The Moment of Zen:
One obvious goal of any Buddhist, and by extension Zen, practice is mindfulness. In fact, “Wise Mindfulness” or “Right Mindfulness” is listed as the 7th step in the Eightfold Path.
One of my favorite books, Stephen Batchelor’s Buddhism without Beliefs, explains mindfulness in a way that goes well past our everyday understanding of what it means to be “mindful”:
As mindful awareness becomes stiller and clearer, experience becomes not only more vivid but simultaneously more baffling. The more deeply we know something in this way, the more deeply we don’t know it. As we attentively listen to the rain or look at a chair, these familiar things become not only more apparent but also more puzzling. As we sit there aware of the breath, it is on the one hand ordinary and obvious, but on the other a mystery that we breathe at all. Attending to this dimension of experience where descriptions and explanations fail challenges assumptions about how we know. Experience cannot be accounted for by simply confining it to a conceptual category. Its ultimate ambiguity is that it is simultaneously knowable and unknowable. No matter how well we may know something, to witness its intrinsic freedom impels the humble admission: “I don’t really know it.” …
The questioning that emerges from unknowing differs from conventional inquiry in that it has no interest in finding an answer. This questioning starts at the point where descriptions and explanations end. It has already let go of the constraints and limitations of conceptual categories. It recognizes that mysteries are not solved as though they were problems and then forgotten. The deeper we penetrate a mystery, the more mysterious it becomes. … Fired with intensity but free from turbulence and the compulsion for answers, questioning is content just to let things be. There is not even a hidden agenda at work behind the scenes. Expectations or goals and rewards (such as Enlightenment) are recognized for what they are: last-ditch attempts by the ghostly self to subvert the process to its own ends. … We can put into words only the question it poses. And then let go, listen, and wait. (Buddhism without Beliefs 97, 98-99)
In Batchelor’s explanation, the goal of asking a question is not so much to find the answer. Instead, the goal is more to explore the question itself, to find what is there – whatever is there. The simple things we wonder about, or take for granted that we “know,” are often much more complex than we seem to acknowledge. So often, we search for the answer to a question while already hypothesizing what the answer will be. The risk of this is if we presuppose an answer (even without knowing we’re doing it), our presupposed answer is almost certainly the answer we’ll eventually find, even if that answer is wrong. If we are trying to prove an argument, we’re not really asking a question – we’re trying to organize evidence in such a way that the answer we presupposed before even asking the question will be well defended by whatever we find. Presupposing and searching for evidence is not a good way to know something; instead, it’s a good way to ensure the same blind spots we had when we started will still be there after our research.
In many ways, the act of knowing is less about finding an answer, or having the comfort of certainty. The act of knowing is often a deeper awareness of the complexities of a problem and the questions that must be asked – questions that will often never be fully answered. So maybe knowing isn’t having an answer, but learning how to wonder in such an open way that a real answer – and not a presupposed one – becomes actually possible, even if sometimes unlikely.
Sounds easy enough, right?
How in the world does this apply to fantasy baseball?
When we evaluate players, we are almost certainly guilty of trying to find evidence for our presuppositions. It’s virtually impossible not to have expectations when we set out to discover whether a player is someone we can draft or pick up in FAAB to help our teams. And, of course, the problem with these expectations, these presuppositions, is what we expect to find about the player is what we end up finding about him, even if what we originally thought isn’t actually the case. Even if our presuppositions aren’t correct, we make them correct by finding evidence to support our assumptions, even if we have to bend and shove and crunch that evidence into odd shapes to make it all work.
Two players that come to mind right now are Kevin Gausman and Jeff Hoffman. Are these guys washed? Are they broken? It’s somewhat reasonable to think they might be. Gausman is old in baseball years (35 years old), so his peak is definitely behind him. And he has 4.38 ERA for this season while his K-rate is down below 9 K/9 (he is currently at 8.98 K/9, so just barely below). His BB% is creeping up, and his K-BB% is slowly declining. Hoffman, for his part, has been a near disaster at times this season, to the point you might be surprised to know his ERA is only 3.94. He lost the closer gig in Toronto to Louis Varland, and it’s hard to forget him giving up a tying homer in game 7 of the World Series to noted slugger Miguel Rojas (who has 60 career HRs in over 4,300 career PAs, which would be an average of just under 9 HR per 650 PA [roughly a season’s worth of plate appearances]).
But then, I heard that the Cubs were interested in trading for a package that included Gausman and Hoffman, which stopped me in my tracks. While I was, at least up to that moment I learned of the Cubs’ interest, inclined to believe that Gausman was probably seriously on the decline and Hoffman was, for whatever reason, kind of a mess, the Cubs are cheap. Really cheap. They are in the third biggest market in US sports, yet they spend more like a mid-level team. Their current payroll frugality is disguised a bit by the contract they gave to Alex Bregman, but as a Cubs fan, I have repeatedly watched the Ricketts family cry “poorhouse” and refuse to compete for players or simply dump salaries whenever possible.
Yet, the Cubs were indicating interest in Gausman and Hoffman. And they only go after players they believe will be a major value compared to the price it takes to acquire and keep the players. If the Cubs are in on these guys, then something doesn’t add up. Either the players are better than I thought, or the Cubs trade talk was just rumor – but then the Cubs actually traded for Gausman. That’s not rumor. As of this article’s deadline, Hoffman is still a Blue Jay, but the trade deadline doesn’t expire for several hours (upon article submission). So maybe the cheapskate Cubs are really interested in this guy.
Clearly, my presuppositions about these players have gotten in my way, so I’m going to try to ask better questions about them. I obviously have missed something.
Question I truly don’t know the answer to: Why am I so down on Gausman while the Cubs aren’t?
Gausman, through May of this season, was fantastic, pitching to 3.13 ERA and 1.09 WHIP over 69 IPs, notching 66 Ks for a 23.6% K% and a 4.3% BB% (19.3% K-BB%). Since the beginning of June, Gausman has pitched 58.1 innings, with an ERA of 5.86 and a 1.53 WHIP, while collecting 61 Ks for a 23.5% K% and a 9.2% BB% (14.3 K-BB%). Hmm. The ERA and WHIP numbers over the last 58.1 innings don’t look great, but his K% is almost exactly the same. His BB% through May is better than we might expect from Gausman, but since June, his BB% is much worse than we might expect (based on his career 6.7 BB%).
In Mar/Apr, Gausman’s LOB% was in line with what can be roughly expected from a major league pitcher: 75%. In May, his 73% LOB% again was right in line with expectations. In June, he dipped down well below average: 67.9%. And then in July, his LOB% was an absurdly low 47.1%.
Going deeper in his numbers, and his Contact%, Zone%, Z-Contact%, CSW%, SwStr%, and velocity are all pretty much in line with recent years and his career norms. His HH% is slightly lower than what he’s had over the last few years. His GB% and FB% are right in line with recent years. His LD% is actually slightly lower than in recent years.
Is Gausman just as good as the guy he’s been for the last few years? Has he just been unlucky over the last couple of months? The explanation seems simplistic, but if the Cubs’ model says Gausman is a value, then I’m going to trust their ability to analyze pitching over mine. I think it may be time to send out some offers to frustrated Gausman managers to see if they’re willing to let him go for a deal.
Question I truly don’t know the answer to: Is it possible that a team may pick up Hoffman at some point before the trade deadline in order to make him a closer?
Through May, Hoffman was getting killed: In 25.2 IPs, he had 6.31 ERA and a 1.75 WHIP. Is that bad? Yeah, that’s bad. He also had a 36.6% K% and a BB% of 8.1% (is a 28.5% K-BB% good?). His BABIPs in Mar/Apr and May tell the story: .538 in Mar/Apr, .500 in May. His LOB% in each month adds to the story: 63.1% in Mar/Apr, 60.2% in May – both way below major league average.
Since the beginning of June, Hoffman has quietly pitched much, much better (at least in terms of results): In 22.1 IPs, he has put together a 1.21 ERA and a 0.94 WHIP. Those numbers seem kind of good. In that period, he has a 32.6% K% and a 7.6% BB% (is a 25% K-BB% good?).
For the season, Hoffman has a 14.06 K/9 and a 0.75 HR/9, along with a 46.1% GB%, meaning when guys hit the ball, it’s often on the ground. His xERA is 3.34 (compared to his 3.94 ERA), and his 2.49 FIP and 2.55 xFIP (which both assess performance of pitches regardless of the quality of defense behind him) both suggest that Toronto’s infield defense has been a big part of Hoffman’s problem.
You know who has a great infield defense? The Cubs. Maybe that’s why they’re interested. This guy is a K monster whose underlying numbers are way better than his surface numbers. And Hoffman is available everywhere, and we might be staring at a guy who will be a closer in 12 hours. Go get him.
May our assumptions not get in the way of asking the right questions. Until next week. –ADHamley
Love your column!
Would you try and get Sean Burke? Would you offer Tolle?
Would you offer Tolle plus Cavalli to get Burke?
Which pitcher could you get for Tolle plus Cavalli plus McCarthy?
Thanks!!