It's also why I made a pretty decent living playing poker for a while.

Really smart people make mistakes all the time. And you can get away with making some mistakes and still be very good at what you do, especially if your competitors make more mistakes than you do.  That doesn't mean you shouldn't try to learn from them, analyze them, and where appropriate correct them.

Why do you not allow for the Manager's gut to be wrong?

Because of this.