The Butterfly Effect and Baseball

[Omar]

No, this is not about the Ashton Kutcher movie that never ends... But is still pretty interesting... I want to touch on the theory of the Butterfly Effect and baseball.

 

For those who have no clue what I'm talking about... here's a small bit...

The phrase refers to the idea that a butterfly's wings might create tiny changes in the atmosphere that ultimately cause a tornado to appear (or, for that matter, prevent a tornado from appearing). The flapping wing represents a small change in the initial condition of the system, which causes a chain of events leading to large-scale phenomena. Had the butterfly not flapped its wings, the trajectory of the system might have been vastly different.

 

So... One small thing, can effect many others. I'm more into focusing on what happens in the game.

 

Hypothetical example: Soriano gets on base. Murton is up next. Soriano is caught stealing on a failed hit & run. The next pitch, Murton homers to left field. We are then all left saying "Man, why did he try to steal? It would've been a 2 run HR!! That idiot..."... How do we know that? How do we know that the pitcher's mind drastically changed to something as little Soriano being caught stealing 2B, or how do we know that Murton's mindset didnt change because of the failed hit & run? Should we really assume that Murton would've hit the home run anyway?

 

Feel free to post your opinion.

[CarolinaCubFan]

That's what makes baseball the great "game" it is. Soriano just being a threat on 1st, does that allow Murton to see better pitches? Does the pitcher pay more attention to Soriano than he should be? With Murton having skills going to the opposite field, is it a good idea to throw a fastball on the outside of the plate, even though it would give the catcher a better chance if Soriano attempts a steal?

 

So many variables. I really like how stats are being used, but I'll never buy into stats telling the whole story.

[Omar]

Soriano just being a threat on 1st, does that allow Murton to see better pitches? Does the pitcher pay more attention to Soriano than he should be? With Murton having skills going to the opposite field, is it a good idea to throw a fastball on the outside of the plate, even though it would give the catcher a better chance if Soriano attempts a steal?

 

That pretty much sums whats going through the opposing team's pitcher, catcher, and pitching coach... Its just small part of the unwritable equation.

[CarolinaCubFan]

Soriano just being a threat on 1st, does that allow Murton to see better pitches? Does the pitcher pay more attention to Soriano than he should be? With Murton having skills going to the opposite field, is it a good idea to throw a fastball on the outside of the plate, even though it would give the catcher a better chance if Soriano attempts a steal?

 

That pretty much sums whats going through the opposing team's pitcher, catcher, and pitching coach... Its just small part of the unwritable equation.

 

Exactly, but it's part of why I love the game. So many different variables.

[WrigleyField 22]

but maybe murton's home run was simply the result of the flap of a butterfly's wing?

[BigSlick]

I dunno, I tend to distrust all the old school thinking around baseball. From all the stats I've seen, "lineup protection" and similar things like that really have no profound impact on the game. Running stats over the course of baseball history has shown that a man on first that is a threat to run doesn't significantly help the player in the batters box.

 

I just feel like most of the old school stuff is hogwash that is made up to add a facet to the game that just doesn't really exist.

[Shawon12]

No, this is not about the Ashton Kutcher movie that never ends... But is still pretty interesting... I want to touch on the theory of the Butterfly Effect and baseball.

 

For those who have no clue what I'm talking about... here's a small bit...

The phrase refers to the idea that a butterfly's wings might create tiny changes in the atmosphere that ultimately cause a tornado to appear (or, for that matter, prevent a tornado from appearing). The flapping wing represents a small change in the initial condition of the system, which causes a chain of events leading to large-scale phenomena. Had the butterfly not flapped its wings, the trajectory of the system might have been vastly different.

 

So... One small thing, can effect many others. I'm more into focusing on what happens in the game.

 

Hypothetical example: Soriano gets on base. Murton is up next. Soriano is caught stealing on a failed hit & run. The next pitch, Murton homers to left field. We are then all left saying "Man, why did he try to steal? It would've been a 2 run HR!! That idiot..."... How do we know that? How do we know that the pitcher's mind drastically changed to something as little Soriano being caught stealing 2B, or how do we know that Murton's mindset didnt change because of the failed hit & run? Should we really assume that Murton would've hit the home run anyway?

 

Feel free to post your opinion.

 

Great post. That's why breaking down every historical stat, while fun for fantasy baseball, tells only part of the story.

[CubColtPacer]

I dunno, I tend to distrust all the old school thinking around baseball. From all the stats I've seen, "lineup protection" and similar things like that really have no profound impact on the game. Running stats over the course of baseball history has shown that a man on first that is a threat to run doesn't significantly help the player in the batters box.

 

I just feel like most of the old school stuff is hogwash that is made up to add a facet to the game that just doesn't really exist.

 

Lineup protection has to have some impact. For example, what if the Giants in 2001 or 2002 had decided to bat Barry Bonds 8th? What do you think would have happened to their RS? Bonds would have been stranded on 1st a lot, and their RS would have gone down significantly.

 

Now, most managers aren't that silly-but many managers do bring some of their worst hitters up the lineup to bat in situations they shouldn't. I tend to believe that when a team complains of a lack of clutch hitting they either 1) just haven't had their luck turn around yet, 2) don't get very many hits in the first place or 3) their lineup order is wrong, which means the people who get on base have bad hitters coming up that cannot drive them in effectively on a regular basis. I see all those options are perfectly viable.

 

Most all of the things that old school people talk about exist-it's just that stats people have shown that some of those things balance over time in order to create a negligible effect overall.

[FergieJ31]

No, this is not about the Ashton Kutcher movie that never ends... But is still pretty interesting... I want to touch on the theory of the Butterfly Effect and baseball.

 

For those who have no clue what I'm talking about... here's a small bit...

The phrase refers to the idea that a butterfly's wings might create tiny changes in the atmosphere that ultimately cause a tornado to appear (or, for that matter, prevent a tornado from appearing). The flapping wing represents a small change in the initial condition of the system, which causes a chain of events leading to large-scale phenomena. Had the butterfly not flapped its wings, the trajectory of the system might have been vastly different.

 

So... One small thing, can effect many others. I'm more into focusing on what happens in the game.

 

Hypothetical example: Soriano gets on base. Murton is up next. Soriano is caught stealing on a failed hit & run. The next pitch, Murton homers to left field. We are then all left saying "Man, why did he try to steal? It would've been a 2 run HR!! That idiot..."... How do we know that? How do we know that the pitcher's mind drastically changed to something as little Soriano being caught stealing 2B, or how do we know that Murton's mindset didnt change because of the failed hit & run? Should we really assume that Murton would've hit the home run anyway?

 

Feel free to post your opinion.

 

Yes!! I've been making this point for years - first time I've seen someone else say it.

 

In philosophy this is related to causation and counterfactuals - it's speaking about a reality that doesn't exist but very conceivably could have existed if a prior causally-related event had happened differently. Is the pitcher's mental state affected by the runner at first? Absolutely.

 

But this also opens Pandora's Box of predestiny and determinism. Are we even allowed to consider counterfactuals? It's possible that Soriano getting caught stealing was predestined from the instant of the Big Bang.

[FergieJ31]

The butterfly effect taken to extreme:

 

So it was that I was alone in my house on the night of Oct. 25, 1986, when I switched on the television to find Boston ahead in the 10th inning of Game 6 and one strike from victory.

 

And I succumbed and said the magic fatal words.

 

"I'm about to see the Red Sox win the World Series!" I exclaimed to my cat. I felt almost dizzy.

 

That instant of belief, of course, was what the universe was waiting for. It was as if a circuit suddenly closed and a signal had flashed instantaneously across space-time and into Shea Stadium. Within moments, a wild pitch had let in the tying run and Bill Buckner, the first baseman, let a ground ball through his legs, scoring the game winner. Two nights later the Red Sox lost the seventh and deciding game. Again.

 

[...]

 

Before I uttered those magic words in my living room that night in 1986, the Red Sox existed in a limbo of neither winning nor losing.

 

But it's easy to imagine that in baseball, where a quarter of an inch or a hundredth of a second can be the difference between a home run and a grounder to first, the Heisenbergian touch can have a profound effect, and my words - just the thought - were enough to collapse the wave function and the Red Sox. The branch of the universe in which the Red Sox are winners split away into some other parallel space, as near as an irrevocable breath, as unreachable as a black hole.

 

http://www.log24.com/log/saved/Quantum_Baseball.html

 

This is a very slippery slope for those of us who are superstitious :wink:

[Omar]

but maybe murton's home run was simply the result of the flap of a butterfly's wing?

 

Can we get some butterflies into Wrigley, please? :lol:

 

No, this is not about the Ashton Kutcher movie that never ends... But is still pretty interesting... I want to touch on the theory of the Butterfly Effect and baseball.

 

For those who have no clue what I'm talking about... here's a small bit...

The phrase refers to the idea that a butterfly's wings might create tiny changes in the atmosphere that ultimately cause a tornado to appear (or, for that matter, prevent a tornado from appearing). The flapping wing represents a small change in the initial condition of the system, which causes a chain of events leading to large-scale phenomena. Had the butterfly not flapped its wings, the trajectory of the system might have been vastly different.

 

So... One small thing, can effect many others. I'm more into focusing on what happens in the game.

 

Hypothetical example: Soriano gets on base. Murton is up next. Soriano is caught stealing on a failed hit & run. The next pitch, Murton homers to left field. We are then all left saying "Man, why did he try to steal? It would've been a 2 run HR!! That idiot..."... How do we know that? How do we know that the pitcher's mind drastically changed to something as little Soriano being caught stealing 2B, or how do we know that Murton's mindset didnt change because of the failed hit & run? Should we really assume that Murton would've hit the home run anyway?

 

Feel free to post your opinion.

 

Yes!! I've been making this point for years - first time I've seen someone else say it.

 

In philosophy this is related to causation and counterfactuals - it's speaking about a reality that doesn't exist but very conceivably could have existed if a prior causally-related event had happened differently. Is the pitcher's mental state affected by the runner at first? Absolutely.

 

But this also opens Pandora's Box of predestiny and determinism. Are we even allowed to consider counterfactuals? It's possible that Soriano getting caught stealing was predestined from the instant of the Big Bang.

 

Could be. That's tracing the Butterfly effect back to the roots... and it puts faith over free will.

[Omar]

The butterfly effect taken to extreme:

 

So it was that I was alone in my house on the night of Oct. 25, 1986, when I switched on the television to find Boston ahead in the 10th inning of Game 6 and one strike from victory.

 

And I succumbed and said the magic fatal words.

 

"I'm about to see the Red Sox win the World Series!" I exclaimed to my cat. I felt almost dizzy.

 

That instant of belief, of course, was what the universe was waiting for. It was as if a circuit suddenly closed and a signal had flashed instantaneously across space-time and into Shea Stadium. Within moments, a wild pitch had let in the tying run and Bill Buckner, the first baseman, let a ground ball through his legs, scoring the game winner. Two nights later the Red Sox lost the seventh and deciding game. Again.

 

[...]

 

Before I uttered those magic words in my living room that night in 1986, the Red Sox existed in a limbo of neither winning nor losing.

 

But it's easy to imagine that in baseball, where a quarter of an inch or a hundredth of a second can be the difference between a home run and a grounder to first, the Heisenbergian touch can have a profound effect, and my words - just the thought - were enough to collapse the wave function and the Red Sox. The branch of the universe in which the Red Sox are winners split away into some other parallel space, as near as an irrevocable breath, as unreachable as a black hole.

 

http://www.log24.com/log/saved/Quantum_Baseball.html

 

This is a very slippery slope for those of us who are superstitious :wink:

 

Now that's awkward, but an interesting read.

[seanimal]

It's possible that Soriano getting caught stealing was predestined from the instant of the Big Bang.

 

That's a bit out there. The Big Bang established conditions. Baseball, and the interactions of living things in general, are just interactions with those conditions, not eventualities of them.

[Magnetic Curses]

The butterfly effect taken to extreme:

 

So it was that I was alone in my house on the night of Oct. 25, 1986, when I switched on the television to find Boston ahead in the 10th inning of Game 6 and one strike from victory.

 

And I succumbed and said the magic fatal words.

 

"I'm about to see the Red Sox win the World Series!" I exclaimed to my cat. I felt almost dizzy.

 

That instant of belief, of course, was what the universe was waiting for. It was as if a circuit suddenly closed and a signal had flashed instantaneously across space-time and into Shea Stadium. Within moments, a wild pitch had let in the tying run and Bill Buckner, the first baseman, let a ground ball through his legs, scoring the game winner. Two nights later the Red Sox lost the seventh and deciding game. Again.

 

[...]

 

Before I uttered those magic words in my living room that night in 1986, the Red Sox existed in a limbo of neither winning nor losing.

 

But it's easy to imagine that in baseball, where a quarter of an inch or a hundredth of a second can be the difference between a home run and a grounder to first, the Heisenbergian touch can have a profound effect, and my words - just the thought - were enough to collapse the wave function and the Red Sox. The branch of the universe in which the Red Sox are winners split away into some other parallel space, as near as an irrevocable breath, as unreachable as a black hole.

 

http://www.log24.com/log/saved/Quantum_Baseball.html

 

This is a very slippery slope for those of us who are superstitious :wink:

 

there is the theory that we change our universe simply by observing it. there have been several fairly conclusive tests done with a particle cannon and hi-speed microscopic cameras that prove as much.

[Magnetic Curses]

No, this is not about the Ashton Kutcher movie that never ends... But is still pretty interesting... I want to touch on the theory of the Butterfly Effect and baseball.

 

For those who have no clue what I'm talking about... here's a small bit...

The phrase refers to the idea that a butterfly's wings might create tiny changes in the atmosphere that ultimately cause a tornado to appear (or, for that matter, prevent a tornado from appearing). The flapping wing represents a small change in the initial condition of the system, which causes a chain of events leading to large-scale phenomena. Had the butterfly not flapped its wings, the trajectory of the system might have been vastly different.

 

So... One small thing, can effect many others. I'm more into focusing on what happens in the game.

 

Hypothetical example: Soriano gets on base. Murton is up next. Soriano is caught stealing on a failed hit & run. The next pitch, Murton homers to left field. We are then all left saying "Man, why did he try to steal? It would've been a 2 run HR!! That idiot..."... How do we know that? How do we know that the pitcher's mind drastically changed to something as little Soriano being caught stealing 2B, or how do we know that Murton's mindset didnt change because of the failed hit & run? Should we really assume that Murton would've hit the home run anyway?

 

Feel free to post your opinion.

 

that's why managerial decisions should be consistent with organizational policy-to minimize fluctuation and the randomness that pervades professional baseball.

[Omar]

The butterfly effect taken to extreme:

 

So it was that I was alone in my house on the night of Oct. 25, 1986, when I switched on the television to find Boston ahead in the 10th inning of Game 6 and one strike from victory.

 

And I succumbed and said the magic fatal words.

 

"I'm about to see the Red Sox win the World Series!" I exclaimed to my cat. I felt almost dizzy.

 

That instant of belief, of course, was what the universe was waiting for. It was as if a circuit suddenly closed and a signal had flashed instantaneously across space-time and into Shea Stadium. Within moments, a wild pitch had let in the tying run and Bill Buckner, the first baseman, let a ground ball through his legs, scoring the game winner. Two nights later the Red Sox lost the seventh and deciding game. Again.

 

[...]

 

Before I uttered those magic words in my living room that night in 1986, the Red Sox existed in a limbo of neither winning nor losing.

 

But it's easy to imagine that in baseball, where a quarter of an inch or a hundredth of a second can be the difference between a home run and a grounder to first, the Heisenbergian touch can have a profound effect, and my words - just the thought - were enough to collapse the wave function and the Red Sox. The branch of the universe in which the Red Sox are winners split away into some other parallel space, as near as an irrevocable breath, as unreachable as a black hole.

 

http://www.log24.com/log/saved/Quantum_Baseball.html

 

This is a very slippery slope for those of us who are superstitious :wink:

 

there is the theory that we change our universe simply by observing it. there have been several fairly conclusive tests done with a particle cannon and hi-speed microscopic cameras that prove as much.

 

I believe they shot electrons through holes and watched how they ended up on the other side. When they weren't watching, the result was different. I know I've seen a google video on this, I just cant find it right now.

 

EDIT: FOUND IT! :o

 

Google Video

[Magnetic Curses]

The butterfly effect taken to extreme:

 

So it was that I was alone in my house on the night of Oct. 25, 1986, when I switched on the television to find Boston ahead in the 10th inning of Game 6 and one strike from victory.

 

And I succumbed and said the magic fatal words.

 

"I'm about to see the Red Sox win the World Series!" I exclaimed to my cat. I felt almost dizzy.

 

That instant of belief, of course, was what the universe was waiting for. It was as if a circuit suddenly closed and a signal had flashed instantaneously across space-time and into Shea Stadium. Within moments, a wild pitch had let in the tying run and Bill Buckner, the first baseman, let a ground ball through his legs, scoring the game winner. Two nights later the Red Sox lost the seventh and deciding game. Again.

 

[...]

 

Before I uttered those magic words in my living room that night in 1986, the Red Sox existed in a limbo of neither winning nor losing.

 

But it's easy to imagine that in baseball, where a quarter of an inch or a hundredth of a second can be the difference between a home run and a grounder to first, the Heisenbergian touch can have a profound effect, and my words - just the thought - were enough to collapse the wave function and the Red Sox. The branch of the universe in which the Red Sox are winners split away into some other parallel space, as near as an irrevocable breath, as unreachable as a black hole.

 

http://www.log24.com/log/saved/Quantum_Baseball.html

 

This is a very slippery slope for those of us who are superstitious :wink:

 

there is the theory that we change our universe simply by observing it. there have been several fairly conclusive tests done with a particle cannon and hi-speed microscopic cameras that prove as much.

 

I believe they shot electrons through holes and watched how they ended up on the other side. When they weren't watching, the result was different. I know I've seen a google video on this, I just cant find it right now.

 

EDIT: FOUND IT! :o

 

Google Video

 

exactly what i'm talking about. great find!

 

i first saw it on "what the bleep...?"

[BigSlick]

I dunno, I tend to distrust all the old school thinking around baseball. From all the stats I've seen, "lineup protection" and similar things like that really have no profound impact on the game. Running stats over the course of baseball history has shown that a man on first that is a threat to run doesn't significantly help the player in the batters box.

 

I just feel like most of the old school stuff is hogwash that is made up to add a facet to the game that just doesn't really exist.

 

Lineup protection has to have some impact. For example, what if the Giants in 2001 or 2002 had decided to bat Barry Bonds 8th? What do you think would have happened to their RS? Bonds would have been stranded on 1st a lot, and their RS would have gone down significantly.

 

Now, most managers aren't that silly-but many managers do bring some of their worst hitters up the lineup to bat in situations they shouldn't. I tend to believe that when a team complains of a lack of clutch hitting they either 1) just haven't had their luck turn around yet, 2) don't get very many hits in the first place or 3) their lineup order is wrong, which means the people who get on base have bad hitters coming up that cannot drive them in effectively on a regular basis. I see all those options are perfectly viable.

 

Most all of the things that old school people talk about exist-it's just that stats people have shown that some of those things balance over time in order to create a negligible effect overall.

 

You're talking about the extremes here. When we say lineup's "don't matter (much)" we are basically throwing out the most ridiculous situations, because they would never happen.

 

The biggest part of lineup order isn't the perfect combination of players to get the best runs, but to get your best players ( and conversely, keep your worst players from getting) the most at bats.

[Omar]

The butterfly effect taken to extreme:

 

So it was that I was alone in my house on the night of Oct. 25, 1986, when I switched on the television to find Boston ahead in the 10th inning of Game 6 and one strike from victory.

 

And I succumbed and said the magic fatal words.

 

"I'm about to see the Red Sox win the World Series!" I exclaimed to my cat. I felt almost dizzy.

 

That instant of belief, of course, was what the universe was waiting for. It was as if a circuit suddenly closed and a signal had flashed instantaneously across space-time and into Shea Stadium. Within moments, a wild pitch had let in the tying run and Bill Buckner, the first baseman, let a ground ball through his legs, scoring the game winner. Two nights later the Red Sox lost the seventh and deciding game. Again.

 

[...]

 

Before I uttered those magic words in my living room that night in 1986, the Red Sox existed in a limbo of neither winning nor losing.

 

But it's easy to imagine that in baseball, where a quarter of an inch or a hundredth of a second can be the difference between a home run and a grounder to first, the Heisenbergian touch can have a profound effect, and my words - just the thought - were enough to collapse the wave function and the Red Sox. The branch of the universe in which the Red Sox are winners split away into some other parallel space, as near as an irrevocable breath, as unreachable as a black hole.

 

http://www.log24.com/log/saved/Quantum_Baseball.html

 

This is a very slippery slope for those of us who are superstitious :wink:

 

there is the theory that we change our universe simply by observing it. there have been several fairly conclusive tests done with a particle cannon and hi-speed microscopic cameras that prove as much.

 

I believe they shot electrons through holes and watched how they ended up on the other side. When they weren't watching, the result was different. I know I've seen a google video on this, I just cant find it right now.

 

EDIT: FOUND IT! :o

 

Google Video

 

exactly what i'm talking about. great find!

 

i first saw it on "what the bleep...?"

 

Double slit theory or not, it is clear to say that the fact that people are watching has a great effect on your performance. Could be the body's natural reaction like seen in that video, or it could be emotional.