Retool or Rebuild: A Choice, Not a Question

Retool or rebuild. That's not a question. It's a choice. If championship teams don't constantly retool, they'll be forced to rebuild (or watch other teams take a run at the championship). In baseball, the St. Louis Cardinals are the quintessential team when it comes to retooling. They never appear to intentionally engage in a rebuild, but almost every year, they're in the hunt for a playoff spot. Given that winning championships always involve a bit of luck, the more times you can make the playoffs, the more likely you'll walk away as champs from time to time. It's no accident that the Cardinals have won 11 World Series titles, which ranks second only to the Yankees, a team that historically has operated with far larger budgets than the Cardinals.

Much to the chagrin of Giants fans, in recent years, the Dodgers have become experts at retooling. They've won six National League West titles in a row (2013-2018) and appear to be well on their way to a 7th. And while there has been some continuity in terms of players from year to year, there are only a couple on this year's team who were on the 2013 team. The only consolation for Giants fans in the face of this dominance is that the Dodgers have yet to claim a World Series title.

By contrast, the Giants have failed in their attempt to retool. They held on to players too long and traded away prospects for older players in the hope of making another run at a pennant. Now, they've been forced to rebuild, and will soon be unloading top pitchers like Madison Bumgarner and Will Smith with the goal of acquiring future prospects. Moreover, it looks like it won't be until 2021 that they become serious contenders again. It is possible that they could surprise everyone in 2020 if a few prospects pan out sooner and/or better than expected, but few of us are holding our breath. Then again, 2020 is an even year...

Pete Buttegieg Won't Save American Christianity, But He'll Probably Help It

Back when we lived in Bend, Oregon, in the 1990s, a proposition qualified for the state ballot that would've have limited the rights of gays and lesbians, and the "mainline" Bend ministerial association decided to put together a pamphlet opposing it. When I received a draft, I looked it over, thought it was fine, and passed it on to to the Associate Minister of the local United Methodist Church. After he read it, he handed it back to me and remarked, "There's nothing remotely Christian about this." And he was right. There were references to Franklin and Jefferson, but there was nothing about Jesus, which strikes me as bit odd if not sad. Buddhists routinely cite the Buddha, Muslims frequently quote the Prophet, but theologically-liberal Christians seem reluctant, almost embarrassed, to talk about Jesus. Perhaps it's because we're afraid of what others might think. Remember how the media sneered at George W. Bush who, after being asked who is favorite philosopher was, replied, "Jesus."? Such reluctance has led me to quip on more than one occasion that "we liberal Christians are more likely to quote Jefferson than we are Jesus."

This is too bad because so many Americans have absolutely no idea that not every one who calls him or herself a Christian believes God helped elect Donald Trump to make America great again. Instead, many of us consider Trump to be amoral at best and find the repeated attempts by some Christians to explain away his behavior as theologically troubling. But it's more than troubling. Explaining (or rationalizing) away Trump's behavior calls into question the very legitimacy of the Church. If Trump's behavior is fine, then what's "appropriate? It's no wonder that so many young Americans feel disaffected from the church.

And that's where Pete Buttegieg comes in. He's a theologically-liberal Christian who isn't afraid to talk about Jesus. As the Economist recently noted, he happily fuses liberalism with tradition. If asked, I don't know if he would name Jesus as his favorite philosopher, but it wouldn't surprise me if he did. And that, I think, is a good thing. More Americans need to know that not all Christians believe Trump's the greatest thing since sliced bread. In fact, many of us count ourselves among the majority of Americans who did not vote for him, think he's morally challenged, and is not making America great again. At best, he's turned us into a laughing stock. And while I don't think Mayor Pete will "save" the church, he'll almost certainly improve the perceptions that many people have of it.

Should the Giants Pull the Plug?

About a month ago, I speculated that the Giants had a good chance of outperforming the predictions of experts ("How Will the Giants do in 2019?"). I argued that they had decent starting pitching, great defense, and an excellent bullpen. The primary wildcard was their offense, but if their core position players (Posey, Panik, Belt, Crawford, and Longoria) ended up hitting close to their career averages, then the Giants might send manager Bruce Bochy into retirement with a winning season. They probably wouldn't make the playoffs, but at least they'd do okay.

Well, 50+ games into the season, it's becoming clear that Bochy's last year won't be a memorable one. Although the defense and bullpen have been more than adequate (Mark Melancon being a notable exception), starting pitching has been a disappointment, and the offense has been terrible. For the most part, the core position players have not hit. Only Joe Panik is close to his career average, and it wouldn't surprise me that by season's end, Buster Posey closes in on his. However, Longoria, Belt, and Crawford are struggling, and there have been few signs that they will turn things around anytime soon. All three look as if they can't catch up with a good fastball. It's hard not to wonder if the increase in average pitch velocity is taking a toll on their performance ("Pitch Velocity and Aging Curves").

As far as pitching, of the starters, only Madison Bumgarner is showing flashes of his former self. The rest of the members of the original starting rotation -- Jeff Samardzija, Derek Holland, Dereck Rodríguez, and Drew Pomeranz -- have struggled. Holland has been sent to the bullpen, Rodriguez was relegated to AAA to regain his command, Samardzija has continued to give up home runs at an alarming rate, and Pomeranz, in spite of displaying absolutely wicked stuff at times, has pitched inconsistently.

What should the Giants do? I wouldn't pull the plug on the season. I hate giving up. Nevertheless, at a minimum the Giants should begin lighting a few fires for the future. To begin with, it's probably time for the Giants to move (keep) Samardzija, Holland, and Pomeranz to the bullpen and let their young starters (Dereck Rodríguez, Andrew Suarez, Tyler Beede, and Shaun Anderson) take over. All four have demonstrated they can win in AAA, so there's no point in wasting their arms there. Instead, the Giants should use this year to find out whether they can win at the major league level. In other words, the Giants should seek to make this season as "productive" as possible. They may not win any more games. They might even lose more. But, come September, they will have a pretty good sense which of their young starters, if any, will be a part of a future Giants' rotation.

As far as position players go, few, if any, are trade bait. Some are saddled with long contracts, and others appear to no longer have what it takes to be attractive to other teams. If possible, I'd jettison Longoria, but that'll be tough to do with his contract. For now, I'd keep Crawford, Panik, and Belt. Panik might have a few productive offensive years left in him, and all three are playing good defense. Still, the Giants should see if they can pick up potential replacements through trades over the next couple of months (see the next paragraph). I don't see the Giants ever trading Posey, but they might want to move him to 1B soon in order to extend his career. He can't afford too many more concussions, and his knees won't hold up forever. Plus, Joey Bart may be ready for the big leagues by the middle of next season.

Only Bumgarner and the bullpen offer the Giants much hope of getting some decent prospects. I'm not sure how much the Giants can get for Bumgarner, but they should get a pretty decent return for closer, Will Smith. Several teams seem interested in him, including the Milwaukee Brewers, which is where the Giants got him from in the first place. The Brewers might be willing to give up quite a few prospects, including Lucas Erceg, who is from the Bay Area, if it looks like they'll reach the postseason. I hate to see Bumgarner go, but if he's traded, I hope he lands with the Houston Astros, which looks like the team most likely to keep the Dodgers from winning the World Series. That would offer me (and other Giants fans) some consolation for losing one of the greatest Giants of all time.

P. S. It'd be nice if the Giants could figure out a way to rid themselves of Mark Melancon, who has turned out to be one of the worst investments the Giants have made in recent years, that would be great. It would help make room for players who actually might help the Giants get back to the playoffs in the future.

Pitch Velocity and Aging Curves

On numerous occasions I have railed with the training regimens imposed on young arms by today's youth baseball leagues, primarily because it has led to an exponential increase in arm injuries (""). That said, it has also led to an increase in the number of pitchers who can throw exceptionally hard. Pitchers who threw 100 mph used to be rare. Now, they're becoming more and more common. As an article in the Washington Post ("Velocity is strangling baseball — and its grip keeps tightening") recently noted:

Im 2008, there were 196 pitches thrown at 100 mph or higher... In 2018, there were 1,320, a nearly sevenfold increase. In 2008, only 11 pitchers averaged 95 mph or higher; in 2018, 74 did. Aroldis Chapman of the New York Yankees and Jordan Hicks of the St. Louis Cardinals have both been clocked at 105 mph.

Average pitch velocity has also increased. Not at quite the rate of 100 mph pitches and pitchers, but,  as the graph below from 538 illustrates ("Where Have All The Crafty Pitchers Gone?"), the increase has been steady and substantial for the last several seasons.

Unsurprisingly, this increase has led to a decrease in batting averages and a rise in the number of strikeouts. In fact, 2018 marked the first time in the history of major league baseball that there were more strikeouts per game than hits.

Not only is this decline in offensive production because pitchers are throwing harder, but also because teams are using more pitchers each game. It is rare for a starter to finish a game. There is too much evidence that shows that a starting pitcher's effectiveness decreases the third time through the batting order. Thus, teams are increasingly using relievers, most of whom are only expected to pitch an inning or less, which means that they can throw as hard as they want without worrying about having to pace themselves. Thus, while in the past, in later innings batters could "look forward" to a pitcher's whose velocity had fallen from the start of the game and they had already seen at least twice, now they have to face a fresh (and unseen) arm.

What I'm curious about is the effect that the increase in pitch velocity, if it remains unchecked, will have on the aging curves of position players. What's an aging curve? An aging curve measures the average improvement or decline expected based on a player’s age. Here's a brief description from FanGraphs ("The Beginner’s Guide To Aging Curves"):

Human beings generally can’t run as fast at 36 as they can at 26. They get injured and tired more easily. Sometimes their vision or hand-eye coordination diminishes. No two players bodies age in exactly the same way, but overall there are consistent trends, [but]... players are typically much better overall at 27 then they are at 37.

The graph below plots expected or average runs above average (RAA) by player age. As it indicates, an average player peaks in terms of run production around the 26 years old, and at around 30-32 years old, their productivity drops below that of an average 21 year old. Better players tend to age slower or at least are still productive into their early 30s, but what this graph (and corresponding data) suggests is that when a player reaches 30, it is probably time to start looking for a replacement.

So, what might the increase in pitch velocity have on aging curves? Well, it's not hard to imagine that having to hit a high-90 to low-100mph fastball becomes increasingly difficult as reaction time diminishes. Thus, I wouldn't be surprised that the long term effect could be to push the curve to the left. That is, players might peak at a younger age or their decline could occur more rapidly.

The decrease in offense has corresponded with a decline in attendance. People may lament the steroid era, but it brought people out to the ball park. Not any more. Attendance has declined for six straight seasons. In 2018, average attendance was 28,659 per game, which is 13 percent from its 2007 peak. Thus, it is no surprise major league baseball (MLB) is looking into ways to address the issue. Back in 1968 when batting averages hit an all-time low, the MLB lowered the mound 5 inches (from 15 to 10) and reduced the strike zone. Now, they are talking about moving the mound back. The last time MLB moved the mound back was in 1893. Back then, they moved it back 10 feet, and batting averages jumped 35 points and strikeouts dropped by 34 percent. I don't anticipate anything quite so drastic. In fact, beginning in the second half of the 2020 Atlantic League season, the mound will be moved back by two feet. It will be interesting to see its effects.

The Rockets Have Run Out of Excuses

Last year, the Houston Rockets and their fans claimed that if Chris Paul hadn't been hurt, they would've won Game 7 of the Conference Finals. They probably were right, but as I noted last year, the Warriors probably would've won Games 4 and 5 if Andre Iguodala hadn't been injured. In those two games, the Rockets won by only a combined score of 7 points. Put differently, if Iguodala hadn't been hurt, there's a really good chance there never would've been a Game 6 or 7 for Chris Paul to miss.

This year, the Rockets have no excuses. At full strength, they couldn't beat a Warriors team without Kevin Durant and a Steph Curry playing with a dislocated finger. It's time for the Rockets (and Rockets fans) to come to terms with the fact that the Warriors are simply a better team. I don't know if the Warriors will win it all this year (they've been pretty inconsistent), but we know for sure the Rockets won't.

How Will the Giants do in 2019?

Shortly before the beginning of the baseball season, a friend asked how I thought the Giants would do. I said that I thought they would be better than most experts were predicting, but it would take career hitting years from most of their core (Posey, Panik, Crawford, Belt, and Longoria) or a big year from a rookie (e.g., Duggar) for them to make the playoffs. The Giants have decent starting pitching, great defense, and apparently the best bullpen in MLB, but if they don't hit, it could be a long year.

So far, members of the core aren't even hitting close to their career averages, let alone having career years, which is why they are currently 5 games below .500. It is likely that Posey, Panik, Crawford, Belt, and Longoria will break out of their current slumps and their output will begin to get back to where it belongs (Posey and Belt are showing signs of life; hopefully, the others will soon follow suit). If that happens, then there's a good chance that they will be better than the experts think. However, I think we Giants fans will have to wait another year before we make a run at the playoffs. This is one of those times when I really want to be wrong. For Bruce Bochy's sake, I hope I am.

Do Mean Gods Make Nice People?

Perhaps destined to be a thorn in the side of theologians, priests, and pastors who preach that "God is Love" (1 John 4:8) are a series of studies that find that belief in a punishing God or gods is more likely to induce prosocial behavior than a belief in a God or gods who don't. Put somewhat differently, belief in the possibility of supernatural punishment appears to serve as a deterrent to behavior that, while potentially beneficial to the individual, is harmful to the larger group. At the same time, belief in a loving or kind deity has just the opposite effect. It appears to encourage anti-social behavior.

First, consider two experiments using North American undergraduates (who received partial course credit for participating) that examined the effect that their views of God had on the likelihood of cheating ("Mean Gods Make Good People: Different Views of God Predict Cheating Behavior"). In both experiments, the students were given a “test” designed in such a way that they had an opportunity to cheat. In addition, all answered a series questions so the researchers could control for basic demographic factors, assess their level of religious devotion, and measure how they viewed God (or gods) in terms of seven positive traits (forgiving, loving, compassionate, gentle, kind, comforting, and peaceful) and seven negative ones (vengeful, harsh, fearsome, angry, punishing, jealous, and terrifying). With regards to the latter, the students were asked to rank on a seven-point scale how much each one of these traits applied to their conception of their God or Gods, or, if they were nonbelievers, how much they felt each trait applied to their culture’s conception of God or Gods. The researchers then averaged the rankings in order to calculate "Loving God" and "Punitive God" scores, from which they then constructed a "God Negativity Scale" by subtracting the former score from the latter. Multivariate analysis (logistic regression) found that in both studies students who scored higher on the God Negativity Scale were much less likely to cheat on the test. At the same time, other factors, such as ethnicity, gender, and level of religious devotion exerted no effect. 

The figure below plots the correlation between the average scores for the fourteen "God" traits and the likelihood of cheating. Bars above zero indicate a greater likelihood to cheat, while bars below zero indicate a lower likelihood to cheat. The seven positive traits lie to the left, and the seven negative traits lie to the right. One doesn't have to be a trained statistician to see that punitive traits are much more likely to discourage cheating than are loving traits.

Of course, we should be cautious not to make too much of results of experiments using U.S. college students. However, cross-cultural experiments conducted in conjunction with ethnographic interviews have uncovered similar results. In particular, a series of experiments involving 591 individuals in eight societies from around the world ("Moralistic Gods, Supernatural Punishment and the Expansion of Human Sociality") found that people who believed in punishing and all-knowing deities ("moralistic gods") were much more likely in a series of experiments to allocate geographically-distant co-religionists money than were those who did not. This was true even after taking into account ("controlling for) other factors that could have an effect. 

This is captured in the figure below, which plots the odds that a participant would award a distant co-religionist money. It indicates that those who believed in a punishing god were 1.26 times more likely than those who did not, and those who believed in an all-knowing god were somewhere between 1.15 and 1.25 times more likely than those who did not. Unsurprisingly, when someone believed in an all-knowing AND punishing God, the effect was even higher (results not included in this figure). The figure also shows that belief in local gods that punished had no effect, while belief in all-knowing local gods actually reduced the likelihood they'd give money to a distant co-religionist. Finally, while the number of children reduced the likelihood of awarding any money, material security actually increased it.

Finally, consider the analysis of those who examined the predictors crime rates in as many as 67 countries ("Divergent Effects of Beliefs in Heaven and Hell on National Crime Rates"). It found that the proportion of people who believe in hell is negatively associated with national crime rates, while the proportion of people who believe is heaven is positively associated with them. In particular, the higher the proportion who believe in hell, the lower the average rate of robbery, rape, assault, theft, drug crime, auto theft, and burglary (with opposite effects for the proportion who believe in heaven). No effects were found for the rate of kidnapping and human trafficking. The figure below presents an interesting graph that plots the proportion who believe in heaven less the proportion who believe in hell by the overall crime rate (normalized) for several countries. As you can see, the greater the difference between the proportion who believe in heaven and the proportion who believe in hell, the higher the crime rate.

And for readers who wonder if the results hold after taking into account a variety of factors, such as GDP, inequality, type of religion, religious attendance, and so on, the answer is yes.

It may be tempting to dismiss these results with claims such as "you can prove anything with statistics" or "you can't replicate the real world in the lab." But those are just sophisticated ways of crying, "fake news!" It is true that statistics can be bent in misleading ways. For example, I used to joke that I knew my mom better than my dad since I had known her 100% of my life, but he'd only known her 50% of his. But while statistical sleight of hand may pass muster in some quarters, it does not in the journals in the which the studies discussed above appeared. And while it is also true that experiments can't replicate the real world, that isn't their purpose.  They are designed to isolate the effect of particular variables that are hard, if not impossible, to isolate in the real world. And when experimental results are combined with field work and/or robust statistical analyses, they can provide compelling evidence on behalf of a particular hypothesis, as they do here. In fact, in light of these studies, I'd argue that the burden a proof now lies with those who disagree. Needless to say, anecdotal evidence or personal feelings simply won't do. Hard (empirical) evidence is needed.

These studies are part of a much larger project associated with cultural evolutionists who argue that some (but not all) evolutionary processes operate at the group, rather than at the individual, level. Their basic argument (see "The Cultural Evolution of Prosocial Religions" and "The Secret of Our Success") is that evolutionary processes select for any psychological traits, norms, or practices that

1. Reduce competition among individuals and families within social groups (reduce selfish behavior that harms the group); 
2. Increase and sustain group solidarity; and 
3. Facilitate differential success in competition and conflict between social groups by increasing cooperation in warfare, defense, demographic expansion, and/or economic ventures

And although they argue that while cultural evolution can select for non-religious cultural practices, religions are often well-positioned to benefit from the process. And a key reason is that they typically include a belief in powerful, morally concerned gods that monitor human behavior.

For a time, group-level adaptation was scorned by evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins, but no longer. The use of advanced mathematical models and cross-cultural research (experiments, field work, and statistical analyses) has moved it into the mainstream, which interestingly coincides with the thinking of none other than Charles Darwin:

When two tribes of primeval man, living in the same circumstances, came into competition, if (other circumstances being equal) the one tribe included a great number of courageous, sympathetic and faithful members, who were always ready to warn each other of danger, to aid and defend each other, this tribe would succeed better and conquer the other… The advantage which disciplined soldiers have over undisciplined hordes follows chiefly from the confidence which each man feels in his comrades. Obedience… is of the highest value, for any form of government is better than none. Selfish and contentious people will not cohere, and without coherence nothing can be effected. A tribe rich in the above qualities would spread and be victorious over other tribes.

On a final note, these studies have important, albeit somewhat disturbing, implications for the evolution of theological ideas. They suggest that "fire and brimstone" beliefs are more likely to perdure over time (i.e., be selected for) than are beliefs that promote a loving God. It makes one wonder whether "liberal" theology is doomed from the start and will only appeal to a small segment of the religious market. One would hope not, but it is no secret that theologically conservative faith communities, which are more likely to include notions of hell and damnation in their theological arsenal, consistently outperform theologically liberal ones. Could it be that "our" preference for fire and brimstone is a product of our evolutionary past and the destiny of our evolutionary future?

References

Henrich, Joseph. 2016. The Secret of Our Success: How Culture is Driving Human Evolution, Domesticating Our Species, and Making Us Smarter. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Norenzayan, Ara. 2013. Big Gods: How Religion Transformed Cooperation and Conflict. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Norenzayan, Ara, Azim F. Shariff, Will M. Gervais, Aiyana K. Willard, Rita A. McNamara, Edward Slingerland, and Joseph Henrich. 2016. "The Cultural Evolution of Prosocial Religions." Behavioral and Brain Sciences 39:e1.

Purzycki, Benjamin Grant, Coren Apicella, Quentin D. Atkinson, Emma Cohen, Rita Anne McNamara, Aiyana K. Willard, Dimitris Xygalatas, Ara Norenzayan, and Joseph Henrich. 2016. "Moralistic Gods, Supernatural Punishment and the Expansion of Human Sociality." Nature 530:327-30.

Shariff, Azim F., and Ara Norenzayan. 2011. "Mean Gods Make Good People: Different Views of God Predict Cheating Behavior." The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 21(2):85-96.

Shariff, Azim F., and Mijke Rhemtulla. 2012. "Divergent Effects of Beliefs in Heaven and Hell on National Crime Rates." PLoS ONE 7(6):e39048.