3 ms·

I wouldn't have said that Moneyball is all about intuition vs. evidence, with intuition trumping evidence. Rather the other way around: the A's acquired talent

I wouldn't have said that Moneyball is all about intuition vs. evidence, with intuition trumping evidence. Rather the other way around: the A's acquired talent that the evidence suggested was underpriced, disrupting the traditional intuition-based scouting approach. It seems like you've got that backwards.

dvt 10y ago
I really disagree, and I Podesta would also: [1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/plato-pop/201109/moneyball-it-s-intuition-vs-evidence https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/plato-pop/201109/moneyb... [2] http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/09/23/the-lessons-of-moneyball-for-big-data-analysis/ http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/09/23/the-l... According to Podesta: "Subjectivity ruled the day in evaluating players ... We had a completely new set of metrics that bore no resemblance to anything you’d seen. We didn’t solve baseball. But we reduced the inefficiency of our decision making."
- GavinMcG 10y ago
  That supports exactly what I was saying: "In the competition between intuition vs. evidence, evidence wins." So it's not clear why you are saying "In the case of the A's, intuition seemed to trump evidence, but the author keeps telling us to collect more evidence (in the form of matrices, skill trees, or whatever else). Not only is that the categorically wrong approach, it's also not how you build good teams." (Emphasis mine.)
  - dvt 10y ago
    Evidence may or may not win (that wasn't my point), my point was that Moneyball favored intuition over evidence. Even Podesta concedes that. So using it as the example in the original article makes no sense.
    - GavinMcG 10y ago
      > Moneyball favored intuition over evidence. Even Podesta concedes that. Both the articles you've linked contradict you. Traditional scouting favored intuition over evidence. DePodesta and the Moneyball approach turned that on its head, favoring evidence. > DePodesta: “We said ‘unless we can prove it, we’re not going to believe it.’"
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  I'm coming in only knowing what those two links say (having no experience with the Moneyball media franchise or concept), but based on those, it sounds more like DePodesta is saying that the subjectivity was involved in selecting the relevant data points, and that once those data points were selected, they were used as the basis of evaluation -- they didn't override their formula to benefit "gut feelings". From later in [2]: >"We turn to data as our flashlight in the cave – our guiding light,” DePodesta said. “We said ‘unless we can prove it, we’re not going to believe it.’"... Essentially, from these articles, it seems that scouting used to be a random occurrence based on the biases (or "intuition") of the scout, and that DePodesta's "innovation" was an attempt to link that process to something measurable. This "innovation" is so obvious in other fields that it's not even mentioned, and that people who depend wholly on unjustifiable random chance deserve punishment and/or ridicule. Like most things, it boils down to subjectivity, because while you can find ways to quantify and analyze virtually anything, there is still a human who has to make a subjective judgment call as to what quantifications are significant to achieving their end goal. DePodesta says they would make those determinations and then refuse to change the criteria over undefined feeling-based intuition. That's, uh, good, I guess?

dvt 10y ago

I really disagree, and I Podesta would also: [1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/plato-pop/201109/moneyball-it-s-intuition-vs-evidence https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/plato-pop/201109/moneyb... [2] http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/09/23/the-lessons-of-moneyball-for-big-data-analysis/ http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/09/23/the-l... According to Podesta: "Subjectivity ruled the day in evaluating players ... We had a completely new set of metrics that bore no resemblance to anything you’d seen. We didn’t solve baseball. But we reduced the inefficiency of our decision making."

GavinMcG 10y ago
That supports exactly what I was saying: "In the competition between intuition vs. evidence, evidence wins." So it's not clear why you are saying "In the case of the A's, intuition seemed to trump evidence, but the author keeps telling us to collect more evidence (in the form of matrices, skill trees, or whatever else). Not only is that the categorically wrong approach, it's also not how you build good teams." (Emphasis mine.)
- dvt 10y ago
  Evidence may or may not win (that wasn't my point), my point was that Moneyball favored intuition over evidence. Even Podesta concedes that. So using it as the example in the original article makes no sense.
  - GavinMcG 10y ago
    > Moneyball favored intuition over evidence. Even Podesta concedes that. Both the articles you've linked contradict you. Traditional scouting favored intuition over evidence. DePodesta and the Moneyball approach turned that on its head, favoring evidence. > DePodesta: “We said ‘unless we can prove it, we’re not going to believe it.’"
cookiecaper 10y ago
I'm coming in only knowing what those two links say (having no experience with the Moneyball media franchise or concept), but based on those, it sounds more like DePodesta is saying that the subjectivity was involved in selecting the relevant data points, and that once those data points were selected, they were used as the basis of evaluation -- they didn't override their formula to benefit "gut feelings". From later in [2]: >"We turn to data as our flashlight in the cave – our guiding light,” DePodesta said. “We said ‘unless we can prove it, we’re not going to believe it.’"... Essentially, from these articles, it seems that scouting used to be a random occurrence based on the biases (or "intuition") of the scout, and that DePodesta's "innovation" was an attempt to link that process to something measurable. This "innovation" is so obvious in other fields that it's not even mentioned, and that people who depend wholly on unjustifiable random chance deserve punishment and/or ridicule. Like most things, it boils down to subjectivity, because while you can find ways to quantify and analyze virtually anything, there is still a human who has to make a subjective judgment call as to what quantifications are significant to achieving their end goal. DePodesta says they would make those determinations and then refuse to change the criteria over undefined feeling-based intuition. That's, uh, good, I guess?