Beyond the Numbers - Intangibles
by Cubbie-Tim on Sep 22, 2009 9:15 AM CDT
Email
PrintThere are a lot of people who live and die by the stats and numeric rankings of players in various ways. I understand what the numbers represent, and how to read them. I understand why the numbers are a good foundation when looking at a player.
This never was my problem with those who wish to use them.
The part of a players skill set, that cannot be ranked is what the numbers lack. This is where you have to look past the numbers, and into the actual player himself. I would bet each one of us played sports and some still are very active in sports. Each of us have been around a person in our field of work, or while playing ball, who just had the confidence that allowed him/her to laugh at defeat (so to speak) while overcoming all the odds. This is a perfect example of an intangible asset for that person.
For those who want to say intangibles do not exist in sports, I will define intangible
Adj
- Incapable of being perceived by the senses.
- Incapable of being realized or defined.
- Incorporeal.
Noun.
- Something intangible, especially an asset that cannot be perceived by the senses. Often used in the plural: intangibles such as goodwill and dedication.
- Law Incorporeal property such as bank deposits, stocks, bonds, and promissory notes. Often used in the plural: a state tax on intangibles.
Or as another source defines it
Adj
- nonmaterial: lacking material qualities, and so not able to be touched or seen, et al intangbible benefits
- hard to be described: difficult to define or describe clearly, but nonetheless perceived et al an intangible quality of serenity in music
Noun
- Something unquantifiable: an unquantifiable quality or asset et al such intangibles as duty
So, it is not measurable, but exists based on definition alone. An example is a radio advertisement is an intangible item. Now, how does this relate to baseball or sports in general? Well, what is something you cannot place a numberic value on, but exists and happens in a game, and can cause a difference in the end result? Here is a list of intangibles that come to mind (feel free to add to it):
- Second efforts
- Heart and Determination
- Work ethic
- Hustle
- Being "clutch"
- Ability to play thru pain
- Mental toughness
- Intelligence
- Ability to be mentally "in the game"
- Maturity / Immaturity
- Team chemistry
- Leadership
- Comfort
- Communication
- Hot/Cold Streaks
Each of these can change the outcome of the game; none of them can be measured in a manner that they can be placed in the spreadsheet and used to make a decision.
The only way I know to measure heart is medically, which to my knowledge is not how it is used in a game situation.
You cannot measure how a second effort can allow an error to become an out.
Mental toughness is one I gripe about with Zambrano and Marmol, when they seem to look defeated and out of it mentally after a bad play or two behind them. This does happen, does exist, and cannot be measured.
Each of these examples are similar to when a fan talks about the years of suffering he/she has been thru, which cannot be measured (legally, psychologically, or medically) from one person to the next.
Quite possible the perfect example of a player who used the intangibles above to excel above what the numbers would have said he could, is "Charlie Hustle" Pete Rose. He played each pitch like it was the last, and the game was on the line. That is commonly measured as "giving 110%" but cannot be measured on paper.
These intangibles are why they play the games. Each one of them can cause a great team to lose, or a decent team to win. Sometimes a manager (and fans alike) needs to remember its ok to put the stat sheet down, stop trying to manage by match ups and probables alone.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.
599 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Why don't you role-play the season next year?
Get together with your pals in February, bring your 20-sided dice and Mountain Dew and Cheetos, look at all the rosters and let us know who wins?
There is no such thing as an ugly female breast
by Worf on Sep 22, 2009 9:25 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I had a roommate my first semester in college...
… real dweeb, computer science guy (smart as hell), but the picture of a sterotypical geek, including the 2 liter dew bottles scattered about the floor and whatnot.
In any case, at one point he legit lost his dice for whatever the hell that game was called, and tore apart the dorm room looking for it (or them… pardon my ignorance on how the thing was used). Turned out… and this is the best part… he had left it in the pocket of his Lord of the Rings costume… his Halloween had been spent playing the game (Magic maybe it was called? I think World of Warcraft was his computer came, so it wasn’t that) while in a costume that looked something like this:
Needless to say, i moved out of that dorm at semester.
Dum spiro spero…
Follow me on twitter or else: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Sep 22, 2009 9:31 AM CDT up reply actions
Hey, I have 20-sided dice.
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Sep 22, 2009 10:33 AM CDT up reply actions
why the LOL
and no true reply? Honestly, can you take the intangibles I listed above, and explain to me how you would be able to quantify them into the formula used to produce all the probables and projections?
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
No, obviously he can't.
He’d just rather post a LOL to your well-thought-out post.
I have found, many times, that people who don’t have a counter-argument to what you’re trying to say start laughing. It’s a nervous laugh that says “I can’t think of anything intelligent to say.” Not very becoming, IMO.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Look Al, just stop being so passive aggressive and ban me if you don't want me here.
I put a lot of thought into the posts I make here. I contribute to the discussion and represent a viewpoint that you’ve gone out of your way to drive off of your site.
If you don’t want that viewpoint here just get rid of me, don’t run around yipping at my heals and passive aggressively insulting me.
LOL is not what I would consider a lot of thought and time into a comment
now, to what I asked you above
Honestly, can you take the intangibles I listed above, and explain to me how you would be able to quantify them into the formula used to produce all the probables and projections?
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
And what's up with those airline peanuts?
Are those things hard to open or what?
by Wreckard on Sep 22, 2009 10:04 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
and what about this reply
The official slogan of your 2009 Chicago Cubs:
Why?
by jesus christos on Sep 22, 2009 4:20 PM CDT up reply actions
Name calling...
… is right up there with that nervous laugh. The surest way to tell you’ve won a debate: your opponent starts attacking you instead of attacking your point.
Dum spiro spero…
Follow me on twitter or else: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Sep 22, 2009 10:18 AM CDT up reply actions
You seem to have a very wide-open definition of name-calling.
Who started this whole thing with the “LOL”? Wasn’t me.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I wasn't talking about anything in this thread.
I was just noting that the “LOL” is very similar to somebody just calling you a name instead of refuting your point.
Think i was on your side on this one, Al. Sorry.
Dum spiro spero…
Follow me on twitter or else: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Sep 22, 2009 10:43 AM CDT up reply actions
Bastard!
;-)
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Sep 22, 2009 10:50 AM CDT up reply actions
I would qualify...
“Not having anything intelligent to say” as name-calling.
Milton Bradley: My New Favorite Cub
Rec'd. Thanks Tim.
I’m sure we’ll be linking back to this from time to time.
I appreciate the stats as much as the next guy. I’ve been known to spend a couple of hours studying them in defense of a point i’m trying to make. But sometimes there is something there that the human mind can know exists, but can’t quantify in a number or stat or comparison.
Dum spiro spero…
Follow me on twitter or else: @andrewjstone.
See here's the thing.
What you mentioned are causes. Stats are effects.
In baseball, we care about the effect (the final score of the ballgame) not the cause (it really doesn’t matter if Randy Wells pitched a bad game because he was upset Johnny got eliminated from Project Runway this week, what matters is that he pitched a bad game).
There are an infinite number of causes that contribute to every play. Upbringing, genetics, what’s going on in a person’s mind, sore muscles, butterfly wings flapping in upstate new york – so many that it’s silly to even try to get caught up in them. And that’s why statistics don’t care – in fact, can’t care – about the causes. Nearly everything you listed is a cause that contributes to a measurable effect.
To me, much of the “intangibles” argument displays a fundamental inability to understand the difference between cause and effect, leading to people make all kinds of bizarre criticisms of what statistics say and don’t say. Of course intangibles exist. Of course there are unpredictable outside factors exerting themselves on the game. People who understand statistics understand this. But what’s great about baseball is that because a large portion of the game can be easily quantified, and because success or failure relies largely on a player’s intrinsic abilities, the effects (stats) are remarkably predictable and consistent from year to year.
Does that mean that statistics capture everything in the game? That a projection system can be perfect and predict the outcome 100% of the time? Of course not – and no statistician would ever claim as much. You guys keep building this strawman with a pocket protector and kicking it, but all it does is betray your fundamental misunderstanding of what statistics even say.
by Wreckard on Sep 22, 2009 9:56 AM CDT reply actions 17 recs
Explain to me, then...
… why someone made several posts here yesterday attempting to quantify the unquantifiable. That was laughable.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I was illustrating the difference between measurable and immeasurable
My point yesterday was this: another fallacy that some people have with intangibles is that they couldn’t be measured even if you tried. But this isn’t true – let’s say you have this hypothesis: David Eckstein makes his teammates better. This is a testable hypothesis. If he’s making his teammates better, that’s an effect that can be measured. A single variable (a cause) can be regressed to see if there’s a strong statistical relationship between them.
No one does this because as I said above, baseball statisticians are largely unconcerned about causes. There’s exceptions to this of course (“tangible” and easily quantified causes that have a strong relationship to the effect such as age, league, and park factor); the reason they don’t factor in the Eckstein factor is that any effect that these things have on the outcome is very very small.
I would disagree about the effect being small
and point to Jordan, Montana, and Gretzky as a prime example of their factor being a difference maker. There were other players who could put up their type of numbers, but none who demanded that you have a spy or double team him when he is on the playing field.
That holds true in every sport. That change in how the situation is handled, does have an effect on the outcome that is not very very small, and makes the players around them better, since they are in better position to win.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Jordan, Montana and Gretsky don't play baseball
Baseball is different because success and failure is much, much more individually determined that success or failure in team sports such as football, basketball and hockey.
José Alberto Pujols?
Dum spiro spero…
Follow me on twitter or else: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Sep 22, 2009 10:23 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Sosa in his prime
Bonds, Pujols, Clemens, Manny and so on……each of them brought a swagger that cannot be measured, and could change the game with their intangibles.
and if intangibles can be measured, it would not matter if it were baseball, football, or car sales, since numbers do not discriminate based on age, gender, sex, or field of employment
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Again, you're conflating inherent ability with effect on others
Inherent ability is irrelevant because its nebulous and untestable. I can’t remove Derek Lee’s mental toughness and see how that affects him any more than I can remove his ability to drive inside pitches.
The effect the presence or absence of a player has on his teammates is highly testable in baseball.
you just said you cannot account for an intangible
but that intangible has nothing to do with how those around him produce? have you ever studied, read, or spoken to anyone in the field of psychology? I ask, because you are throwing Sports Psychology out for stats alone when you continue to say that intangibles are not important, or that you can quantify most to all intangibles (which I guarantee you cannot do so in a method that is consistant and accurate)
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
have you ever studied, read, or spoken to anyone in the field of psychology?
Actually I have a degree in Psychology. Nice try though. Sidenote: you know what the field of psychology uses almost exclusively to test hypotheses about human behavior? Statistics!
Anyway, I can only make the same reply so many times before I give up. It’s clear that you simply don’t understand the difference between internal and external causes, the difference between cause and effect, and what makes something testable or untestable, despite your protestations.
by Wreckard on Sep 22, 2009 10:50 AM CDT up reply actions 5 recs
and you cannot understand
that there are things in life you cannot give a number value to and throw into a computer. Psychology tells you that. You can be defeated mentally, while leading in the game, because you are psychologically beaten.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Here's a good example.
Let’s say your team is losing a game 1-0 going into the last of the 8th. Your team has played well, but the other team scored its one run on an error. Otherwise you have matched up well.
Then your team gives up three runs in the 8th and goes to the top of the 9th losing 4-0. Because it’s not a save situation, the leading team doesn’t put in its closer, but instead a lesser pitcher.
Your team has its best three hitters due up. But they go out meekly, 1-2-3, a couple of them on the first pitch.
Why is this? Because their chance of winning is much less than it was an inning before, even though they would have been facing a better pitcher (the closer) down only 1-0. Their own minds do this to them — they FEEL as if they can’t come back, even though the hitters might statistically have a better chance (in general) to hit the lesser pitcher.
Try to quantify that feeling. You can’t.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
+1
or a team being no hit but winning due to walks and errors. They had no hits, they should have lost, but they did not due to determination and sheer well to win
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
bad example
do you really believe what you wrote there?
Walks and errors by the opponent fueled the outcome—not the team’s “will to win” and “determination.”
I see where you are going, but that was pretty lame.
might not have been the best example
but they could have easily given up instead of kept fighting. if they give up, the walks and errors do not happen. its the domino effect
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
nah, that's a reach
them fighting has no effect if a pitcher walks or the other team commits errors.
it does
since usually a team being no hit often starts to swing at bad pitches, instead of staying confident and not losing their focus. The batters usually help a pitcher by making the strike zone “larger” so to speak
that is of course unless you are Soriano, who swings at bad pitches no matter what lol
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Tim
you just flip-flopped here, no?
the team being no-hit has the lead because they got some walks and errors. Why are they not confident and losing focus making a strike zone larger? The team getting losing would begin to press as their pitcher is throwing a no-hitter, the fielders screwed it up, and they haven’t scored runs.
this is a bad example and it’s getting worse as you try to prove something about intangibles in this example.
I’m done on this. No need to keep going on this point. Carry on if you must.
which is how the Sox in that game
won by not pressing, not letting the no hitter bother them, while letting the other team beat themselves.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Again, you gave a concrete example with a quantifiable result
This is another example of something testable.
The hypothesis here is, “As the chances of winning decrease, so will the performance of the players.”
If you wanted to test this, you could simply correlate the team’s win probability during any given at bat with the outcome of that at bat.
You've missed my point entirely.
Yes, you could do that. But that doesn’t take into account the psychological letdown a team that’s down 1-0 and likely thinks they can at least tie the game (example: as the Cubs did last Saturday), or that same team down 4-0, even though they are facing a presumably lesser pitcher who under other circumstances they might be able to hit.
Correlations of win probablilities? Sure, give me tables, I can read them and I know what they mean.
But they do not measure the unmeasurable.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
we are talking to a brick wall Al
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
I know, I don't understand why you're over there doing that.
I’m over here making some very cogent points and you’re over there talking in circles with an inanimate object. It’s really confusing.
you have said you can quantify something
that by definition cannot be quantified.
and somehow you have convinced yourself that you can do so, even if it defies logic 100%
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
You an incredibly poor reader.
That’s not a slam, it’s an honest concern. I’m not sure if it’s something fixable or not, but you might want to look at it.
The fact is your examples are all over the map. Some of them are testable (a player makes his teammates better; a very specific situation will have a very specific result), some of them are not (inherent qualities of a player that affect his performance).
You guys keep throwing out these examples because you’re not able to differentiate between them. And all it does is illustrate that you guys really don’t understand what you’re talking about.
so you can quantify intangibles
which by definition are not quantifable.
good luck on that.
as i sadi before, prove that. show me how you can quantify each one, and how they coorelate to each player in MLB (i.e. a standad formula to measure the heart, grit, hard work, communication, etc of teams and their players).
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
I think I should have stuck with my original reply
In retrospect it really was the best response to this.
I’ll try one last time: there are two different things here that you keep conflating (that means that you’re mixing them up):
- quantifiable things (player A makes his teammates better, a specific game situation will result in worse performance)
- inherent abilities that make a player’s performance better or worse
You are combining these two different things under one umbrella by calling them all “intangibles” and then trying to apply my arguments about the former to the latter.
It is honestly a comprehension issue at this point – I can’t make my point any clearer.
by Wreckard on Sep 22, 2009 11:50 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
until you can quantify
what is intangible, as you have said you can, you are just wasting your time as you continue to prove yourself incorrect.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
It can be done.
It just takes a huge data set.
Furthermore, you can place an upper limit on the effect of all intangibles on the game.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 22, 2009 11:55 AM CDT up reply actions
You hit it on the head.
Using the Eckstein example noted above, one would be able to measure a difference in certain stats (BA of those in front or behind him in the order, the increases or decreases in pitchers’ BABIP, etc) before and after Eckstein joined the team or on days where he played or didn’t. But those can’t be labeled as intangibles, as they are quantifiable. I’m no big believer in sabermetrics, but Wreckard’s right here.
As to your “huge data set” comment, that’s exactly what I was thinking. The set of variables that would need to be taken into account to arrive at any type of certainty would be massive – his teammates’ record against a certain pitcher, their record against that same pitcher on three days rest, four days rest; etc.; day games vs. night games, dome vs. open-air… the list goes on and on. Point is, it’s possible.
And as ridiculous as a notion as “swagger” affecting anyone else’s performance, that, too, is qhantifiable, by measuring the differences in the stats before and after the arrival of he who does the “swaggering.”
by stuartscottslefteye on Sep 27, 2009 10:17 AM CDT up reply actions
The argument is that they aren't intangibles.
They’re tangible. I don’t see how this is an issue.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 22, 2009 11:54 AM CDT up reply actions
if they are not intangible
sow me how you derive the numbers for the intangibles.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Wreckard has done so quite well.
He hasn’t gone out and done it, but he has shown how one could do it.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 22, 2009 11:58 AM CDT up reply actions
no he has not
he has said you can use wins and loses of the team with or without them, which is flawed in so many ways.
stop living in a stats only world, and look at the reality of things. The reality of intangibles is why projections are incorrect
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
No.
Projections are incorrect because baseball is an incredibly random game. You assign the uncertainties and randomness to “intangibles.” Some of them are absolutely the result of things one cannot measure. Howver, most of it comes from pure luck and variance about the mean.
And I don’t live in a stats-only world. I live in a reality-based world.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 22, 2009 12:07 PM CDT up reply actions
wth?
that’s not what i wrote.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 22, 2009 12:13 PM CDT up reply actions
pure luck
another intangible, which I forgot to mention. Thanks. You just proved my point. you cannot measure everything in the game as those who over use stats try to. I love stats, but there is a point where you toss the stats and enjoy the (as you perfectly stated) “incredibly random game”
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
But you can quantify luck, too!
… as well as random variance.
We can understand these things even if we can’t always predict them.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 22, 2009 1:10 PM CDT up reply actions
so according to you
nothing in this world is intangible?
I will agree to disagree, you have blinders on and refuse to see the otherside of the fence it seems
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
by your definition, too
Intagilble sounds like “doesn’t exist” or “too hard to measure” to me.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 1:16 PM CDT up reply actions
look at the OP
and see its definition.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Luck: tangible
People smarter than you and me, and less than or equal to Harry, confirm it.
Actually, Wreckard's making a pretty honest effort...
…to understand what you guys are trying to say.
Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.
maybe
but saying we are ignorant (in more words) is not exactly going to mconvince me he is trying to see things on the other side.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Well, honestly, your side is a little difficult to understand.
And, as Shawn has pointed out below, many of the intangibles you listed above have been quantified in one way or another.
Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.
you cannot quantify
heart, confidence, etc. Those are impossible to quantify accurately.
I also asked those who say they can be to provide solid proof, none have, because it cannot be done.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Because you can't understand something I've explained to you 6 times in this thread
Heart and confidence are examples of inherent player ability. These things affect the player’s ability to play baseball, and are for all intents and purposes captured by the statistics.
Some of the other examples you’ve given of “intangibles” are in fact quite tangible and measurable.
Again you’re conflating cause and effect, and external causes with internal causes.
and you continue to
try to convince me you can put intangibles into a stat form, and measure them. that is not plausible or possible.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
again, watch the terminology
THere is “something”. We create an operational definition and measure it. Other interested parties hel refine and move the methodology forward. Your phrase “put x into a stat form” is meaningless. We believe we can quanity (leor even qualitatively analyze somehting.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 1:04 PM CDT up reply actions
my entire point
is you cannot quantify and measure everything, which seems to elude some who place too much stock in stats alone
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
That's because you don't really have one
You guys keep grasping at straws and throwing out all these random hypotheticals because you’re missing the point I started out by making: all of these nebulous, unquantifiable causes really don’t matter because they get rolled up into the effect.
Teams that get sad a lot and give up will lose more games and have worse stats. That’s the effect of the intangible. For all intents and purposes, that intangible has been captured in the stats.
by Wreckard on Sep 22, 2009 11:32 AM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
That does make sense.
What does NOT make sense is that you can quantify an AMOUNT by which those intangibles affect play on the field.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Actually it should be doable
You can quantify the percentage correlation that a stat like OBP has on runs scored. After you quantitate all the other stats in a similar fashion, the percentage correlation left over is equal to random variability + the “intangibles”.
by false cognate on Sep 22, 2009 12:58 PM CDT up reply actions
Agreed
I’ll skip the correlation/causality soap box speech…there are are methodologies and statisicatal appracohes to apply to this problem
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 1:06 PM CDT up reply actions
the point is intangibles cannot be measured
and they do have an effect. you cannot quantify an intangible. If you could, they would be tangible not intangible. The results you continue to use, would nto always be the same for the same players in the same positions, which is why people say “you could put him in that same position 1000 times, and the result would not be the same”
if you can quantify it, then you are saying it would happen a certain way “x” times based on “y” in formula “z” which cannot be done with emotions, psychological balance, etc.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
It sure can.
It would take a tremendously large data set, but most of the things you’re talking about can be quantified.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 22, 2009 11:54 AM CDT up reply actions
then do so and prove me wrong
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
I don't have the time to.
If I worked for a MLB front office I’d consider it.
But that’s not my point. The point is you’re starting with the assumption that certain things by their very nature cannot be measured. That’s a very silly assumption, and it forced your conclusion: that they cannot be measured.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 22, 2009 11:56 AM CDT up reply actions
how do you measure them
please explain. and you should be able to show me the exacts for how you derive huslte or determination, and how you can include that in the stats.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Here's your list...
* Second efforts
* Heart and Determination
* Work ethic
* Hustle
* Being “clutch”
* Ability to play thru pain
* Mental toughness
* Intelligence
* Ability to be mentally “in the game”
* Maturity / Immaturity
* Team chemistry
* Leadership
* Comfort
* Communication
* Hot/Cold Streaks
I’ve bolded the ones that have been made “tangible” in one way or another in baseball or some other sport.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 22, 2009 12:02 PM CDT up reply actions
and I guarantee
that the formula used to quantify them is not accurate for good reason. they are taking human emotion and putting that into a machine that cannot balance emotions.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
It's not necessarily equation.
It’s done through looking for correlations.
Mark Cuban has looked at team chemistry in basketball, for example. you could look at work ethic by seeing how much a player improves from year to year. Hustle in baseball could be measured by the amount of range a player covers relative to his max speed or his baserunning ability. Clutch has been measured quite effectively over at fangraphs. You could see a player’s ability to play through pain by seeing how much he is worth compared to replacement value, another thing that has already been done. The effect of a player’s intelligence/mental awareness wouldn’t be too difficult to quantify. We have a whole stat for it on the base paths in the Cubs blogosphere – the TOOTBLAN! Hot/cold streaks have also been looked at in basketball, and have been shown to be essentially non-existant.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 22, 2009 12:11 PM CDT up reply actions
I do not agree
since you cannot track these items, meaning you cannot properly “stat” them. How would anyone who is trying to stat hustle know if its hustle, slight injury, loafing, and if they are not hustling, the reasons, which are all intangibles.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
It's called sampling and control
and … statistics and probability.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 12:33 PM CDT up reply actions
and inaccurate as well
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
The word you're looking for is...
imprecise, not inaccurate.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 22, 2009 1:13 PM CDT up reply actions
three things to separate
precision
accuracy
reliability
Seriously, I though I stopped teaching this class in 1996.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 1:18 PM CDT up reply actions
they would be wrong
how is that. the numbers fed thru the PC and spit out would be wrong.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
There are many ways to quantify injury.
For one, ask the player how much pain they’re feeling on a scale of 1 to 10. That’s how hospitals quantify it… or at least that’s how the hospital i visited quantified it.
Again, you’re assuming your conclusions here. I’m not going to continue arguing with someone who says. A mean A is true.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 22, 2009 1:12 PM CDT up reply actions
now you have to try to measure pain tolerence
I am in pain daily, and have adapted to it, so my pain tolerence is higher than many. You cannot properly and accurately work that into it to stay consistant
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
My wife is at the pain doctor right now
And they have a very good sense of her pain tolerance.
See, good doctors can see someone is not uncomfortable with their pain, but also realize it is asign of something serious. They tell my wife that all the time.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions
and you cannot measure
that in the manner you are wanting to for this conversation.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Difference Between 4-3 and 8-3
We’ll never know what would have happened. If Farnsworth had kept to the Marlins to a mere 4-3 lead in the 8th inning of that infamous game. I feel the Cubs would have had a decent chance to come back and win. When the deficit ballooned to 8-3, I knew the Cubs didn’t have a chance to win that game.
"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray
Somebody already did that FYI
Surprisingly, once IBB’s were taken out of the equation, the net effect was negligible.
by vivaelpujols on Oct 10, 2009 1:03 AM CDT up reply actions
I'm tired of
Cubbie-Tim’s anti-intellectualism and Al’s more than passive support for it.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 11:56 AM CDT up reply actions 14 recs
what a great addition to this you have here.
can you quantify the intangibles? No. They are intangibles because they cannot be quantifued. If you can quantify them, do so and prove me wrong.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
You keep stating your conclusions as your assumptions.
That’s not the start to a worthwhile discussion.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 22, 2009 12:03 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm not interested in that problem
My comment here is about a falsely constructed us vs. them argument based on flawed logic and a lack of understanding of statistics and probability. Your narrative is tainted by some personal feelings, which I don’t care aobut either. I just find the whole statheads are bad fans and don’t appreciate the unseen truths of the game to be offensive and in bad taste.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 12:05 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
I'm not interested in that problem
My comment here is about a falsely constructed us vs. them argument based on flawed logic and a lack of understanding of statistics and probability. Your narrative is tainted by some personal feelings, which I don’t care aobut either. I just find the whole statheads are bad fans and don’t appreciate the unseen truths of the game to be offensive and in bad taste.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 12:06 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
It's not a good theory where you have others
trying to prove it. If you have one, test it, and report it.
In other words, take a hypothesis that confirms your theory, find the results, and prove them wrong.
I am saying that they cannot be quantified
I am asking to be proven wrong.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
by not being able to quantify intangibles?
which, by definition alone has been proven
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
This is flawed reasoning, and it borders on pseudoscience.
You’re asking someone else to carry on an experiment, which you think can’t be quantified, into a result — which you would most likely refute and discredit.
I’m going to link you this, but I’ll quote the part I want you to focus on:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
It borders on religion, which isn’t the point of my argument and shouldn’t be discussed here. The point of my argument is whatever outcome your arguing viewpoint would make, you would discredit because it’s inherently “intangible,” which is silly.
by ILike on Sep 22, 2009 3:22 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
Ouch
Don’t mind you weighing in, but that’s an awful definition of religion. I think what you mean is “non-evidence-based thinking” which is not the same as religion — and let’s leave the religion talk at that for this blog.
Fontenot (fon-te-no): Cajun for "scrappy"
The intangibles thing is an argument of faith though.
…which I believe is what ILike is getting at.
Religion is concerned about the unknowable causes of our existence; the intangibles crowd seems extremely concerned about the unknowable causes of a player’s performance.
Baseball statisticians are just as unconcerned about intangibles for the same reason scientists are unconcerned with metaphysics – it’s way outside of the scope of what they’re describing.
And people wonder why baseball is the second rate sport in the US
because people have taken the heart and soul, the beliefs, & faith out of the game. It’s all numbers now. This guy’s OBP is higher than that guy, but that guy has a better OPS than this guy. Ah nuts with the numbers, there was a time when in baseball, you didn’t like a guy because his was jerk, it didn’t matter what his hitting line was, but now if you aren’t a saber-exepert, then “you can’t truly enjoy the game.” I say sometimes taking something on faith is just good enough
The sun will shine in '69
Fantastic analysis. Baseball is really in trouble on this one
Check out the nose dive the numbers have taken since Bill James’ computer invented statistics and ruined baseball for everyone – it’s astounding. Clearly a causal relationship there.
I did not say that
Now compare your prized numbers to Football. Which one is the prefered sport in America?
The sun will shine in '69
Are you honestly suggesting
…that the reason football is more popular isn’t because of the lower time commitment, visceral and violent enjoyability, lack of slow moments, parity, and ease of gambling but that – in fact – people love football more because they even being that close to statistics makes baseball less enjoyable?
Do I really need to explain why that’s ridiculous?
I did not say that either:
I said that baseball is a second class sport because of people like you who insult and demean other fans just because we don’t spend 8 hours a day studying number, while a football fan can enjoy a game at basic level, a win is the most important thing.
I give up, Al this site has become staight garabage, Anyone is racist who doesn’t agree with their views on black players, and now the casual fan gets insulted around here because we don’t study numbers all. Al I have a feeling that if things don’t change around here, you will loose many of your poster.
Just my two cents
The sun will shine in '69
I said that baseball is a second class sport because of people like you who insult and demean other fans just
Wreckard isn’t doing anything more than giving his opinion on a subject. He’s seldom insulted and demeaned anyone here if he wasn’t attacked first — case in point, what you’re doing now with him, thinking he spends 8 hours a day on a hobby.
while a football fan can enjoy a game at basic level, a win is the most important thing.
A fan on both sides can enjoy a game. I don’t see the relationship between the two, only that Wreckard has a more substantiated opinion and others like you are barraging him because of it.
I give up, Al this site has become staight garabage,
How so? Because Wreckard has given in-depth knowledge about the sport than just the lackadaisical opinions of others? So, you would want others to let their unbridled misconceptions continue even if they’re on a Cubs blog?That doesn’t make sense. I’m pretty sure the majority of people here wouldn’t classify themselves as “just Cubs fans,” or, they willingly admit that they spend a good portion of their down time following the team. You might as well learn new things about it (that’s just my opinion, though. If you don’t want to learn about baseball more, even though you spend a significant portion of your off-time on it, that’s your own choice).
Just my two cents
There’s nothing wrong with being a casual fan. I’m as casual as you can get with football — if you asked me two years ago what a stunt was, I would have had no idea. But when you attack others for furthering their knowledge on a sport, that is clear anti-intellectualism at it’s best. In fact, that is the spitting definition of it. So, good job with that one.
by ILike on Sep 28, 2009 9:14 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Where is this mean strawman who's running around calling everyone a racist?
Anyone is racist who doesn’t agree with their views on black players
More importantly, how much longer are you guys going to play the victim about this?
I’ve certainly never called anyone a racist on this site. Any time I’ve mentioned race it’s been to the effect of, “Racism was one of many factors in Bradley’s failure here,” not “Only racists dislike Bradley.”
As far as the rest of that goes, ILike, who I did like but is now banned for some reason, said it better than I could.
I'm glad you don't mind me weighing in
Just make sure to comment on a topic that I said shouldn’t be discussed, and give a quick jab or two in the midst of it, only to quickly say yourself that the discussion should be left at that so I myself can’t say anything more.
As well, it does all go back to Wreckard's post, and your opinion
If you think intangibles can affect a players’ performance, or a team, it should also affect their record — that is, if you think these “intangibles” are important enough to matter.
Intangibles —> Effect —> Performance —> Stats
My head's about to explode...
It’s like explaining clouds to my five-year-old
by stuartscottslefteye on Sep 27, 2009 10:20 AM CDT up reply actions
I'm a psychologist as well
and I totally agree with Wreckard here. One point I will make is that the list at the top of this post regarding
intangibles that cannot be measured. Many of those traits actually can be measured using psychological tests like the MMPI. For example, Work ethic, Ability to play thru pain, Mental toughness, Intelligence,
Maturity/Immaturity, Leadership, and communication are ALL easily quantified using standard psychological tests. I actually think sports teams should have a sports psychologist on staff and give personality tests to all players, I think it would benefit players greatly and could also inform future roster decisions, especially the Cubs, given this organizations history of failure.
Some of these other ones listed can also be indirectly measured with baseball statistics (i.e., Being “clutch” –
BA with RISP; Hustle – moving from 1st to 3rd on a single). And I am sure a statistic can be developed to measure some of the other “intangibles” that were listed above such as second efforts, Heart and Determination, Ability to be mentally “in the game”, Team chemistry, Comfort, Hot/Cold Streaks.
I don’t think anyone will disagree that there is a mental part to ALL sports. But a “hypothesis” cannot be tested, and therefore that “theory” can neither be proven or disproven, which makes it difficult to account for.
I think it can be inferred, that much of the original post was made with Milton Bradley in mind. And the stats don’t lie, he had a .380 OBP, remember how great that looked in the 2 hole in front of DLee, when it seemed like Bradley was getting on base and scoring runs all the time in July and August (is it a coincidence that this changed when he was moved back to the 5th spot?).
The bottom line is that Milton Bradley’s criticism of the media and the fans or his aloofness in the clubhouse is not the reason the Cubs are not likely to go to the post-season. Its a combination of all the injuries, lack of depth, and down years by key players. That is a hypothesis that can be tested and measured using baseball statistics at the very least indirectly based on career averages
To say Milton Bradley is the cause of this sub par season because he was a cancer or had a negative effect on the team chemistry without: 1) operationally defining what those terms mean, 2) how those terms are measured, and 3) being able to test that hypothesis objectively, amounts to nothing more than an opinion shared by a group of individuals that can never be proven or disproven. This line of reasoning is better left to the media types that salivate over a little club house soap opera, IMO
just my two cents……..
by magicblue on Sep 22, 2009 9:12 PM CDT up reply actions 5 recs
Edited for accuracy:
Inherent ability is irrelevant because its nebulous and untestable.
Inherent ability This is irrelevant because its nebulous and untestable i can’t test it.
Dum spiro spero…
Follow me on twitter or else: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Sep 22, 2009 10:51 AM CDT up reply actions
Same difference really.
Why would we get caught up in things that are unknowable? We’ll never know what inherent abilities made Babe Ruth a great player. It’s literally unknowable.
Why would we get caught up in this? Why should a general manager? Given that such a large percentage of the game is quantifiable and predictable, why wouldn’t we hope that a decision maker should base a large percentage of his decisions on the things he can know, rather than the things he can’t?
Is it unknowable, though?
Or can studying great players and their similiarities lend some insight?
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Sep 22, 2009 11:17 AM CDT up reply actions
With any degree of certainty - yes
There are an infinite number of causes for anything. Who knows which ones matter? Who cares?
Babe Ruth may have certain things in common with the other great players but those things in common might just be false correlations. Confidence, one of the intangibles listed here, may in fact be an effect of good play, not a cause.
beer, hot dogs, and women
Gotta love the Bambino!
Why should a general manager want to know these things?
I’ll bet Jim Hendry wishes he had considered them last January.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
+1
MB was said to be great in stats, but his intangibles are what has hurt him this season, and I believe has had some effect on the team as a whole
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
I'm going to play the diplomat here and recommend everyone read Wreckard's comment.
Because there has got to be some middle ground here that we can all reach.
I would agree – all the intangibles Tim has listed above are factors that could CAUSE a player to reach certain RESULTS. Meanwhile, stats are the very specific quantification of those RESULTS and sabrmetrics the very detailed analysis of that quantification. We should ignore the causes no more than we should ignore the results. Somewhere in the middle lies understanding.
Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.
by daver on Sep 22, 2009 10:07 AM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
Correct.
Again, I ask why someone yesterday attempted to tell me he could quantify intangibles by running a regression analysis. That’s patently ridiculous.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
You really don't understand the difference between cause and effect
I stated that if you had something “intangible” (the presence of a good / bad teammate) that you believed was affecting the outcome (wins, runs, etc) you could easily do a regression analysis to test this hypothesis.
That you think this can’t be done illustrates to me how poorly you understand stats.
how can you quantify
each of the intangibles I listed. please answer me that. I want to see the formula used to measure it that will keep it properly adjusted to each player. And then I will again call bullshit, since it is impossible to measure them legally, psychologically, or scientifcally.
and I still stand by my opinion that LOL is not a well thought out reply.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Frankly it was the reply this fanpost deserved.
Your continued inability to comprehend even the simplest of things such as the difference between cause and effect, the difference between a testable and untestable hypothesis, what makes baseball unique statistically, and so on means that any debate with you or Al on the subject just goes in circles.
I’ll give you a hint on this one though: what I’m talking about is testing the effect an intangible has on the performance of others (the presence / absence of a teammate, etc) which is what I’m saying is usually a testable hypothesis.
Most of the examples you gave affect only the individual’s performance, and as I said in my top post here is largely irrelevant because how a guy’s toughness, concentration, or whatever affect his play is effectively captured in their statistics because it’s inherent.
by Wreckard on Sep 22, 2009 10:35 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
How easily testable is it?
It’s not like the addition of one player is typically the only variable that changes. Rosters turn over more than that.
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Sep 22, 2009 10:36 AM CDT up reply actions
It's not easy but it's testable
Here’s an example of a study JC Bradbury did on the effect that pitching coach Leo Mazzone has on his pitchers, which would essentially be the same kind of study you’d be doing to test the “Invisible Hand of Eckstein” hypothesis.
In short: you wouldn’t just look at 2 years (the year Eckstein was there vs the year he wasn’t) you’d have to do a regression analysis of all the players that have ever been teammates with him, and include all of their career data. If he truly improves his teammates then there should be a bump in their stats when Eckstein is present.
I'm going to definitely read that, because it sounds interesting
I just don’t have time at the moment. It’s bookmarked for lunch, though.
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Sep 22, 2009 10:49 AM CDT up reply actions
Ok, I read it and enjoyed it.
It is a bit different, of course, because a coach’s very job is to make the players better. I’d be interested to see something similar done for, say, Greg Maddux.
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Sep 22, 2009 12:47 PM CDT up reply actions
Right, and I'd expect that the effect he has is much greater as a result
This is more just an example of how a smart statistician can take something that many would call an intangible (a coach’s effect on a game) and actually quantify it.
A lot of people making the “Intangibles exist but can’t be measured” argument here are unable to differentiate between these types of “intangibles” (quantifiable, external causes) and the more nebulous and immeasurable inherent causes.
you are incorrect
they change the team not the player alone. Cutler to the Bears has changed the team confidence, not just the QB positions confidence. Bringing in a Smoltz to St Louis gave them a boost as a team that the ownership and front office want to win now. These cannot be measured, they are intangibles.
You continue to say I do not understand, even after I continue to show you examples of understanding and proof of how they are not a change to the person alone.
A person on a hot streak, which is an intangible, changes how a runner at first will be aggressive on the basepaths, right? It also changes how the pitcher will approach him with a 2-0 count. These are cause and effect and change how the game is played for each person involved not the hitter alone. This is just one example.
And when you say huslte, determination, will to fight for every inch only effects one person (that player) tell that to the cartcher in the the highlight reel that is knocked silly by Pete Rose in the All Star game.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
reply fail
to Wreckard not badger
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
That's because your examples consistently illustrate a lack of understanding
For instance, you keep citing football examples. I’ve said this three times in this thread but I’ll say it again: players are much much much less affected by their teammates in baseball than they are in any other sport. Joe Montana in his prime would still put up terrible numbers if he was playing for this year’s Raiders because bad receivers and a bad line will affect a quarterback.
However, if you put Barry Bonds in his prime on the Washington Nationals, he’d still put up Barry Bonds-like numbers because baseball is more related to a players’ inherent abilities.
no he would not
since (two examples)
- there would be no reason to pitch to him.
- team confidence would be higher, leading to better team play
you throw out intangibles, you throw out sports psychology, and expect everyone to takethe stats at face value 100% which cannot and never work.
Here is a link about Sports Psychology, which does change the entire game, and those around a player in any sport.
It has been said many times in all walks of life. Surround yourself with confident successful people and you will become confident and successful. Surround yourself with those who are not confident and not successful, and you will join them as well. That is not something you can measure with stats, it is adaptation, it is intangible, and it is true in sports as well. You sign players who are confident and they will help the team become confident, you sign a douchebag, and the team will sink with him (see MB this season)
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
What about when you sign...
a douchebag and the team doesn’t sink?
Milton Bradley: My New Favorite Cub
that is an intangible as well
and why you cannot measure the psychological make up and how the emotions can cause the team to sink or swim
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
If you can't predict their effects...
why would you take them into account?
You have a very confusing argument.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 22, 2009 11:58 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
they change the game, and how the team plays
right? Are you going to tell me you honestly believe that a player who hustles and has a good work ethic, training hard all off season (intangible items) does not have a positive effect on the team and its success?
Soto would be a good example of how the opposite can hurt a team. He did not train hard this off season, and it hurt the team.
Cause and effect of an intangible.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Soto
is a great example—his intangibles (or lack thereof) have diminished the Cubs and his personal performance. It can be measured.
you cannot measure
since you cannot state for certain what happens if he does not take the off season off. There is no way to “stat”
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
yes it can
look at 2008 versus 2009 and it will show you how negative intangibles impact performance.
and that would be 100% bcuz of Soto's
intangibles?
Sorry, no way in hell. There are too many x factors to say you can do so.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
you just dismissed
intangibles altogether right there. Amazing Tim.
It’s not black and white like you are trying to make this out to be.
They are measureable and no, they don’t have their own stat today.
they are not measurable
and that is why they are an x factor
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
um, that's tangible!!!
You can’t know how much Soto has underperformed due to a lack of training vs. just having a down year… but you do know how much his underperformance has hurt the team!
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 22, 2009 12:15 PM CDT up reply actions
you know it hurt, true
how much cannot be gauged in a “stat”
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
The Yankees are a pretty good example of that
I would just about guarantee you that the Milton Bradley episodes that have festered here in Chicago would not have done so in the Bronx. Why? Because of the culture of the team, an intangible (I guess). The Cubs don’t have that same culture of winning and professionalism that Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera have made a hallmark of the Yankees.
"Enough foreplay- let's get crackin'"- Fred Garvin
I'm tellin' ya - Hendry needs to get on the horn to New York!
Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.
same like Rodman on the Bulls
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Moss on the Pats.
Dum spiro spero…
Follow me on twitter or else: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Sep 22, 2009 1:14 PM CDT up reply actions
let me try this for you
A cause is something that makes something else happen. Out of two events, it is the event that happens first. To determine the cause, ask the question “Why Did it Happen?”
An effect is what happens as a result of the cause. Of two related events, it’s the one that happens second or last. To determine the effect, ask the question “What Happened?”
Well, I would believe that hard work, and determination could be the cause of a player and his mates winning a game that the stats say they should have lost. The confidence or negative mood of one player can change the entire clubhouse and how they perceive the game.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
And I believe that his unwavering belief in the existance of aliens is what caused him and his teammates to succeed
Well, I would believe that hard work, and determination could be the cause of a player and his mates winning a game that the stats say they should have lost.
The stats say nothing about should happen. They said what did happen. The stats say the team won the game, nothing more, nothing less.
Again you keep giving these examples and all they do is show how little you understand what you’re talking about. You’re conflating statistics with projections, and causes with effects.
stats of the past sure, projections not so much.
do this, go above to the intangibles I listed. Show me how they have no cause and effect on a team, or games outcome, and how the stats prove that.
and when you cannot do so with accuracy, and without a proper “numeric value” you are welcome to say so. If you can do so, with proof that the formula that you derive takes all the intangibles I have put on the table, I will apologize. I want to see how each intangible is taken into account, and how it would be able to be used for each player, on any team, and with the raw data showing it to be true for Jeter to Bradley to Miles. Each of them are different, and have different intangibles, but according to you, each ones intangibles can be quantified.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Sigh.
Show me how they have no cause and effect on a team, or games outcome, and how the stats prove that.
I’m going to do this in really short sentences in the hope that you understand this time.
The list of intangibles is a list of causes. They, along with the millions of other causes, affect the outcome.
Statistics are effects. They are a measure of that outcome. They neither prove or disprove the existence of the causes because they aren’t concerned with them. Let me type that again, because you are fundamentally incapable of understanding this: Stats are unconcerned with the nebulous causes that go into any single event. Intangibles are causes.
They are a measure of effect, nothing more.
and again you continue
to avoid what is asked.
and as I said above
the point is intangibles cannot be measured and they do have an effect. you cannot quantify an intangible. If you could, they would be tangible not intangible. The results you continue to use, would nto always be the same for the same players in the same positions, which is why people say "you could put him in that same position 1000 times, and the result would not be the same"
if you can quantify it, then you are saying it would happen a certain way "x" times based on "y" in formula "z" which cannot be done with emotions, psychological balance, etc.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Well there's no question in that quote. So I'm not sure how I'm avoiding what was asked.
the point is intangibles cannot be measured and they do have an effect. you cannot quantify an intangible.
No, the point is that half of the things things you’re calling intangibles are measurable things (external causes that have a measurable affect -the presence or absence of a teammate, performance in a very specific game situation) and half of them are not (inherent player abilities).
You’re conflating these things and then attributing my arguments about the things in column A with the things in Column B. I’m can’t be any more clear, about this so I should probably just give up.
then, as i said, prove that
since you can quantify an intangible, do so. And it should be easily usable for every player now something you have to redo the formula for each player.
what i was refering to that you avoided was in the comment you had replied to, where i stated
stats of the past sure, projections not so much. do this, go above to the intangibles I listed. Show me how they have no cause and effect on a team, or games outcome, and how the stats prove that.
and when you cannot do so with accuracy, and without a proper "numeric value" you are welcome to say so. If you can do so, with proof that the formula that you derive takes all the intangibles I have put on the table, I will apologize. I want to see how each intangible is taken into account, and how it would be able to be used for each player, on any team, and with the raw data showing it to be true for Jeter to Bradley to Miles. Each of them are different, and have different intangibles, but according to you, each ones intangibles can be quantified.
the quote i had placed was in response to the comment i was replying to.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Prove what exactly????
That the presence or absence of a player is a testable thing? Or that the inherent qualities of a player are not?
Because that’s what I’m saying here.
that you can quantify intangibles
as you have said you can do. until then you are not providing any type of evidence to support your LOL. Show me how you can take date such as
heart
will power
confidence
hustle
(for example) and quantify them into an equation. Also, show me how you derive the numeric value for each so that the value you derive would be consistent for anyone in baseball.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
this is getting silly
heart — a guy who grinds out every at bat and get 1 extra hit every 2 weeks no matter the situation of the game will have an increase in his batting average
will power – despite being over-matched, the will of the player will get him the extra hit versus Cy Young and his average will be higher at the end of the year
confidence – knwoing that you are going to pound the Nationals and John Lannan that day will focus the player on getting his 3 hits and 3 RBI making his stats better at the end of the year
hustle – running hard on the ground ball will get 1 extra hit per year and inspires his teammates to run harder to so each player nets 1 more hit per year leading to 1 additional win at the end of the year.
These are all measureable. You have missed Wreckard’s point entirely. Yes, they don’t have their own interpretive data point, but they add up into something that CAN be counted via the statistics of the game/season.
The digging in of the heals is mond-boggling. Daver said it best to which you replied “I agree 100%,” but this dialogue with Wreckard does not show you do understand. There is a middle-ground for both sides of intangilbles vs. stats.
However, the stat-oriented people...
… keep claiming that everything can be measured. Only the performances themselves can be measured; no one is denying that. What cannot be measured are the — ready? — INTANGIBLE things that may affect those performances.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
this is
the cause and effect debate that Wreckard laid out. It made sense to me when he laid it out.
I agree with both sides on this. There is not 1 metric for “hustle”—no wHUS or HUSVORP. Yes, and they have readily admitted that.
But these intangibles are measured by the performance, no?
Further, hapring on the hustle element, a team could go back and review every groundball that a player hit on the year, measure the time he took to run to 1B, and see if there was any correlation to the safe vs. out based on hustling down the line, and then quantify that into a stat based on those outcomes.
It can be done. It can be measured. Is it out there today, don’t know.
No, the performance is measured, not the intangible.
No one is denying that. Improved attitude, etc. CAN result in improved performance, and the improved performance can be measured.
But the improved attitude/hustle/whatever? You cannot measure that. See my post below.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I just showed
how an intangible like hustle could be a stat.
How is that not measured?
hustle is not measurable
you really are reaching now.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Yes, it totally is
I’ve seen at least one good operational def in this thread alone
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 1:08 PM CDT up reply actions
did you read
my post on how it can be measured?
You are wrong to say it cannot be measured.
I did agree
and this is why
I would agree – all the intangibles Tim has listed above are factors that could CAUSE a player to reach certain RESULTS. Meanwhile, stats are the very specific quantification of those RESULTS and sabrmetrics the very detailed analysis of that quantification. We should ignore the causes no more than we should ignore the results. Somewhere in the middle lies understanding.
he says what I said in the OP. Stats are important, but you cannot factor in intangible items, as you continue to tell me you can.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Well, maybe you can factor in some of them...
…but why would you want to? How ’bout this:
Stats are meant to be studied.
Intangibles are meant to be enjoyed.
Enjoy the causes, learn the effects.
Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.
and both stats and intangibles
are where the results come from. Stats alone will not provide the true story, and neither will intangibles.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Mmmm, no.
Results don’t come from stats – stats are the results. Intangibles contribute to those results.
Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.
but cannot be measured
daver, we agree often, but on this i have to agree to disagree. it is not possible to measure an intangible object, emotion, etc. the definition of intangible directly explains that
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Emotion is not intagible
hello, limbic system, hormones and neurotransmitters
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 1:07 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
Stats are a view of the results
sorry, daver, small nitpick
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 1:08 PM CDT up reply actions
Well, isn't analysis...
…a view of the results? The stats themselves are simple results, no?
Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.
not sure what you mean
A woman gives birth. During gestation, the infant developed and attained some meass. We’ll go with 7 pounds f ounces. He’s not made of numbers, those numbers reflect our knowledge of how to asses his mass. Then, I have, say 100 babies of varying masses. I choose to use pounds and ounces to reflect baby mass. I study the effects of X on the mas of the baby, get a PhD, teach classes and wear jackets with elbow patches and live happily ever after
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 1:14 PM CDT up reply actions
and that is linked to
intangible items, like confidence, heat of the moment, determination, etc how?
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
i agree 100% daver
and I stated that I understand stats, etc. I will also never believe that all things can be quantified which I listed above.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Preach it, daver
Yes, there is a middle ground, and proponents of focusing on one more than the other need to stop attacking the other side.
Let’s open another can of worms for an example: Carlos Zambrano debates. He’s an above-average major league pitcher. There is very little argument on that. People get frustrated because they see the extra-circricular stuff and wonder how much better he could be if he harnessed his emotions. Some, not all, in the other camp see that as saying he’s bad, when that’s not what people are saying. Also, some are frustrated because they wonder what, if any, effects the histrionics have on the other players. That’s not an attack on stats.
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Sep 22, 2009 10:48 AM CDT up reply actions
Rec'd.
Its infuriating that the non-stat people can admit the value of statistical analysis and projection, but the stat people can’t acknowledge that their method isn’t perfect and all-encompassing as well.
Dum spiro spero…
Follow me on twitter or else: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Sep 22, 2009 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions
Andrew
I sit in the middle, but I can tell you Kali, Cal, Shawn, VEP, and Wreckard have all admitted that stats and the methodology is all-encompassing. I think your rejection of them has fueled your opinion of what they have written.
Can you restate that?
Sorry… i legit don’t understand.
Dum spiro spero…
Follow me on twitter or else: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Sep 22, 2009 12:12 PM CDT up reply actions
sorry
me speaky bad englis— :-D
You wrote, but the stat people can’t acknowledge that their method isn’t perfect and all-encompassing as well
The main “stat” people, that I listed above, on this site have all acknowledged/stated in numerous threads that their methodology isn’t perfect and all-encompassing.
You are saying it’s infuriating—thereby casting your vote as a “non-stat” guy, right? Well, your emotions about “them” is clouding reality. The reality is that they all have admitted numerous times that the stats aren’t the end all.
Sorry for a horribly written previous post.
I actually would say i AM a stat guy...
… both in baseball and in life. I took an interest to statistics in college. Took more than a couple of classes in Research and Data Management, Environmental and Spatial Statistics, even Bayesian Statistics (which i don’t totally buy in to) and others above and beyond my basic degree requirements.
I just know in the applications where i most often studied them – business examples – it was always accepted that there are elements that couldn’t be captured, no matter the sample size, the strength or weakness of the priors, on and on.
For some reason, that seems to fly out the window when it comes to baseball talk and statistics. I’ll be the first to admit i haven’t spent more than an hour studying how it all applies, and when folks start rattling off complex acronyms for equations i don’t understand, i tend to just trust their process and the conclusion in lieu of spending the time to confirm it all for myself. But i always do so fully understanding the stats can’t account for the random gust of wind blowing in off the lake and turning a Fox hit from a 450 foot 2 run homer to a 400 foot routine inning ending out.
Dum spiro spero…
Follow me on twitter or else: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Sep 22, 2009 1:06 PM CDT up reply actions
Same here. I love numbers.
hell I work in accounting for this reason, but I also understand that crunching numbers all day never tells the entire story.
For those who want to discuss scientific measuring of relaxing, or fun, please keep in mind science also will tell you how to hand an elephant by its tail from a twig over a cliff without the elephant falling.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Ok, lets play by your rules.
Lets just say, for arguments sake, that you CAN, in fact, put a number on everything in the game, from wind speed to emotion to the burrito Player X at the night before that is effecting his performance.
At a certain point, wouldn’t you agree, quantifying these things becomes something of a frivolous exercise? That you are spending more time asking questions of every player after every at bat, measuring wind speed with every pitch, figuring out the fart factor of every pregame meal, than is necessary, as you could likely reach the same conclusion just by watching?
In a mad effort to quantify everything, to make these intangibles in to something that can be measured, aren’t you just spinning your wheels vs sitting there and watching for a bit?
There is no stat for scrappy. You could spend all your time using all sorts of range analysis in the field, figuring out some way to count the way a player extends a pitch count, desperately trying to put a number to everything that takes place (with varied results, in most cases)… or could just observe.
Plus, none of this takes the human factor out of creating and actually using the stats. People tend to believe results that support their preconceptions and disbelieve results that surprise them. Too deep a statistical dependence encourages this undisciplined mode of thinking. I’m sure that most individual statisticians and are acting in good faith, but they’re providing encouragement to sloppy fans. And, probably worse, these techniques motivate even the best-intentioned researchers to get stuck in the rut of prior beliefs.
There IS a bigger picture.
Dum spiro spero…
Follow me on twitter or else: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Sep 22, 2009 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions
At a certain point, wouldn’t you agree, quantifying these things becomes something of a frivolous exercise?
Yes. And that’s exactly why we don’t bother quantifying these things – their effect on the game isn’t great enough to justify the work of quantifying them.
You could spend all your time using all sorts of range analysis in the field, figuring out some way to count the way a player extends a pitch count, desperately trying to put a number to everything that takes place (with varied results, in most cases)… or could just observe.
But how can I compare my observations to someone else’s objectively? How can I compare players from different eras? If I can quantify something that has a major effect on the game, wouldn’t a person who’s job it is to evaluate players be failing if they didn’t do so?
So, you would argue that the effect of confidence on a game...
… isn’t big enough to be worth the time to figure out, and that is why we don’t see something like “DLee is batting .300 and his confidence is currently sitting at a .350” before every game?
Dum spiro spero…
Follow me on twitter or else: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Sep 22, 2009 1:34 PM CDT up reply actions
batting average is easy to measure
confidence, while measureable, ain’t so easy to do
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 1:35 PM CDT up reply actions
Yes, obviously.
So maybe when we reach the point of “this isn’t even easy enough to be worth our time to analyze”, we should all agree that it just becomes something of an intangible, something that while hypothetically possible to quantify, isn’t ever going to be quantified because it is too elusive to effectively do so.
Dum spiro spero…
Follow me on twitter or else: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Sep 22, 2009 1:37 PM CDT up reply actions
it's not all-encompassing
happy?
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 22, 2009 12:21 PM CDT up reply actions
So, does it not encompass some of the things Tim has listed here?
If we can agree on that, a big step has been made.
Dum spiro spero…
Follow me on twitter or else: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Sep 22, 2009 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions
The only step that would be made is in your ability to comprehend what we're saying
In my second post in this thread I acknowledged the existence and effect of intangibles on the game.
No statistician would ever claim a statistical model accounts for all variables. If you had such a model it would be called “reality”. That’s not the point nor the realistic goal of any statistic or model.
So then why even debate Tim's original point?
And stop insulting people’s intelligence or comprehension ability. Its no more effective than me insulting yours because you don’t see it from my point of view, and causes you to come across as bitter and mean. That won’t help you convince anybody.
Dum spiro spero…
Follow me on twitter or else: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Sep 22, 2009 1:10 PM CDT up reply actions
thank you AJS
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Because Tim doesn't even understand his own point
He is confusing examples of inherent player ability with external causes like the existence of a player, or chance, or wind speed, or whatever.
Most of these external causes are easily measured, quite tangible, and if anyone cared to could easily be quantified and put into a statistic.
Inherent abilities like heart and soul and grit and hustle and determination and sadness and concentration and clutchness are all inherent abilities. They are for all intents and purposes already captured by the statistics.
by Wreckard on Sep 22, 2009 1:15 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
then produce these measurements
so i can show you the flaws each time. You cannot measure an intangible item. I am not confused on my point. You continue to talk about how you can measure these, yet time and time again I ask you to produce them and you cannot do so. Why, not because of the time involved, but because it is (legally, medically, scientifically, and psychiologically) impossible to do so.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
I agree completely with your statement...
Inherent abilities like heart and soul and grit and hustle and determination and sadness and concentration and clutchness are all inherent abilities. They are for all intents and purposes already captured by the statistics.
… because obviously, a player who hustles more can have better numbers. Fred Lewis of the Giants drove in the winning run for his team last night because his hustle beat a DP relay. Perfect example.
All we are saying is that you cannot put a number on “heart and soul” or “determination” or “sadness”.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
No one said you could
All we are saying is that you cannot put a number on "heart and soul" or "determination" or "sadness".
The point is that you don’t need to. These are inherent player abilities. They’re already captured in the statistics. It doesn’t matter if a player succeeds because he’s thinking about last night’s episode of 30 Rock or if he has good genetics. All that matters is that he succeeded.
All of these intangibles you mention are causes of a player playing well They’re consistent things that won’t change over time – and nor will their effect on the player’s statistics.
That means these things are CONSTANTS which is a term for something that does not change, which make them essentially irrelevant.
But are they constants?
Maybe a player has less confidence as a result of something that happened in his personal life on a particular day. That could affect his performance. Can you measure that? I say no.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
This is exactly why intangibles are so mind-numbingly irrelevant
They’re so completely nebulous that they disappear into the noise and chance of everyday life.
Anyone can sit there and spout off a bunch of crazy random things that contributed to any given outcome. The affect of someone’s personal life on the outcome… a good program on TV that kept the pitcher up too late last night… the butterfly wings flapping in New York that caused the wind to change and mess up the player’s hair on his way to the game, lowering his confidence…. We can sit here all day and make up stupid shit that could affect the outcome, or we can say, “You know what – that’s completely fucking insane. Let’s just worry about the outcome.”
Which was exactly what I was saying in my original post – it’s a slippery slope to even sit there and worry about them.
by Wreckard on Sep 22, 2009 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
disagree
you want to disregard them because they do not fit your stance, which is fine, but you cannot say they have no meaning in reality or the outcome of the game
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Where did I say that
Seriously, please show me where I said that.
All of these things affect the outcome of the game. All of these things have meaning in reality.
But they’re so nebulous (that means there’s a lot of them) and impossible to pinpoint that trying to figure out which ones affected the outcome is an exercise in masturbation.
you are disregarding them
and continue to do so by saying they are too minimal to matter
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
here
There are an infinite number of causes that contribute to every play. Upbringing, genetics, what’s going on in a person’s mind, sore muscles, butterfly wings flapping in upstate new york – so many that it’s silly to even try to get caught up in them. And that’s why statistics don’t care – in fact, can’t care – about the causes. Nearly everything you listed is a cause that contributes to a measurable effect.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Look, I know you're getting tired of me mocking your reading comprehension
…but what other conclusion can I draw when you claim that I say that intangibles “are too minimal to matter” then quote me saying – and I quote – that intangibles “contribute to a measurable effect”, and that they “contribute to every play.”
I say these things. In your quote. About intangibles.
so you are not agreeing with yourself
since you state
And that’s why statistics don’t care – in fact, can’t care – about the causes
the cause being the intangibles which you were replying to.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Tim I kind of feel bad for you at this point.
Again, you missed the point of what I was saying by miles.
Statistics can’t care about all of these random crazy ass causes that you’re pulling out of the air because they are random and crazy in the ass.
What I’m saying is that there are so many causes that contribute to a single event that you really can’t get caught up in trying to determine their significance.
by Wreckard on Sep 22, 2009 2:17 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
they are not crazy
they are reality
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
oy
Devolving into semantics now. OK, “crazy” means
a) seemingly random
b) either uncontrollable or allowed by the researcher to freely vary
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 2:19 PM CDT up reply actions
so this is not at the
opinion of the researcher, removing any chance of human error……no wait, it actually imcreases the chance of human error since the person behind the research can pick and choose what to use for this.
reminds me of how they come up with the second hand death total for cigarette smoke. it is a false number, that is innacurate enough that the courts threw it during the lawsuit against the tobacco industry.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Again, you're seeing one word and responding to that one word
There were many more I typed there. Let me quote myself again, because apparently you stopped at the word “crazy.”
What I’m saying is that there are so many causes that contribute to a single event that you really can’t get caught up in trying to determine their significance.
those factors change a game, right?
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
How about this.
What, than, do they not encompass… if not what Tim stated in his post?
Dum spiro spero…
Follow me on twitter or else: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Sep 22, 2009 2:45 PM CDT up reply actions
I understand numbers, and stats. I work with them daily.
I also understand that there is human variance in reality. Each tangible item can be quantified, but intangible items that do honestly have an effect on the outcome cannot be quantified. The midground is what some who over use stats cannot agree exists.
I have not once built a strawman, but when I have been told that reality lies and projections are correct (which was almost a word for word quote of VEP about stats and projections), that is a prime example of how the human element is disregarded by some.
Projections and stats should be a foundation, and a reference, not the sole manner in which a fan, player, broadcaster or manager looks at a player, since he/she is not a robot, but is a human.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
What do you think predicts performance more accurately statistical projections or your observance of human elements?
by Acapulco Taco Pie on Sep 22, 2009 2:30 PM CDT up reply actions
stats are a foundation for projecting
I have never said they werent. I only said that the human element is part of the game, and does change the outcome. This is why projections and stats IMHO cannot be taken too heavily into account, and that there is a middle area, which we call reality. I have been told reality lies on here, I have been told stats alone are all we need to worry about, etc. I choose not to, since stats and projections are not 100% accurate.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
But stats take into account the human element
Because stats are the effect, while the human element is a cause. When you regress stats to get a projection, you are also regressing the human element for each player.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 22, 2009 2:42 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
but the querstion was projections
which are not accurate, since the variables that cause the projections are not able to be included.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Of course they are not accurate
However, by the binomial distribution, you can expect that each team will under or overperform their True Ability (NOT projections) by 6.3 games a year. The standard error for projections is about 9 games. That means that projections are about 3 games accurate in terms of projection a teams True Talent Level. Some of they may be due to not understanding the human element. However, if it’s 3 games on average, it’s probably not that big of a factor, at least one that isn’t already captured by the projections.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 22, 2009 3:18 PM CDT up reply actions
A lot of these things can be quantified.
The effect of work ethic, hustle, determination, intelligence (baseball or otherwise), and others show up in the numbers.
If you work hard and improve your game, you would see an increase in overall performace. Likewise if you hustle, you’ll beat out a few throws, stretch a few singles into doubles, etc. Those things show up in the numbers. If you do not play intelligent baseball then you will make more defensive miscues and run yourself into outs on the bases for example.
I think it’s unreasonable to say that these aspects of the game do not exist. What is unreasonable is to say that you can’t measure their effects of hustling and working hard. The players play better, the numbers show that.
If a player is better, their value is higher, no matter how they got better. If Aaron Miles ran through a wall every day and slid headfirst into first base every time he hit into a 4-3, he’s no better, regardless of how much determination and hustle and heart he has.
Sure these variables exist, but they are merely a complement to other skills.
ok, then quantify them for me
show me how you quantify the intangibles i listed above
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
there's an inherent disconnect in this discussion
Cubbie-Tim – it sounds like you’re asking people to put a number on ethic, hustle, etc. It sounds like you’re saying you want a metric by which people can say, “Oh Fontenot, he has an 8.3 hustle on a scale of 0 – 10.”
That’s not what Wreckard or Harry or anyone else is saying about stats. What they’re saying is that the effects of those “intangibles” is rolled up into the results which can be measured. And then by running regression analyses comparing those results to the results of other players, it’s possible to measure the effect that those intangibles have on the results. They’re not proposing a new stat that equals “hustle,” they’re saying that the result of “hustle” (or whatever else) is measurable in the outcomes.
by false cognate on Sep 22, 2009 1:15 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
close, I'm not the biggest advocate of regression analysis
but that’s my bias, as a lab guy for so many years. Put the electrodes on the baby’s head, show it pictures, and marvel at the results, and wonder what they hell they mean, and how you can refine your measurement, make is less abstract from the amazing phenomenon you’re trying to get at.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 1:22 PM CDT up reply actions
actually, saying it can be measured
and if you can measure it there should be a manner to show that. I have agreed many times, the result can be measured, but the actual intangible itself cannot be measured
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
so you agree
that everyone appears to be talking past each other, then?
by false cognate on Sep 22, 2009 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions
it seems like there are three people here
1. those who refuse to accept intangibles as factors
2. those who accept stats and intangibles as factors
3. those who are laughing at the other two people
did I miss anyone?
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Fortunately...
I don’t think there is anyone in group #1.
As for group #2… I think this illustrates the main misunderstanding here. Stats ARE NOT (and by nature can not be) factors. Derrek Lee has not driven in over 100 RBIs this year because “he is a 100-RBI guy.” He has because his combination of “intangibles” has empowered him to do so. In this sense, I mean intangible to include every possible factor – from his natural ability to recognize breaking pitches to the slickness of the grass on May 14th to however distracted he may have been by the comments of the outfielder playing behind him on a regular basis.
In summary, stats are not meant to describe everything that contributes to baseball success. In predicting future success, stats are only used in the part of the equation that takes into account previous results. Any predictive models should be treated exactly as that which they are – models.
As for the rest of my day, I’ll spend it in group #3.
Good pitching beats good hitting, and vice versa.
I'll actually amend this slightly.
Stats can be factors when looked at by those who are involved in the causes, thereby altering their conscious or sub-conscious decision making. However, they do not directly control how good a team or player is.
Good pitching beats good hitting, and vice versa.
Confidence is one you forgot
we all know what it is and what it looks like. Some players have it, some don’t. Some have it and lose it while others don’t have any and gain it. The Power of Positive Thinking is a great book. That sums up a lot of this “intangible” stuff.
This is only the beginning....Lou Pinella end of '07 season and Chicago Transit Authority (the band when they were really good).
You've never met somebody with a blind confidence they could do something...
… that you knew they’d fail at every time?
My mom, burning a CD on her computer at home, for example. :-)
Dum spiro spero…
Follow me on twitter or else: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Sep 22, 2009 10:26 AM CDT up reply actions
I think we all know these people
and we have all had to clean up after them.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
...
Dum spiro spero…
Follow me on twitter or else: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Sep 22, 2009 10:48 AM CDT up reply actions
I've seen athletes
that are very talented and look confident in non-pressure situations. They flop when you need them the most. Being good has more to do with talent than confidence. Very rare to find the most talented combined with most confident.
This is only the beginning....Lou Pinella end of '07 season and Chicago Transit Authority (the band when they were really good).
that is a great book
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Do you understand that the outcome of a confident performance is measured by statistics?
If a player has no confidence and performs poorly because of it there will be a tangible result that occurs.
by Acapulco Taco Pie on Sep 22, 2009 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions
Correct.
But there is no way to measure the amount of confidence.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
how do you measure confidence?
since that is an internal emotion, and cannot be measured
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
I have an idea
Go to your local community college and take psych 100.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 12:43 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm not sure how to explain this so that you understand.
The outcome of one’s performance whether they have confidence or lack it, is measured and results in a tangible quantified performance. Whatever internal emotions players possess are part of what goes into what you see on the stat sheet.
by Acapulco Taco Pie on Sep 22, 2009 12:43 PM CDT up reply actions
Correct!
The performance can be measured.
The intangible factors that lead to that performance cannot.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Actually I would love to see a study where players are questioned about their confidence levels.
It could in fact be done if you trust players to give honest answers about confidence and comfort level before a game or individual at bats. I think it would surprise people like yourself how little confidence level bares on the outcome of a player’s performance.
by Acapulco Taco Pie on Sep 22, 2009 12:51 PM CDT up reply actions
would have to be done after each pitch, since time lapse
could skew such a study
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
The point stands that you could in fact see if confidence levels had a significant impact on a player's performance over a long period of time.
by Acapulco Taco Pie on Sep 22, 2009 12:54 PM CDT up reply actions
you would need to take each and every x factor
and be sure it is a measurable factor (which alone is not possible) and then derive a formula to be consistant from one player to another. This is not only illogical, but impossible.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
exactly
the result is recorded, but how you get the result cannot be.
a HR is not 1/3 confidence, 1/6 luck, 1/6 hand eye coordination, 1/3 pitch placement (for example)
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
I think many of these intangibles could be measured...
…but you may not agree with the criteria used to measure them.
For me personally, I don’t feel any great need to measure them. Intangibles are what make the game fun. But once the game is over and the dugouts are empty, that’s when stats and statistical analysis come into play.
Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.
Here's something I'd like everyone to consider.
A concrete example: let’s say that the removal of Milton Bradley from the Cubs’ clubhouse makes it a more “fun” place to be. (Lou was quoted as saying it already has.) Let’s further say that the fun that the Cubs had allowed them to become looser in their attitude toward their work, thus providing them with the ability to produce the 10-2 win last night.
Can you measure the additional hits and runs? Absolutely.
But can you measure the fun? Or the looseness? No, you cannot. That’s a subjective thing felt differently by every human being in the clubhouse.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
False
Yes, yes you can. Ask any social psychologist. You can operationally define these things, develop testable hypothe…oh screw it, I give up.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions
Really? Really?
You can go in and ask players how much fun they had in the clubhouse last week, and compare it to this week, and say that the Cubs had “4.0 FUN” last week, and “6.5 FUN” this week, and thus quantify fun?
You’re serious? Astounding.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
OMG
You just dismissed an entire field of academic study – and the application thereof – in one comment. Mazel tov.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions
Really?
There’s an academic discipline to measure fun?
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Measurements of human emotional state exist
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 12:40 PM CDT up reply actions
I give up.
There shouldn’t be “sides” here, but there are. We are never going to understand each other.
Go on measuring everything in sight. I’ll stick to enjoying baseball, and using statistics where they are warranted.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Nasty stuff Al
Why are you so passive-aggressive and dismissive of opposing view points, while you support illogical lines of thought and build strawmen to knock down?
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 12:46 PM CDT up reply actions 5 recs
You also seem to continually imply that people that use statistical analysis don't enjoy the game as much as you do.
If you don’t want sides to be taken then don’t imply over and over again that you enjoy baseball more.
by Acapulco Taco Pie on Sep 22, 2009 5:59 PM CDT up reply actions
You know, that's also incorrect.
I shouldn’t have said that.
What I do see is people enjoying the game in different ways. I think you’d agree with that.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Why in God's name do you even continue this debate?
How many times have you probably defended stats? How many more times are you going to do so?
Someone who wants to learn about advanced stats will have done so instead of being intentionally obtuse.
There are baseball fans who actually care about what you say, and others who for some reason enjoy having this debate once a week.
The 2009 White Sox....like a 40 degree day.
by Ozzie Montana on Sep 22, 2009 12:44 PM CDT up reply actions
Yes and it's as inaccurate as you can get
You can measure anything, as an example in the Military where they measure Racism in an unit, happiness of a unit, and several other things. They assign numbers to it and guess. People in the Military still make racist remarks, and they still commit sucide. Just because you ask a question and assign numbers to the answer doesn’t mean that results are valid.
The sun will shine in '69
by gaclaudy on Sep 27, 2009 9:16 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
fun or suffering cannot be measured
it is impossible, in any manner. Fun for one person is not the same for another, meaning there is nothing constant to use as the basis to it.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
not false
if you could measure it, then there would be a set bar for a court to make a verdict. I asked my aunt before, who is an attorney when a smiliar discussion was on here about suffering. it is not possibly to measure, since no two people will have the same suffering from the same incident. the same is true for fun.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
please don't confound science and tort law
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 12:43 PM CDT up reply actions
legally, scientifically, and psychologically
you cannot measure fun or suffering.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
I think you can...
…but, again, you may not agree with how they’re measured.
Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.
and neither would lawyers, doctors, scientists, etc
suffering cannot be measured as a constant from one to another.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
again, I'll disagree
your “constant” premise is false. Individual difference is important, but, also measureable relative to a konwn sample.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 1:01 PM CDT up reply actions
Hence open peer review of scientific work
and, may favorite things, convergent results from varying methodologies.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 1:00 PM CDT up reply actions
i did not accuse you of anything
you are the one who has made accusations about intelligence. I only said the truth about it
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
The truth about what?
That a person’s emotional state can’t be measured? Measuring a person’s emotional state is a foundation of modern psychology. It’s done all the time.
Harry’s point is that if someone cared to (and this is an important point, because no one would ever care to, or be able to due to organizational obstacles) they could do a study to determine the effect of emotional state on performance.
In fact, jobs do this all the time – Human Resources at corporations do studies all of the time to determine the emotional and enivormental effect the workplace has on a person’s ability to do their job.
they are studying the result of the intangible
I have agreed with that many times. That is not quantifying the intangible itself. I have not once said that the results cannot be quantified, they can. The intangibles that cause the result are not able to be quantified.
A person loses a leg in a car accident
Court awards him $5 Million for suffering
that is result of the accident, and does not place a quantified value of $5 Million on a lost leg and suffering from it. If it did, then each time it happaned, the result would be $5 Million, not varied from case to case.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
but the fun = a 10-2 result
so it can be measured, no?
Pick one question
1) can you measure fun?
2) can you measures fun’s impact on baseball?
both are yes, but I’d suggest a sample issue in Al’s study.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 12:37 PM CDT up reply actions
fun and a loose clubhouse = a 10-2 win
I would say the Cubs had fun by scoring 7 runs in the 1st 2 innings, not because the clubhouse was looser.
Perhaps the loose clubhouse made them perform better.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
the were more at ease without him
and that allowed them to relax when at the dish.
relaxation cannot be measured as well
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
a relaxed state for two people
is not the same, so it cannot be accurate for use with stats, right?
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
That's where sampling, statistics and probability come in
Really, they are our friends to help us understand a beautiful and majestic world. Or game, or whatever you’re intereste d in.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 12:48 PM CDT up reply actions
Could you specify a range that defines...
…a relaxed state and then go from there?
Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.
Yes
Another point, about me – my interest in psychophysiology was to tease out individual differences, not just the study of between group variability.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 12:49 PM CDT up reply actions
Assuming that those methods would accurate measure relaxation, etc.
I don’t see how that is applicable to building running, and being a part of a championship caliber baseball team, which I thought was the point. Even if these “intangibles” can be accurately measured, if the data can’t be harvested and used effectively by managers and GM’s, then what good is it for the point of this discussion?
"Enough foreplay- let's get crackin'"- Fred Garvin
Also false
Before going into IT, I was a researcher in pscho-physiology. Skin conduction, brain waves, so many ways to measure it.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 12:42 PM CDT up reply actions
can you say its the same for all people
no, because it cannot be done
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Tim, please
Take an online class, get a library book. Something that covers the basics of the scientific method, sampling, statistics and probability, and then maybe grab something on community psych, an applied field, organizational psych (ditto, and relvenat o the clubhouse/chemsitry/performance question)
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 12:50 PM CDT up reply actions
My relaxation can be measured in rum and cokes
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Sep 22, 2009 12:47 PM CDT up reply actions
Methinks induced and then measured.
Hold still, Shanghai! And stop laughing!
Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.
wassa matter, dafer? doan yoo like ruhm?
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Sep 22, 2009 2:33 PM CDT up reply actions
Good point.
Perhaps I am the one confusing cause and effect.
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Sep 22, 2009 2:33 PM CDT up reply actions
LMAO
love that post!
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
so fun (an intangible)
led to better performance—a result.
It can be measured. Or was is because the Cubs played the shitty Brewers and faced a god-awful pitcher and lit him up early taking all the burden of the MB saga down a few notches.
Correct.
An intangible thing can absolutely lead to a positive result.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
+1
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
not true
you can have fun while losing, right?
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
yes
the result (stat) doesn’t have to be positive, but rather measureable and quantifiable.
so the intangible item (fun) cannot be measured
but the game results can be.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
the results
of the “fun” game whether positive or negative can be measured.
results of the game
not the intangibles
you can measure many parts of the game in stats, etc I know that and have not once said you cannot. People who over use stats cannot remove the stats and understand intangibles are there and cannot be properly measured in a consistant manner.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
who are these people?
cite some references, man.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 1:02 PM CDT up reply actions
Why would you measure fun by the game score?
Measure fun by laughs per minute, decibels of laughter, number of people laughing, volume of spray cheese released per hour
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 12:37 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Does that really matter, though?
Who cares about measuring laughs per minute in the clubhouse? What difference would that make?
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Um, Cubbie-Tim and you, right?
Isn’t that the point of this whole thread? WTF
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions
No, the point is that we DON'T care about measuring that.
All we know is that it exists. And it is meaningful in producing positive results.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
It exists, so I can measure it and test the impact
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 12:41 PM CDT up reply actions
When you have finished your study on intangibles, please post all the tables on how you have measured...
… fun, looseness, heart, etc. I’d really like to see those.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Then go study them if you're so interested
My interest in this thread is related to philosophy of science, not tangibles. You might as well call them widgets.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 12:44 PM CDT up reply actions
You believe that they are meaningful in producing positive results
But you have no interest in studying them for a better understanding of how they could be measured or applied.
I am truly dumbfounded and am glad you only run this blog and not something of real importance.
by GoBackToSchaumburg on Sep 22, 2009 1:06 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Technically, no - you BELIEVE intangibles are meaningful...
But since, by definition, you can’t measure the effect of intangibles, you can’t prove that they do have a meaningful effect.
It’s fine to be a believer – nothing wrong with that. Just don’t make fun of people for not agreeing with your belief. I’m willing to accept the possibility that intangibles could systematically drive results. I’m not willing to accept that they DEFINITELY drive results.
And despite being agnostic on this issue, I thoroughly enjoy baseball. It can be done, contrary to the arguments you keep erroneously making against people who like science and spreadsheets.
luck does drive results in every walk of life
and is intangible, right? It cannot be measured.
I am not against those with spreadsheets and love for the science of the game, I have been guilty of it before, and at some point you have to accept that you put all those numbers in front of you during the game, and then things happen that cannot be accurately included in those numbers to throw everything off. This is why a projected win total has an acceptable range of being wrong by 7-9 games (which is a 14-18 game range. Yes projecting a team will win 85 technically allows an acceptable range of 76-94 to be considered accurate)
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
But luck is by definition random, no?
Or do you think teams/people are systematically unlucky? If not, then I’m not sure what luck matters. Random variation is not an intangible – at least it’s not a meaningful intangible, as it is random and thus by definition not driving meaningful results.
The discussion to this point has focused on intangibles like the one you listed in your original post and the systematic effect they have that can or cannot be measured.
If all you are talking about is randomness, then I’m not sure you have a very interesting point of view.
slight edit
random variation doesn’t consistently drive results in any particular direction.
Is it possible that some of what we call random variation is actually intangibles systematically pushing results in one particular direction? Sure. It’s also possible (by the fact that you can’t measure them) that true intangibles don’t actually drive results in any particular direction.
It’s kind of like a theology debate – you can’t really prove either side wrong. But both sides should at least consider the possibility that they are wrong.
theology debate
might be a perfect example of this thread I believe
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
I disagree
Close, but on a tangent about intangibles. The debate is really about the application of various scientific and other analytical methodologies in use to discern the efcts of “off the field” or “Personal” factors on the game.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 1:49 PM CDT up reply actions
There are lots of debates going on, really...
That’s a part of the problem.
I think Harry is enjoying the ability to debate everything said
since I could post the sky is blue, and he would tell me its red
:=)
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Let's not go there, but...
haven’t you ever seen a red sunset?
I don't care how long you've been around, you'll never see it all.
I would say that...
one cannot currently measure those things. In theory, with a huge data set that includes interviews with players, clubhouse attendants, etc…. that one could measure them AND their effect on the game. It’s not a bad idea for some team to do this if they think it has a huge effect on game outcomes. Their results may not be accurate or precise, but they could in theory make the measurement.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 22, 2009 1:37 PM CDT up reply actions
I thought about this further.
Let’s take my “fun” scenario again — that clubhouse fun, after Bradley was sent home, helped lead to a better attitude among the players and allowed them to perform better, resulting in last night’s 10-2 win.
Now, you can measure those performances — no one is disputing that. If you cared to, you could also go into the clubhouse and dugout and measure laughs per minute, smiles per hour, jokes per inning, whatever, and say that those factors helped the players perform better.
However, the moment you do so you are no longer measuring an intangible. You are measuring something everyone can see or hear: laughs, smiles, jokes.
If you went up to Derrek Lee and asked him what he did in the game, he would tell you he had three hits, a home run and a walk. But if you then asked him how much fun he had, he wouldn’t say, “I smiled 27 times, laughed 8 times, and told two jokes.”
No, he’d probably say “It feels looser in there, I enjoyed coming to work today, and maybe it helped me play better.” Although you could quantify the laughs, jokes, etc. you can’t quantify the amount of fun or looseness. That’s a subjective feeling.
Now, let’s look at another type of intangible. I hate to bring David Eckstein into this because I don’t really think he’s that good a player — I agree with the statistical analysis of Eckstein, although he can help a team in many ways. I’m thinking of this one.
Remember the game in which Ronny Cedeno got tagged out by Eckstein when he overran 2B on a walk? Now, you could quantify that result. Cedeno overran the base, Eckstein tagged him out, the Cubs lost a baserunner in scoring position and possibly the game as a result (they lost 2-1).
Now tell me how many infielders would have even THOUGHT of going back and tagging Eckstein? Most of them would have, after realizing it was ball four, just thrown the ball back to the pitcher. Eckstein’s instinct told him in that moment to tag the runner out. Quantify it? It’s an out. But you can’t quantify the instinct in Eckstein.
I am NOT anti-statistical analysis. I do understand and read all the stat analyses posted on this site and I welcome them. I simply wish people would acknowledge the human factor in playing baseball, as in any human endeavor, and could sit back and not assign a number to every single act in the game. For some of us, that sucks the fun out of it.
Thanks. I do appreciate learning new things from people who are clearly passionate and knowledgeable about what they do. Stick around, we DO like having all of you here.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
As I said, I'll acknowledge the POSSIBILITY of intangibles driving results...
but I simply wish you’d acknowledge the possibility that intangibles DON’T drive results. And not stoop to making fun of those who don’t agree with you.
I do acknowledge that possibility, of course.
Not EVERYTHING can be driven by something that cannot be measured.
If I have offended or made fun of anyone here, my apologies, as that is never my intention.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Yet you keep saying "we KNOW that intangibles are meaningful"
that sounds a lot like you don’t acknowledge that possibility that they are in fact not meaningful. If you want “statheads” to accept the possibility that intangibles are meaningful, then you need to accept the possibility that they are not meaningful.
There’s a difference between saying “not EVERYTHING can be driven by something that cannot be measured” and saying that intangibles may not drive results at all.
is this a joke?
once you measure it is no longer intangible? No, it wasn’t intangible to being with, or you abstracted it and started from there.
From a scientific, or any remotely academic, perspective, there are no such things as intangibles, just shit we haven’t figured out who to measure yet.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 1:26 PM CDT up reply actions
You didn't read it, did you?
You can measure the number of laughs, etc. But can you measure the amount of fun someone has? Seriously? I have a hard time with that.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Yes, you can.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/happiness_formula/4783836.stm
You can quibble about the accuracy of these measurements. But people are measuring things as “intangible” as happiness.
Don’t you think customer satisfaction surveys are nothing more than measuring the happiness of the customer?
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 22, 2009 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions
I can see you have a hard time with it
Abstract measures….Observational data collection….Psychophysiology
To measure, you must define.
Let’s define fun as an emotional state
Choices include
-behavioral indicators
-self-report
-physiology
I’m not being flip by suggesting a psych 100 course or book guys. I see it as a great opportunity to get your arms around some concepts that, by your own admission, seem to be too elusive. A good book and teacher can resolve that, and then we can argue statisictal techniques and data collection and methodologies in general, which will actually enhance our understanding, and subsequent enjoymnt, of the game.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 1:32 PM CDT up reply actions
Honestly...
… if you enjoy the game more with statistics and data collection and reams of numbers, that’s good for you.
I can enjoy it on its own level, learn a little bit more via numbers, and leave it at that.
And I still believe that there are human factors that are beyond measuring. If you, for example, meet someone that you feel that you like, enjoy that person’s company, you may ask yourself why you do, and decide that there are certain things about that person that you like — that you simply can’t put your finger on. Are you going to spend your time analyzing those factors so you can put a number on them? Or are you just going to enjoy?
The same thing can be said about signing a baseball player. You can analyze reams of numbers and decide that player would be good for your team, but then you meet him and say, “Hmm. I just don’t like this guy, and don’t think he would be good for the team.” And you don’t sign him as a result.
You, the statistics-oriented person, would say that’s a bad decision, most likely. But maybe it is the right choice for that person and that team.
It surely would have been if Jim Hendry had paid any attention to the troubles of Milton Bradley.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
But by all accounts
It was JH meeting with Milton Bradley that sealed the deal. It was my understanding that he got a good feeling from Milton and signed him thereafter.
Milton, from all accounts...
… can be charming and friendly and affable in one-on-one meetings like that.
It’s in the clubhouse that he appears to have problems.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I think this is wrong
He did not have clubhouse problems in OAK, SD, or TEX. He was traded to SD for the playoff run, signed by TEX as a FA, and then signed by CHC as a FA.
He did not have run-ins with teammates for 3 stops. He had problems with Jeff Kent and Eric Wedge, hardly condemning.
And this is not to absolve him of what we know—he is a head-case, stubborn jack-ass. Yes, we all get that.
We don't know if he had clubhouse problems elsewhere.
Despite what Josh Hamilton said about Milton, I have heard that most of his Texas teammates were not sorry to see him go.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
fair enough
I would think if he had problems they would have sufaced as we have been enlightened as to clubhouse probs this year.
We may never know.
Maybe
His former teammates are just taking the high road and not commenting publicly their opinions of him
"That ball left a vapor trail" - Pat Hughes on Derrek Lee's 27th homer of 2009
"I hate to ound like a broken record, but I guess it's better than sounding like a broken mp3 player because then you would'nt hear anything." - Len Kasper
Al, I'd submit fielding as an example.
A few years ago, the statistical community over-valued Adam Dunn because we didn’t have great fielding metrics at our disposal. But once that became measurable, we took fielding into account… and realized just how worthless Adam Dunn is as a ballplayer in the National League.
This is something that we would have considered an “intangible” a few years ago, but can consider quite measurable now.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 22, 2009 1:28 PM CDT up reply actions
Given a large enough data set you could
Al – in that instance you propose, you could probably “measure” “instinct” by taking a huge data set of plays in which Eckstein got putouts, and then compare them to other players. His “instinct” should show up as making slightly more outs than other infielders. It may be hard to tease out, there may not be enough data to actually prove a statistically significant difference, but that’s the way you’d go about “measuring” it.
by false cognate on Sep 22, 2009 1:28 PM CDT up reply actions
But then you are measuring outs, not instinct.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
semantics
See, we’re talking past each other.
I agree – I’d be measuring outs. But it would be reflection of Eckstein’s instincts.
by false cognate on Sep 22, 2009 1:32 PM CDT up reply actions
True.
But I suggest that is a result of something that cannot be measured.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
but
But we’d have a metric which would correlate to some degree with his “instinct.” No one is saying we’re measuring “instinct” directly (at least I’m not) but that instead we have an substitute way of getting a look at it.
by false cognate on Sep 22, 2009 1:35 PM CDT up reply actions
I think there should also be a distinction...
between things that are fundamentally intangible, and those things that are intangible because we do not currently know how to measure them properly. I think many here think the first category does not exist, but would acknowledge that there are many things that fall into the second category.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 22, 2009 1:31 PM CDT up reply actions
I think that's the real difference here.
I do believe the first category exists. I acknowledge the second category also likely exists.
Can we not agree that both CAN exist?
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Not as a scientist
or an analyst. You’re delving into questions of faith and believe systems, which is murky waters. Many scientists are religious, but they don’t let faith interfere with their studies. Heck, Buddhists reconcile their faith to fit scientific findings, not the other way around
So, Al, you’re tapping into a vein here that you always tell this community to avoid.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 1:34 PM CDT up reply actions
There's no doubt...
… that faith and belief in oneself helps any athlete perform. If you lose that, you are going to be an unsuccessful player or a losing team.
How do you measure that?
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Same answer as before
Again, there are fields of psychology that have these things covered. For such discussions about measuring faith, I’d suggest finding a theological oriented web site, not a base ball one. I’m just saying.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 1:41 PM CDT up reply actions
I hesitate to dive into this discussion much
because I would fear John Goodman yelling at me “Donnie, shut the f%^& up, you’re out of your element!”, but my question would be does it matter, for reasons of a baseball discussion, whether or not you can measure fun? There’s a difference between being able to measure something, and being able measure it in a practical way that is applicable to the situation at hand.
"Enough foreplay- let's get crackin'"- Fred Garvin
ding ding ding
You just echoed my general overly broad critique of social psych. In some cases, it is too abstract, not practical. So, you work harder to find better ways. See, us lab guys looking down our noses at the survey and observation guys :-)
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions
So, things like the effect of a specific player's personality on a clubhouse,
and the effect of the atmosphere of the clubhouse on the team’s performance, may in some ways, be measured. But the results you would get would be murky at best, and likely to provide any sort of conclusion.
"Enough foreplay- let's get crackin'"- Fred Garvin
How you use the results
Is a matter of the quality of them, the statistical analysis, and, when it comes to applied use, something vague known as intuition.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 2:04 PM CDT up reply actions
But in my opinion, you will rarely, if ever derive anything of value
for the topic at hand.
"Enough foreplay- let's get crackin'"- Fred Garvin
I'd say this:
there are fundamentally intangible things like the effect of the “curse” on the Cubs. One simply cannot measure it, because doing so would require the detection of a curse in the first place. That’s simply not possible, as you cannot verify the curse exists.
But all this other stuff? Grit, heart, hustle, and swagger? That stuff is all measurable. I have strong reservations about the ability to measure these things and their effects on the game with decent accuracy, but in theory they can be measured.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 22, 2009 1:39 PM CDT up reply actions
Theory can't always be put into practice, right?
How do you measure swagger, for example?
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I can't say
But, to Al’s point, I’d measure swagger in posture, facial expression, mostly observational means with well trained researchers. Then I could test the hypotheses that it effects results, although controlling for that would be a bitch and a half. One could try with appropriate funding. HEck, I’ll be shocked if someone hasn’t. One thing I miss about grad school – access to the libraries with all the journals, interlibrary loans and free reprints galore.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 1:44 PM CDT up reply actions
One could also measure it with interviews of players...
and ask them “how confident do you feel today?” or “how much swagger does player A have or team B have?”
That would be a start.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 22, 2009 1:45 PM CDT up reply actions
We're really good measures and analyzers
without directly applying scientific methods. Great tool to have.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 1:47 PM CDT up reply actions
Indeed!
People are pretty good at measuring other people, esp. when large sample sizes are taken into account. That’s why the fan scouting project gives such good fielding estimates. That provides a great “reality check” UZR and other fielding metrics.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 22, 2009 1:49 PM CDT up reply actions
"taken into account" should be "used" re: sample size.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 22, 2009 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions
Part of all of this is...
… that you are scientists. Baseball isn’t a science, or at least, not an exact one.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
my heart isn't a science either
but scientists know how it works and help keep it that way
getting old isn’t a science, gerontology is
Al, you’re mixing up the study of a topic and the topic itself.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions
Psychology is an incredibly inexact science.
That doesn’t make it invalid. It’s still highly predictive.
The same thing goes with baseball statistics. We can get caught up in worrying about what they don’t cover – which is a list that’s basically as long as you are capable of making up a bunch of hypotheticals that go into these things – or we can accept them for what they are, and realize that despite not covering everything, they cover so much of the game that we can capture and accurately predict player peformance more than any other sport.
Are those predictions perfect? Of course not. No one says they are. But they’re damn good and they’re the best we can do without walking up the slippery slope of intangible mountain.
by Wreckard on Sep 22, 2009 2:12 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I agree with this
you are stating that stats are a good foundation, and that they cannot take everything into consideration. If everything that is intangible were tangible, they would be part of the stat. This seems to be where we disagree, where does the stats end and the intangibles take over
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
well said
you touched on all bases IMO
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
There seem to be many issues here.
First, whether or not one can measure things Cubbie-Tim, Al, and others claim to be immeasurable. I would argue you can measure most of those things.
Second, there is the question whether or not those things can be measured accurately. Most of them, even if they can me measured, have large uncertainties in the measurement. I think we all agree there.
Third, the degree to which these things have an effect on the game. This is another source of disagreement. A limit can at least be placed on the things that are claimed to be “intangibles,” based on the degree to which you can predict outcomes based on “tangibles.” That limit leaves quite a bit of room. I think the problem the stats-minded community has is that we feel that far too often fans and media members assign most or all of that “uncredited result” to “clubhouse chemistry” and other psychological factors. They’re important, but they’re just a small part of the uncertainty in making predictions.
Fourth, there is a disconnect between not being able to determine the total value of a player and the causes to that player’s value. The example above of Soto’s training is a great example of that. We can certainly quantify the effect Soto’s underperformance this season has had on the team. What we do not currently have the ability to do (but theoretically could with more info/data) is how much of that had to do with his laziness in the offseason.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 22, 2009 1:24 PM CDT reply actions
I would say you touch well on these points and made a good summary here
I would like to include that the stat community do take stats over the edge at times, kinda the same way they believe others over credit team chemistry. Its a difference in opinion, and neither is truly wrong. Most likely somewhere in the middle lies the proper balance.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
an example of balance?
come again??/
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
"the stat community do take stats over the edge at times"
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions
well, for one
VEP and his man crush for projections, which he has stated are more accurate than reality.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
I am not digging for it
but he did state it here, while debating with me about reality vs. projections. you are welcome to search it out if you wish to
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
OK, let's use Soto as an example.
Lazy in the offseason? Seems likely, due to his weight gain and out-of-shapeness. But are there other factors? Did his poor start take away some of the confidence in his own abilities he had last year? And what measures would you put to those, if any?
In general, I agree with you. As Cubbie-Tim says below, we need to find the proper balance between the two “sides” (and there shouldn’t be “sides” here, really) in order to get the full picture.
I hope you’d agree with that.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I used to teach on false dichotomies
You would’ve loved it, Al. You may not realize it, but you have an interest in science, psychology and the philosophy of science. Frankly, you should read some stuff and see if you also have the aptitude for it, you may enjoy it if you do. But not everyone gets into it.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 1:46 PM CDT up reply actions
This is why I said "sides".
I suppose I do have an interest in those things. But I really don’t have time for it, and I’d rather enjoy baseball on its own merits rather than analyze or overanalyze it.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Then stop insulting those who do
You say you don’t, or don’t mean to, but you repeatedly do so. Think about it, look in Demp’s mirror when Mit’s done with it.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 2:07 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm really not trying to do so.
Apologies if I have. I simply ask that those who watch their baseball with more of a statistical slant, simply acknowledge that there are different ways of analyzing the game we all love.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Please show me someone here who hasn't it
Al, your apologies appear to be shallow and self aggrandizing. Like you’re trying to show someone the light.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 2:10 PM CDT up reply actions 5 recs
Not spot on.
You think I sit here intending to insult people, then apologize for selfish reasons?
Wrong.
I apologize to all who I may have offended here. Period. No agendas. Let’s all move on.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Good
I know you’re busy with your job and this site, but, I really suggest you grab a book on some of this stuff over the winter. I think you have something to say on the topic, but you’re unable to engage in the discourse effectively since you’re, as you put it"not a scientist". I would say it is not neceasary to be a scientist to understand science and statistics. It helps when buying a house, choosing a doctor, training your dog, whatever.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 2:21 PM CDT up reply actions
It's really not.
I do appreciate well-written, cogent posts about statistics, since it’s not an area I’m well versed in.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
perhaps you need a little more humility about how much you know
and don’t know, based on your intangibles. and perhaps if you don’t want to be mistaken for insulting stat-fans, you shouldn’t insult them.
Because he’s a Triple-A catcher!!!
I don’t care what a guy hits at Iowa. Is Soto ready to be the starting catcher for a playoff contender, with as little ML experience as he has?
I say no. There is more to being a winning ML catcher than a few stats on a Triple-A spreadsheet.
“That’s my opinion and if you don’t like it, well, I have others.” ~ Groucho Marx
by Al on Jul 24, 2007 8:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This isn’t a spreadsheet we are rooting for.
It is a baseball team, filled with human beings who, believe it or not, don’t always perform the way “probabilities” say they should. Neither do the other baseball teams against whom they compete.
Keep your nose in your stat sheets if you like. Doesn’t sound like much fun to me.
You really don’t get it, do you?
This is exactly what I expected from you statheads, defensiveness.
First of all, if you can’t take a little gentle poking-fun, you’re even more locked into your statheadedness than I thought. Lighten up.
You’ll never win an argument with those guys, because…
… all they’ll ever do is quote stats, rather than look at real-life situations.
you make a lot of “you statheads” “you stat people” comments, almost all of them derogatory.
I have to say, Harry is one of the smartest baseball guys I know. He has a lot to offer. and he doesn’t post here much at all.
that’s BCB’s loss, not his. i’ll leave you all to think about why that is.
the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus
by tom s. on Sep 22, 2009 4:48 PM CDT up reply actions 7 recs
You're such a stathead.
You don’t understand intangibles, obviously.
You need to not be steadfast that things like swagger and chemistry matter then...
and on the other side, the statheads need to accept the possibility that they do matter.
who are these statheads of which you speak?
Seriously. Who? I think chemistry matters, swagger matters, but I can’t measure it from section 433 very well, so I stick with the rich data sets I have on other more directly observable things, knowing damn well I don’t have it all.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 1:48 PM CDT up reply actions
Well, I consider myself to be a stathead...
and I’m not sure if chemistry is a cause or result of winning. I’m not even sure what swagger is, to be completely honest. I’m open to the possibility, but I’m sure there are some who fall further to the extreme than me.
We can try and define it
but, again, I’m really interested in pitching physics and how to exploit the tools we have to make the game more enjoyable and enhance scouting and game time decisions. If I were interested in social or org psych, I’d be less philosphical in this thread and far more concrete. It just isn’t may space of expertise. But I know it can be done.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions
And I'm willing to accept the possibility that there MIGHT be something that can't be done...
Maybe that makes me a bad scientist. I don’t care all that much – I’m a good enough scientist to earn my living.
By the opposite end of the spectrum, I’m not willing to accept a certainty that intangibles matter in any systematic way.
science can prove the impossible
like the magic bullet :-)
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
actually
science is all about disproving, rejecting the null hypotheses.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions
swagger and chemistry
swagger is the result of winning and/or playing at a high performance.
The 7th DB on the Detroit Lions does not walk around with any swagger nor contribute anything chemistry-wise to the locker room
A Ram has a swagger about him because he is one of hte top players in the game at his position—regardless of the Cubs record. Bobby Scales has no swagger as he is not very good and plays for a mediocre team.
testable hypotheses
I like it, even if I don’t agree on face
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 2:16 PM CDT up reply actions
I differ on that
the Jets 3rd string QB was made capt bcuz of the intangibles he was able to give them this week, which helped them beat the Pats. He was able to communicate with the team about the Pats typical game plan, and the result was a win.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
see the two comments above
That wasn’t the point of the comment
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 2:18 PM CDT up reply actions
so a back up cannot be a contributor
The 7th DB on the Detroit Lions does not walk around with any swagger nor contribute anything chemistry-wise to the locker room
well I was pointing out where someone who is not going to play a single part of the game, can contribute and change the locker room. I cited a perfect example
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
of course you would
I was offering some distinctions on swagger
You are quite the contrarian, Tim.
I was touching on your
example of a back up contributing or not. They can change the outcome without being in the game, and that cannot be measured.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
no Tim
the 7th DB on an 0-16 team cannot do anything to help that team and would not have any SWAGGER.
Conceptual—quit trying to prove you are RIGHT on every post. Jezz.
How about, “sorry, I took your post as fact….” instead of diving back in to the measurement of a so-called intangible?
I am not saying I am right or you are wrong
just that there have been examples of that back up on a team, who has nothing to do with the actual in game play (taking snaps, etc) can and has made a difference in the outcome.
so that example of yours was not a good one, since there was a real life example of the opposite happening
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
are nuckin' futs?
how is my example not a good one? Please enlighten me. I used an example of a guy on an 0-16 team not contributing anything (remember they are 0-16) and the 7th DB never plays and said that dude would not have swagger. No Tim, he’s not going to be strutting around in pre-game warm-ups like Deion Sanders thinking he is the shit. Sorry.
I used it as a possible distinction, not saying there were not other examples. Do you not understand the difference between stating something as fact and supposition? Shit, you are frustrating today.
You just want to be a contrarian and argue with everyone. Lighten up.
you see players in losing efforts for losing teams
showboat, and jump around like they wont the championship all the time.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
that's not swagger
that’s showboating, as you eluded to.
That's actually a good article.
And after analyzing the numbers and deciding that maybe the lack of jerkiness on a team might be worth 1 or 2 wins a year, he says:
The true value of chemistry is probably so difficult to determine, that it cannot be ascertained directly.
Exactly.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
However, when you say that you would rather have Wells over Bradley
Despite likely being about 2 wins worse over a full season, statistically, YOU are ascertaining that Bradley’s chemistry problems cost the team 2 wins at the minimum. Where are you possibly getting that number from?
by vivaelpujols on Sep 22, 2009 3:24 PM CDT up reply actions
No, I'm not ascertaining that.
I’m making a guess that the team can win more games with Wells. How many more? I have no idea. You say a certain statistic tells us that Wells is worth 2 wins less than Bradley.
We cannot know that until they play the games, just as we will never know whether Adam Dunn might have helped the Cubs win more games than Bradley did. The stats say no — but what would the reality say?
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
+1
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Okay then answer my question
Would you take Wells over Bradley?
by vivaelpujols on Sep 22, 2009 6:20 PM CDT up reply actions
A couple of days ago...
… I was in favor of that. Now I’m not so sure. The contract is pretty onerous.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Also, what the hell does reality have to do with what we are talking about?
You are saying you would take Wells over Bradley GOING FORWARD. That is ENTIRELY based off projections, whether it is yours our a statistical one.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 22, 2009 6:26 PM CDT up reply actions
That is absolutely correct.
I’ve never been the one to say projections are not useful. Clearly, they are.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
But if you are projecting a players value
Than you are considering both stats and intangibles. And if you are considering intangibles, then you ARE putting a number on them, whether it’s concrete or not. That contradicts your statement that you can’t quantify intangibles. You ARE quantifying them by considering them.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 22, 2009 6:40 PM CDT up reply actions
making it tangible
intangible, you cannot quantify.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
read the OP
it is defined there twice
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Yes, but you just said when intangibles are considered, they become tangible
So if you look at intangibles when valuing players, they are no longer intangibles.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 22, 2009 8:51 PM CDT up reply actions
when you try to place a measurement
like stats then they woud be, and they cannot be used that way.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Tim, you are missing the point
You say that you consider tangibles when valuing players. You think that stats are just one tool, and the human element needs to be considered as well.
That means that, whether consciously or not, you are placing a number on the human element.
When you say that you would rather have this player over that, because while his stats may be inferior, his intangibles are better; that means that you are giving a certain ammount of weight to intangibles and one that is in a numerical form because you are complementing it with stats.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 22, 2009 10:05 PM CDT up reply actions
you missed my entire point, and I will address that at the bottom of the thread
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Exactly, so whenever you consider something "intangible" towards a decision making process
You are making it very tangible, which means you are putting a value on it.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 22, 2009 6:48 PM CDT up reply actions
and that value is not accurate
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Cubbie-Tim, you might want to think about more concrete objections
that support your argument, because you’re really digging yourself into a hole. Not to brown-nose too much, but the people you’re arguing against know a lot about baseball. A lot. Especially Harry and VEP. Not saying that you shouldn’t argue against their opinions, if anything you should argue.
The majority of your arguments seem to revolve on the notion that intangibles exist but, since they’re indeed intangible, they can’t be quantified or recorded or seen. So anyone who tries to quantify something so unquantifiable is wrong.
You might want to better refine your opinions, and really look at the some of the websites they’re giving you.
Exactly, but when Al says that he considers intangibles when valuing a player
He is doing exactly what you say is not accurate.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 22, 2009 8:50 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm still wating for examples
of:
statheads who reject stuff they we don’t or can’t yet measure very well, cuz I’d love to have a thread like this with them
and
a specific article reflecting this.
I want names and links, not “some people” or “statheads are known to exist that” cuz that’s useelss
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 1:51 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
A funny take on intangibles by Bill James
I’m staying out of this rancorous debate, but I just wanted to share something funny Bill James wrote about Doug Flynn, an absolutely dreadful middle infielder who played in the seventies and eighties. To paraphrase, Mr. James mentioned that baseball people talked about Doug Flynn as being an example of someone who brings a lot of intangibles to the game. His reply was that the reason those things were intangible was because they didn’t exist. Take a look at Flynn’s stats and you’ll see why.
by Mike Vails Evil Twin on Sep 22, 2009 1:54 PM CDT reply actions
yep, that guy
with an 11 year OPS of .560 sure brought his intangibles to the park everyday. Hopefullyhe had a hot wife inthe stands to boost team morale and excitement.
Not to mention his lifetime OBP of .266
And it’s absolutely amazing that he was hit by a pitch just once in 4,085 plate appearances.
by Mike Vails Evil Twin on Sep 22, 2009 2:07 PM CDT up reply actions
he did have nice hair
is that an intangible?
There are two kinds of intangibles
External and internal.
Internal intangibles are what affect a single player alone. For example, you may think that David Eckstein hustles and works hard or whatever, and it allows him to play better than his physical ability. Nobody is arguing that; however, all of that stuff shows up in his stat line, so it is essentially worthless in terms of his value.
External intangibles are the ones that you say “don’t show up in the box score”. Maybe the fact that Eckstein works hard and hustles inspires his teammates to play better. Once again, that does show up in the boxscore because his teammates stats will be better if he is truly helping them.
The only reason that we should consider intangibles is if something about the players environment changes drastically. Say you have a team of players (let’s call them the Cubs) and they played very well one year. The next year they acquired a very good player who was generally considered a jerk (let’s call him Bradley). You would think that he might negatively affect their performance, and you would probably be right. However, do you have any idea how much? Do you think it comes out to the order of 1 win, 2 wins… how about 15 wins as some of you are claiming this year. There is also a very good chance the effect is negligible.
The only way you can figure out how much of an effect one player has on others (chemistry) would be to do some sort of empirical testing. As Wreckard said, a regression model could be developed to figure out how much a certain player affects his teammates. However, that would be very hard to do and it would have huge error bars. Barring that, there is NO way that you can tell how much a player affects the rest of his teammates in terms of runs and wins. You could guess, as guys like Cubbie-Tim and Al are doing, but given that most people disagree that intangibles have as much of an effect as they think it does, it’s like that they (Cubbie Tim and Al) are overrestimating it.
I know my position already. I think that at a maximum, a single player could cost his team maybe 1 win over the course of the year based on how he interracts with other players. However, one opinion is worthless.
So Cubbie-Tim, if you’re reading this, could you add a poll to this fanpost? The question would be, what do you think the spread in external intangibles are for the entirety of major league players? In other words, how much do you think the guys with the most intangibles and the guys with the least add to their team.
what's your response on projections?
Tim is attributing a certain view point to you on that topic, is he accurate in this attribution?
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 2:08 PM CDT up reply actions
umm I said a comment from him about it
which I would accept as his view point, based on his direct comment.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Perhaps you could let him respond directly...
Rather than simply taking second-hand information?
thanks for the ealier article link about chemistry
it was a good read
VEP email me please
timothy(dot)coyle76(at)gmail(dot)com
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Me stance on projections is that they are more accurate in determining a teams true talent level than their play thus far in the season
For example, if the Cubs had one 90 games one year, with a projection of 70 games, I would not say that they are a good team; only that they have played well. It’s been shown (by me and Sky Andrecheck) that projections, even preseason ones, carry more weight in terms of determining a teams true talent level than their record, even over a full season.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 22, 2009 2:40 PM CDT up reply actions
Ah, now that makes a tremendous amount of sense.
I can see how someone who doesn’t understand stats would also misunderstand that. That’s a very different statement that Tim’s version of it.
question
if you do not project the statistics for a team, how could one ever say the season was a disappointment?
I don’t think anyone here would disagree that Sori, Fonty, and Soto were disappointments this year. But how could they disappoint if we didn’t project what we expected from them.
Doesn’t Al do detailed pre-season player projections and post them before the start of the season? It’s a pretty silly exercise then if we don’t use stats to see how our team could possibly fare during the season.
It as another bad discussion because statistics were invloved.
actually he said
reality lies, projections are correct when we discussed his stance of projections being right and reality being wrong
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
No. You are continuing to show you're incapable of understanding these arguments but I'll try anyway
“True talent level” has a very specific meaning in statistics. The fact is that a season of games isn’t a sufficient sample size for variance to effectively disappear.
In other words, if you played the season over again, with all the same teams and all the same rosters, the Cubs would be more likely to perform at their projected level than their actual 2009 level.
This is a statistically provable hypothesis. I have no doubt that VEB has done his homework and is correct on this subject.
It doesn’t make reality “wrong” as you’re histrionically claiming here. Reality is what happened.
But reality doesn’t make the projections wrong either, because that’s not what projections represent. They’re projections, not oracles.
by Wreckard on Sep 22, 2009 3:16 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I am stating what he has said in a prior converation (the numbers dont lie, we are a 500 team was the thread)
which I believe I said more than once. he stated it before, and rephrases it in this thread below.
Reality is sample performance Which does lie in terms of determining a team or players true ability.
he says that the projected numbers are correct, i say reality is correct. I do not agree with VEP.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
You are setting up a false dichotomy
he says that the projected numbers are correct, i say reality is correct. I do not agree with VEP.
These things are not mutually exclusive. Both can be correct.
What Tim is trying to say, I think
is the projections don’t change the fact the team was .500, or wtvr,and that’s all that matters in the end. VEP is talking about predictiveness of the team’s record vs the pre-season performance. They’re not asking the same question.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 4:00 PM CDT up reply actions
Right
It’s kind of a classic example, to me, of how people misunderstand the role of statistical projections in general, and the issue of sample size in particular.
or when VEP says
that the reality of what a team does is not correct, and that the projection is more accurate. I would say the opposite. Difference of opinion, so be it.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
So reality is correct
But it’s not very useful in determining how good a team actually is.
Do you honestly think I advocate that the World Series winner should be the team with the best projection? You really need some reading comprehension lessons.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 22, 2009 6:24 PM CDT up reply actions
you're confounding talent level and performance
So you neither agree nor disagree with VEP, you’re talking about two things
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 3:59 PM CDT up reply actions
Reality is sample performance
Which does lie in terms of determining a team or players true ability.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 22, 2009 3:21 PM CDT up reply actions
Go away for a little while and look what happens.
I’ll state I fall in the middle and see both sides to an extent.
Wreckards “all of these nebulous, unquantifiable causes really don’t matter because they get rolled up into the effect” makes tremendous sense.
Harry Pavdilis’ foray into sociological measurements make great sense as well and I understand, but don’t such measurements take time to develop.
Given the ration of Stat versus Intangible posts and comments on this site is directly proportionate to the team falling short of expecations, I’m not surprised to see this barn burning.
The intangible most interesting to me is one that can be measured and studied, but after the impact and when the result cannot be altered. The General Managers evaluating a ball player (Free Agent, Trade, Call Up) and how that players work ethic, personality, playing style, second effort, etc. will impact the club house and performance of the players already with the team for the prospective season. Some guys are tools always, others make friends and “mature” in different surroundings.
Foresight raised concern given MB’s history, but only only hindsight and the measured results document how much it sucked.
if this was still new to me, i wouldn't understand
Can't we all just get along?
:)
"Dad gum right this games gonna be played under protest. . . I guarantee this is gonna be one protest that's upheld." --Hawk Harrelson, 6/24/07
Two points
Great work, especially by shawndgoldman and harry to clarify the philosophy of science: we in fact try to measure many things today that previously would have been considered unmeasurable.
Also, some of the emotion in the discussion seems to center around whether the use of stats adds to or detracts from the enjoyment of the game (and, I suppose, this blog). Were I a GM, I would indeed try to measure things like “are the players having fun in the clubhouse” perhaps simply by checking in with a couple guys now and then or chatting with the clubhouse staff. It wouldn’t pay to invest in expensive psychosocial surveys. If I accumulated a lot of observation over the years, and came to the conclusion that a fun clubhouse doesn’t matter to winning, then I wouldn’t bother measuring it anymore. As a fan, I like to think the players enjoy themselves, and that if it were me, I would prefer to be happy, and would likely be more productive. It isn’t worth it to me to measure whether this is true, because I just want to watch the ballgame and take pleasure when the guys smile at their success. Just because someone says they think something could be measured, or that the Cubs management should take a statistical approach to something doesn’t mean that they expect all fans should only pay attention to stats.
Fontenot (fon-te-no): Cajun for "scrappy"
by cubzfan on Sep 22, 2009 4:24 PM CDT reply actions 2 recs
Well said & rec'd.
I assume that, taking your thought to another direction, that if you DID discover that having a fun clubhouse matters to winning, that you would go out of your way to acquire players who would help that atmosphere.
Of course, you would also like them to be good players. There are players who can do both.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Based on what we do know about the contriibutions of various factors
The “good guy” factor would be a tie-breaker and would not trump performance projections based on the best estimates of true talent available. And factoring that in something to approach with caution. But it is a good idea to formalize it, since I think people do it anyway, even if it isn’t part of the plan.
The good guy is often tagged as such for the wrong reasons, it’s human nature to, when all else is equal, to choose someone most like you. I would hope executives making decisions with such factors would first have a solid diversity training course first and employ some HR consultants to help objectively measure it. Whatever “it” may be.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 5:27 PM CDT up reply actions
True enough on making it a "tiebreaker".
I’d agree with that, all other things being equal (or roughly so).
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
But you don't agree with that
You said that you would take Vernon Wells over Mitlon Bradley despite much inferior performance projections, because Bradley has a negative affect on his players.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 22, 2009 6:25 PM CDT up reply actions
See above.
I may change my mind about that, due to the size of Wells’ contract.
I do believe that Wells would be a better person to have on your team than Bradley.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Wait, better person or better player?
Contract issues aside, who do you think would add more wins to his team?
by vivaelpujols on Sep 22, 2009 6:41 PM CDT up reply actions
im guessing he meant person
The official slogan of your 2009 Chicago Cubs:
Why?
by jesus christos on Sep 22, 2009 6:45 PM CDT up reply actions
Indeed
However, to go beyond my example, I’m guessing there are many more things in the clubhouse that are important besides having fun. Like:
- having a veteran player who speaks Spanish and can make sure that there is communication between coaches and younger Latin players (not a particular issue with the Cubs as both Piniella and Rothchild speak Spanish)
- a player who takes care of himself physically, to prevent recurrence of injury
- a player who will be honest with the training staff about how he feels
These are things that do show up (eventually) in the statistics, but that are not immediately visible to most fans, yet would be well-known within the MLB community. I really think that’s the type of thing most people mean by intangibles: things we could observe but don’t, given our access and time as fans. It’s just that, since we don’t observe them, it’s easy for someone to say they do exist when a player does well, and that’s no more fair than to to assume they don’t exist.
Fontenot (fon-te-no): Cajun for "scrappy"
well said
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
I'll just say this...
…if stats could measure everything that impacts the outcome of a baseball game, the sport would be damn boring to watch and would be a hell of a lot more predictable than it is.
Variables (ones that can not be measured) are real in all sports, and are in fact the reason games are decided on the field of play.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Measure or predict?
You know they’re not the same things, right?
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 22, 2009 7:16 PM CDT up reply actions
You bet I do...
…and I’ll make myself more clear; stats can not measure or predict all the variables that impact a baseball game.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
by MPH73 on Sep 22, 2009 7:54 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
The tickets would be cheaper, though.
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Sep 22, 2009 8:50 PM CDT up reply actions
The game IS decided by stats
Whoever scores the most runs wins!!! Runs and wins are stats. Intangibles, I guess, are part of how teams score runs, but they all factor into the same ending.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 22, 2009 8:53 PM CDT up reply actions
VEP, baseball is like church.
Many attend, few understand.
Or what a wise man once told me
Some people are just stupid, and they’ll probably have 7 kids who grow up to also be burdens on society. If you keep struggling against the tide of stupidity you will eventually drown in it.
Rooting for Albert Pujols must give you extreme patience. My head would have exploded a while ago.
The 2009 White Sox....like a 40 degree day.
by Ozzie Montana on Sep 22, 2009 9:49 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm not saying it isn't...
I more or less meant that’s not all there is to it. Somehow you have to earn those stats. I think we agree here in the end though, both are part of the equation to win games.
Stats and intangibles
Stats can be useful, but usually you have to look at them in more than one dimension. Even then, they are only a tool and anything that measured past results might not match future circumstances closely enough.
The insight gained from some of the intangibles should be baked in the stats, if stats are available. For other intangibles involving work ethic or personality traits, the insight would have to come from reports, conversations, observations, etc.. If somebody can’t handle the environment then they aren’t going to work-out and you wouldn’t have to consider anything else. I think it is better to work the ends against the middle by trying to have a culture that supports different personalities and habits without tolerating overbearing bad conduct.
One more question for Tim and Al
How do you know that intangibles have the effect that you think they do? Earlier in this thread Al, you said this:
Why is this? Because their chance of winning is much less than it was an inning before, even though they would have been facing a better pitcher (the closer) down only 1-0. Their own minds do this to them — they FEEL as if they can’t come back, even though the hitters might statistically have a better chance (in general) to hit the lesser pitcher.
How do you possibly know how the batters feel and how that feeling affects them? That is 100% your opinion and it is worth about as much as anyone elses (basically nothing).
Sure you “played the game” or whatever argument you want to use to support your opinion, but so have I; and I bet Wreckard, shawngoldman and Harry have also.
Why do you think that your opinion on the effect of intangibles is correct? I mean, you are basically pulling at of your ass (meaning you have never tested it); do you think that people are just going to take your word for it?
That’s the whole point. Intangibles certainly do exist, but nobody knows or even has a reasonable hypothesis as to the effect that they have. Using them as a tie-breaker is one thing; but using them to actually make decisions is ludicrous.
(By the way, if anyone has a retrosheet database, I would like to see Al’s claim that I quoted above be tested; because I have a strong suspicion that it’s bullcrap).
I don't see how you could construct a reasonable test for that.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I agree
Since I can’t quite figure out what your independent and dependent variables are, based on the narrative.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 23, 2009 8:41 AM CDT up reply actions
I think you could...
You couldn’t get into the psychology of the situation without data we don’t have on hand, but you could test the situation. Look at runs scored in the 9th innings of games where the team is down 1-0 vs. 4-0. If you want to be really specific, test the former against games where the lead had just been bumped up in the 8th (or top of the 9th) to 4-0 or worse.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 23, 2009 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions
So then I'm asking how you can consider intangibles when valuing players
If you have no idea how much of an effect they have?
by vivaelpujols on Sep 23, 2009 2:20 PM CDT up reply actions
Um...
… because they’re things you cannot specifically assign a number to?
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Exactly
But when you say that you would take Wells over Bradley, because of his intangibles (or Bradley’s lack there of), you are assigning a specific number value to those intangibles.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 23, 2009 2:49 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well, I'd disagree with that.
I might simply be saying that I feel Wells would be an improvement over Bradley, without assigning a specific number to them.
That’s doable, right?
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
VEP's point is that your still somehow quantifying these things
If you feel Wells immeasurable positive impact would be greater than his measurably worse production as a player, you are – for all intents and purposes – assigning a value to that “intangible” positive impact.
Yes, I agree I'm assigning a value to that impact.
But I am not assigning a specific number to it. There’s the difference I’ve been trying to show.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
It doesn't have to be a specific number to be a meaningful value, though
“greater than”, “less than” or “equal to” are just as meaningful as “.289”, “3-5” or “12”, if you are going to be making decisions based on the intangible.
(they are also quantitative metrics, if not actual numbers)
"Who's Bob Brenly? The guy that used to be the manager for Arizona?" ~ Alfonso Guilleard Soriano
Let's try this:
If you think Player A is worth 2 more wins than Player B based strictly on their respective on-field production, but would prefer Player B because of their intangibles, you’re placing a value on their relative intangibles. It’s at least a 2-win difference.
That’s the argument we’re making here.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 23, 2009 3:00 PM CDT up reply actions
OK, that does make some sense to me.
But I would also argue that i simply feel Player A is an improvement over Player B without assigning a specific number to that improvement.
Would you acknowledge that’s possible?
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
That still means that you think that the players intangibles make him worse than the other
You are saying that his intangibles are worth at least 2 wins.
This also brings up another point. How can you possibly be confident in your ability to assess the impact intangibles have? If I set up a poll, I bet many people would side with you (a lot) and many would side with me (a little).
by vivaelpujols on Sep 23, 2009 4:05 PM CDT up reply actions
Why get hung up on "specific number" or "feel"
It doesn’t matter if you “feel” someone is an improvement or if you use a slide rule to determine it, both are used to measure to some meaningful extent.
"Who's Bob Brenly? The guy that used to be the manager for Arizona?" ~ Alfonso Guilleard Soriano
True on measuring value....
… both of us are doing it, in different ways. People who want to use metrics assign a number to this value.
Those who don’t want to use it simply say, “We think the Cubs would be better with player A than player B”.
Both methods have… dare I say it… “value”.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
No one can know until they actually play the games.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Not true
Past statistics have been tested and shown to be solid indicators of future performance. Projections that are done by regressing stats are almost always better than those that are done using a “baseball insider’s gut”
http://vegaswatch.net/2008/09/evaluating-april-mlb-predictions-2008.html
You’ll see that PECOTA, which is the only “true” projection system, was the best by a pretty significant margin.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 23, 2009 6:32 PM CDT up reply actions
Well you still can't be certain of future events...
but you can use the past as a guide, which is what you’re suggesting. In the past, the forecasting systems are more accurate in projecting the future.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 23, 2009 6:54 PM CDT up reply actions
Right, we all know that a system regressing past stats is going to be more precise more often than a "system" that relies on Al's gut
I just figured I’d show him some hard proof.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 23, 2009 6:57 PM CDT up reply actions
And while looking at this
you have to remember that baseball is a game MUCH more complicated than a coin flip. There is randomness and variability of multiple (hundreds?) factors. This accounts for the variability of results. It isn’t that the past numbers and results are useless or wrong in their projection of the future. There is just no way to factor in all of the variability. However, just like coin flips, we know that with a large sample size, this “noise” diminishes and we are able to see the true value or skill of a player emerge.
"Manny Trillo is coming in to pinch run. You know, for a lot of teams, you would pinch run for Manny Trillo." - Harry Caray
Sure, it's possible....
and at this point we’re basically quibbling over words/terminology. I think what we would argue is that your “feeling” is essentially placing a value on it with large confidence intervals. In other words, you’re putting a value on it that you’re not certain of. Is that fair to say? If so, we agree… we’re only using different language.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 23, 2009 6:53 PM CDT up reply actions
Yes, I think that's fair to say.
So we CAN all get along!
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Good to know...
I do think that language is often at the heard of these disputes. A large, large, large part of the argument in this thread is simply over what the word “intangible” means, and how it should be applied.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 23, 2009 10:19 PM CDT up reply actions
You could see whether teams score more runs if they are just gave up 3 runs in the top of the ninth and the other team didn't bring in the closer
Vs. when they didn’t score in the other team did bring in their closer.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 23, 2009 2:23 PM CDT up reply actions
One more things about personality and predictions
I agree we can take most players’ heart, intelligence, etc. as constant. Those problems that come in, like someone going through a difficult divorce, don’t seem to happen on a predictable basis.
However, I think it does matter when translating minor league to major league performance. Minor league stats do predict major league well, on average. But the club would know which minor leaguer might be most affected by the transition to the major league lifestyle. For example, in the minors, given the smaller cities, longer travel times, shared hotel rooms, and low pay, a “party” type guy will probably not exhibit behavior detrimental to his performance (e.g., staying out all night and not sleeping). But put him in the major leagues, and he may not deal with “temptation” well. This is something else fans are not privy to, but are within management’s scope. I would still claim it’s not “unmeasurable” but since it deals with personality, it fits the definition of “intangible.” Since fan statisticians can’t observe it (at least until after the fact), we can’t use it in our projections. But we can commend a ballclub for doing things like giving a player a brief callup for his first time in the majors, then sending him back down, so he’s not thrown into it all at once. Or calling up a player when the team goes on a road trip. I’m guessing that these things help the young player to rely on the older players, and to be more thoughtful about how his off-field life will affect his play.
Fontenot (fon-te-no): Cajun for "scrappy"
This is my last post on this topic
Seeing as some of the stat lovers have gone from discussing it to, literally insulting people who do not believe in the world of stats alone.
An intangible by definition cannot be measured. Saying it makes a difference is not placing value, but accepting that things happen in the game that cannot be controlled.
I have not said that projections are meaningless or that stats are meaningless. Stop accusing me of such a mindset. I understand how projections work and how to read stats. That does not mean that they (projections) are correct or that stats alone are the only way to look at the game.
Baseball (all sports, hell in life) there are things you cannot measure that happen. Call it luck, call it intangible, and call it the “x-factor”, whatever you wish to. But to deny it, state it is not worth caring about, or that it can be measured is a false statement.
To try and convince me that projections are correct and that reality is wrong will never work. No one has ever been fired, suspended, filed bankruptcy, etc over projections.
These things happen because of the reality of life. The actual results, not what is projected. I believe projections are a great tool for a basis of expectations, but they are not a better measurement than real life. A study done by a person who believes in projections to tell me that projections outweigh reality is not convincing. Anyone who works in stats and understands how they flow understands that you can skew stats easily, and it was mentioned perfectly in the thread how that happens. The person doing the research to determine the projections decides which stats are worthy or unworthy of inclusion.
I will give a perfect example of a real life study:
The stats used to determine how many people die from second hand smoke is based on the EPA study that was deemed incorrect and invalid by the US Supreme Court. When Phillip Morris was sued by lobbyist, the second hand smoke part was not able to be proven, and dismissed by the courts based on the inability to back up the numbers with solid proof.
Why? Well, the study done includes stats from hospitals. Seems safe, right? Wrong. The way they doctors (still rings true to date) are to classify a second hand smoking death included such bullshit assumptions as “I die from cancer, My uncle smoked, and I lived with him for a few years, therefore the cancer was from second hand smoke”. No joke, this is how their stats came to be for the second hand smoke death toll. That is why the US Supreme court deemed is invalid and dismissed it.
I am not saying that those here who use stats do the same, but that it is easy to skew numbers to get the results you want. The person researching can remove one item that they feel is not important to the study (no matter how big or small a part it is). This changed the dynamics of the study and the result. Removing any part of human element directly changes the results. That is why they are projections, a foundation for expectations, and not reality, and why reality tells the true story.
There is no consistent and proper manner to measure intangibles, you can approximate, but that is not going to give you accurate data. The heart of the player cannot be measured, but it does alter the outcome. Can I say how much, no I cannot, and neither can anyone else, that is just part of the game, and part of life.
I respect everyone’s opinion, and how they feel about this conversation, but to state that anyone who does not agree with your opinion is stupid (no matter how big or small the words you use to try and impress others) is not needed and was out of line.
To tell me you were a psycho-psychologist and now work in IT means nothing, since I do not know if you truly were a psycho-psychologist before working in IT and then later talk about your teaching career. I am not saying you did or didn’t work in those fields, and truly I could care less, since that does not change the fact that you cannot measure an intangible item (by all definitions of intangibility).
Every time a person who believes in intangibles and that stats are not the only way to look at the game and its end results, they are accused of building strawmen. These same people are also the ones who say that stats are important. Why is it that those who are all about stats cannot accept and (God forbid) admit that intangibles do in fact change the game, its outcome, and cannot be measured?
Sure you can measure brain waves, but you cannot measure courage, heart, mental toughness, etc. You can try all you want, but they will never be accurate enough to properly measure for the reasons of this topic. Hell, you can put the same player in the same position 100 times, and get 100 different readings of his adrenaline, brain waves, nervous system, and each one being much different than the other, since there are intangibles involved in how he feels and reacts to the situation he is in.
Regarding pain tolerance, you can once again approximate, you cannot properly measure it. I see a doctor monthly and a massage therapist weekly due to injuries I sustained in 1995 and have had additional damage done to the same area (back and neck) in 1998 and 2006. I have been told my pain tolerance is high, and that they are amazed I was able to stand with the damage in 2006 when I started seeing this doc. The massage therapist said when I fell asleep my body was more tense still than many when they are awake. Does that mean they can measure it in a manner to be used in calculating a projection and theory for future situation in a baseball game? No. It means I can handle pain and I am not relaxing proper due to my bodies injuries and the body building walls internally to cover the damage (so to speak). So yes I have a high pain tolerance, but you cannot use the measurement of high to properly make it part of a projection of stat. The high tolerance can also lead to a bigger risk of injury, which also could not be properly gauged and used in the same manner.
I am not saying that those who live and die with stats and projections are right or wrong. I am saying that I do not agree with it. Its matter of opinion and not worth becoming defensive nor gives the right to attempt to attack ones intelligence.
I agree to disagree, I will continue to believe that intangibles are part of the game, they do matter, they do change results, and cannot be properly measured in a manner that they can be used as part of projections and stats. I respect that stats are important to the game, and that projections are a foundation for expectations. I respect that reality is what it is and that not everyone will see eye to eye.
I will ask those who want to reject reality and intangibles to ask themselves why they get defensive when someone does not agree and believe in their every word about this. Ask themselves why they resort to insulting ones intelligence to prove that they are right, which is usually a defensive stance to try and cover up any doubt they might have themselves.
Most importantly respect the opinions of those who are not stat lovers, and see that you cannot account for a slow roller hitting second base, landing in the pitchers glove after hitting the foot of the SS and being turned into a double play. That is luck, it can happen, and cannot be accounted for in your projections or stats.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
After 499 comments
you still
- construct a straw man
- defend it illogically
- throw out insults
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 23, 2009 9:38 AM CDT up reply actions
Wow that's a lot of words to say "I didn't understand anything that was said here yesterday"
by Wreckard on Sep 23, 2009 9:48 AM CDT up reply actions 8 recs
LOL
Nobody cares about your fantasy baseball team
by carmen_fanzone on Sep 23, 2009 5:31 PM CDT up reply actions
and by the way
Since you loosely accuse me of lying, from 1993-1997 I was enrolled in the graduate program at the University of Illinois at Chicago. I was a candidate (never did complete the program) in Development psych, studying information processing models, psychophysiology and gerontology. My thesis was on testing information processing models and models of aging that attributed age related loss in mental acuity (specifically slowing in response times) to a single factor that, frankly, I found insufficient and dismissive of individual differences.
To support myself financially, I was a teaching assistant, mostly psch 100 but also did 400 level class on research methodologies.
In 1997, while battling my advisor for resources, I was offered a job as a programmer, and I’ve been all IT since.
So, Tim, bite it. I will not be your strawman, nor will I allow you to question my integrity.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 23, 2009 9:50 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I was not accusing you, and if you felt I did I apologize.
I was just making a statement that all your experience does not change the facts about an intangible.
you can now fuck off. You are a pompus ass clown who believes he knows everything and cannot accept that he may be unable to convince me (or Al, or others) that your thinking is the only right one.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
and now the ad hominem attacks are full bore
but still with the value-added straw man.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 23, 2009 12:53 PM CDT up reply actions
real classy Tim
What is the point of your reply? You take the shots, receive a shot back, and now tell him to fuck off? Way to go. You must be so proud.
Way to bring Al into this. What, is daddy going to have your back? I don’t think he would agree with your tone and language in this reply to Harry. Sad for someone who has posted frequently like you on BCB without falling to gutter.
pompus ass clown
Besides being ad hominem (and spelled incorrectly), that’s probably the most incorrect thing you’ve said in this entire thread… and that’s saying something. HP isn’t just a well-respected member of the Cubs blogging community, he’s one of the foremost experts on analyzing pitch-by-pitch data in all of baseball. He apparently knows quite a bit about psychology, as well.
Well done, sir. Despite the long over/under against you doing so, you keep topping yourself.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 23, 2009 1:13 PM CDT up reply actions
Harry's inability to teach anything to you doesn't make him the ass-clown.
by Acapulco Taco Pie on Sep 23, 2009 2:08 PM CDT up reply actions
You guys are right.
While a disagreement between people with differing views is fine on this site, calling names is not. I will take care of this. I won’t tolerate this kind of profanity and namecalling.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
But it is ok if worded such as:
(just one of many examples from this thread)
Cubbie-Tim’s anti-intellectualism and Al’s more than passive support for it.
Which is nothing more than calling someone stupid and insulting them Al. The words might be different, but they mean the same thing. Call a spade a spade. How many times did they accuse me (and others as well) of being stupid, but by using different words it is fine by you? Sorry, that is horse manure (better?)!
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Anti-intellectualism is not the same as being stupid
I think the sum total of my calling people stupid, directly or otherwise is zero.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 23, 2009 3:35 PM CDT up reply actions
From wikipedia
Anti-intellectualism describes a sentiment of hostility towards, or mistrust of, intellectuals and intellectual pursuits. This may be expressed in various ways, such as attacks on the merits of science, education, art, or literature.
Anti-intellectuals often perceive themselves as champions of the ordinary people and populism against elitism, especially academic elitism.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 23, 2009 3:36 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
"In 1997, while battling my advisor for resources"
Really? Yikes, that’s tough.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 23, 2009 1:09 PM CDT up reply actions
Yes, but it wasn't that simple
I wasn’t his favorite student, and not for totally bad reasons. I was young and ambitious, and got in over my head. What I learned was to trust my instincts when the data agrees, and to work even harder.
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 23, 2009 1:14 PM CDT up reply actions
That's served you well,
even if it hasn’t served you in that field. Your hard work and ability to follow the data have both brought you to where you are today… a pompus ass clown. LOL.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 23, 2009 1:17 PM CDT up reply actions
An intangible by definition cannot be measured.
However, the problem is that you calling something an intangible doesn’t make it one. A lot of your examples are tangible, measurable things.
Baseball (all sports, hell in life) there are things you cannot measure that happen. Call it luck, call it intangible, and call it the "x-factor", whatever you wish to. But to deny it, state it is not worth caring about, or that it can be measured is a false statement.
Statisticians call it “variance” and understand it better than you do (hint: it can be quantified).
To try and convince me that projections are correct and that reality is wrong will never work.
No one said this. You just didn’t understand what was being said. Which is a common theme with you.
I will give a perfect example of a real life study:
How is that a perfect example of anything? It seems like that study was using flawed methodology. That’s not an example of an intangible influencing a number, it’s an example of a poor study on a subject.
I am not saying that those here who use stats do the same, but that it is easy to skew numbers to get the results you want.
…which is why you should always look at and understand the methodology being used before jumping to conclusions about it. I do that – do you? At least I can do that with a statistic – I can’t do it with some wishy-washy narrative of intangibles that someone uses to attribute a players success or failings.
I will ask those who want to reject reality and intangibles to ask themselves why they get defensive when someone does not agree and believe in their every word about this. Ask themselves why they resort to insulting ones intelligence to prove that they are right, which is usually a defensive stance to try and cover up any doubt they might have themselves.
Your intelligence has been insulted in this thread because you’ve earned it. Many of us have been incredibly patient with you, explaining the same concepts to you multiple times when you’ve illustrated an inability to understand them. You’ve created this false dichotomy – you’re having a debate that no one else is having. Over and over again we’ve said “intangibles exist and influence the outcome” and you’ve said “Why do you keep denying they exist!” We say, “Some of those things you’re calling intangibles really aren’t intangible – here’s how you measure them,” and you’ve said “Ha! Show me how you can measure all of these random adjectives I’ll pull out of my ass! See – you can’t measure intangibles at all!”
Now you write this huge ridiculous screed trying to get the last word in, insulting Harry – one of the best and most respected bloggers in the Cubs world – on your way out the door. Frankly you’ve shown you don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt on this.
I respect everyone’s opinion, and how they feel about this conversation
I’m sure you respect them, you just don’t understand them.
by Wreckard on Sep 23, 2009 10:06 AM CDT up reply actions 5 recs
you poor sad soul Wreckard
you too are a pompus ass clown who believes he knows everything and has no problem telling the world he is right and no one else can be. I said that intangibles, you continue to misrepresent my statements. You have flat lied in your above post, and here is the link to where VEP has said that reality lies (as I said before)
You are aware that it is possible to have an opinion that is not the same as yours. I do not agree, andI explained why. I understand what was said, I have looked at links given. You are the type of person that proves that common sense and intelligence do not go hand and hand. You are not stupid, but have no common sense, and are ignorant. You will not let the truth get in the way of a good story. Congrats.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Now you're being redundant
But I appreciate the irony
by Harry Pavlidis on Sep 23, 2009 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions
I just thought it was appropriate for things to come full circle.
When someone’s trying to take “sides” on something like this there really isn’t much else you can do.
His misconceptions about the subject are so deeply ingrained in his understanding of it that no amount of explanation will make him understand that we completely understand that intangibles and chance exist and influence outcomes, how differing from reality doesn’t make the projections wrong, or that an opinion based on clear and obvious misunderstanding of the subject is somehow just as legitimate as on based in comprehension.
by Wreckard on Sep 23, 2009 1:08 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Whoops typo
that an opinion based on clear and obvious misunderstanding of the subject isn’t as legitimate as on based in comprehension.
Not to be pompous...
but it’s pompous, not pompus.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 23, 2009 1:14 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
You still don't understand what I am trying to say
Wreckard does, Harry does… you are just missing the point.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 23, 2009 2:25 PM CDT up reply actions
You really have not learned anything from this thread have you?
by vivaelpujols on Sep 23, 2009 2:26 PM CDT up reply actions
Hell, you can put the same player in the same position 100 times, and get 100 different readings of his adrenaline, brain waves, nervous system, and each one being much different than the other, since there are intangibles involved in how he feels and reacts to the situation he is in.
I took the time to read this post today.
I’m sorry, man, but this point is so gravely wrong on so many levels that doesn’t even include neurology and neuroscience. I know this thread’s been dead, but this excerpt might be the most illogical and flat-out wrong assumption of our neural network circuitry that requires a reply.
I know you probably didn’t mean it, but this is as bad as a lie, and it’s almost libelous.
Read 500 plus posts on this and the only tangible thing
I got was a headache.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
What about INTANGBILES though?
You no doubt gained mental toughness, and upped your ability to read through pain!
:-)
Dum spiro spero…
Follow me on twitter or else: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Sep 23, 2009 1:39 PM CDT up reply actions
You getting that headache has made me a better reader
and freed the journalists in North Korea and made water boil in a pot on my stove.
Now if only I could quantify that…
Wait – I can’t? Two thumbs up for intangibles!
by stuartscottslefteye on Sep 27, 2009 10:25 AM CDT up reply actions
Current tangible stats....
Areas marked green….
Stat Geeks-8
Beyond the Numbers guy- 0
Nobody cares about your fantasy baseball team
That's because stat geeks are crafty veterans of moderation wars...
… having cut their teeth at places like Slashdot, where you have to karma-whore forever to get modpoints and then get only 5 at a time, to use only in articles you don’t post in. Although their skills in “situational moderating” are worthless here, the mental toughness and “will to mod” have served them well in steamrolling the opposition viewpoint.
by aldimond on Sep 23, 2009 6:41 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
You just made me smile.
Dum spiro spero…
Follow me on twitter or else: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Sep 23, 2009 7:13 PM CDT up reply actions
and I have no idea what you just said there
"Manny Trillo is coming in to pinch run. You know, for a lot of teams, you would pinch run for Manny Trillo." - Harry Caray
Nice
This was like seeing an FJM live concert. I laughed a lot, and also learned a lot. Thank you to all that posted in this thread.
I want
to make this thread a tee shirt and wear it every single day
so you are size XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXL ?
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Sep 24, 2009 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions
You couldn't fit this thread on a roll of toilet paper
though that would be befitting of CubbieTim’s reasoning
by stuartscottslefteye on Sep 27, 2009 10:22 AM CDT up reply actions
RATZ!!!
I’ve been gone for a few days. I wish i’d had the first comment on this.
i would have been something like this:
I knew someone was gonna put a thread like this here. you could smell it coming .
And I bet it’s gonna generate a bunch of hard-shell resistance from the bean counting number crunchers that may admit that intangibles exist, even though they explain away every example as somehow being something other than intangible. I think they could even explain away an “act of God” as something that can actually be measured somehow and deem it as not that relevant anyway.
I am on the side of believing in intangible factors, and that they have a relevance, just as numbers do. I also believe in that “gut feeling” about things, and that the gut feeling can often produce positive results, despite what the numbers would have you do in a given situation.
One thing i would add to the list of intangibles is Instinct.
If a player or manager has “good instinct” it can’t be measured but is surely a factor. Good instinct, especially in a manager, can defy the numbers and can help produce the TANGIBLE STAT.
What is it when a pitcher or catcher just KNOWS that the hitter is sitting on the curve ball, or vice versa, the hitter just knows what’s coming, despite what the book says he will probably throw? It’s gut feeling, instinct, and when it’s GOOD instinct it can produce an RBI. The RBI gets written down but the instinct that made it happen doesn’t.
The bean counters and number freaks will look at the RBI’s for that player’s season and give him a rating. What makes him a better hitter than someone else? his vision? (somewhat intangible)…bat speed? surely tangible! Instinct? could be! INTANGIBLE!!! and not considered by the bean counter…it’s not a stat.
How is it that a lifetime .200 hitter can just own a hall of fame pitcher? there’s something there that defies the numbers.
Bob Eucker (again) was always in the lineup whenever Sandy Kaufax was pitching…and had success. The bean counter looks at the numbers and has Eucker on the bench because he’s barely hitting his weight…on paper. But off paper he’s got SOMETHING that you just can’t explain. He can hit Kaufax….and gets the only 2 hits!!
So, for all you number crunchers that explain this kind of stuff as some sort of tangible ability, or cause and effect, or just consistantly guesses correctly…i respectfully disagree.
Good post, Cubbie-Tim
Baseball first, teams second, players third, agents last.
Well it's a good thing you didn't make that post then
Because if you had, you’d find that a lot of your examples have already come up and been discussed ad nauseum in this thread.
On a side note your Ueker story is the perfect example as to why a good decision maker should absolutely use stats to evaluate these things rather than our observations and perceptions of things. In 38 at bats versus Sandy Koufax, Bob Euker batted .184 with one home run and 2 RBI’s.
Ok here's a stat line
Here is a stat line of a player who is unemployed:
.276/.480/.565/1.045
Would you take him?
The sun will shine in '69
I know you're trying to make a point here but you need to be a little more clear
Can that player still play defense? Do they play a position that would be useful to us? Have they been out of baseball a long time? Are they really fucking old?
I get that you’re trying to “trick” me into saying I’d take Barry Bonds which in 2008 I might have – if we had needed a left fielder, DH or maybe even first baseman at the time. But I wouldn’t take even the greatest player in baseball history after they’ve been out of baseball for that long.
That said, if I could go back in time to 2007 and convince Jim Hendry to sign Barry Bonds to a 1 year deal with a club option for 2008 instead of giving Alfonso Soriano an 8-year deal I probably would.
Good guess
Yes that is Barry Bonds’ number in ’07.
Now the question does his off-field issues impact not only him but the rest of the team, hence the intangibles. Not many of his former teammates seem to have cared for him, but boy he could put up the numbers.
Club houses and teams are living and breathing thing that react when things happen to them. The results can be seen on the field, by wins and numbers, which is the results but measuring someone’s leadership and abilities to get max potential out of other people is hard to do.
It’s like the old saying, “I don’t know what pornography is but I know it when I see it.” Well the same could be said about intangibles, I don’t know how to measure intangibles but I know them when I see them.
The sun will shine in '69
You seem to be making the same mistake as Tim here
You’re trying to convince me that “intangibles” exist. Which I admitted. Multiple times. In this thread.
Again though, Barry Bonds’ negative affect on his teammates, if there is one, is actually a tangible thing. See my “Invisible hand of Eckstein” example here – the presence or absence of a particular teammate is a quantifiable thing.
But why get caught up in Barry Bonds’ intangible issues when there are so many extremely tangible reasons (fielding, age, years out of baseball) not to sign him?
Again, I'm making the same point here for the millionth time...
…but stats really aren’t concerned with causes. They’re a measure of effect.
But if you did test the hypothesis that Barry Bonds makes his teammates worse, and found that it was true – what difference does it make whether that’s caused by his snarky attitude or his giant ego or that he’s constantly forgetting his teammate’s birthdays?
What matters is that you have a measurable negative effect and can make the decision accordingly.
well, if I had posted it then, it would have been before the ad nauseum.
but you’re right about the Koufax/ Uecker stat. And you can spell better than me too.
I would have been better off using hitter X with a .200 avg and pitcher X with 5 no hitters.
I was trying to say that things like this happen and that the reasons don’t appear in numbers.
Who the players are aren’t really part of my point. X vs X would have been better. So, as I wipe the egg off my face I still make the same points in general. That intangibles do exist and that they are sometimes part of the actual stats.
Also, thanx for enlightening me about Uecker vs Koufax (lifetime).
Can you tell me how he fared against him during his time with the Cardinals?
I’m going to go look at that source you provided. Thanx.
Baseball first, teams second, players third, agents last.
by Dave Pendleton on Sep 29, 2009 3:44 PM CDT up reply actions
Not sure how much of this thread you've bothered to read.
You really ought to go through and read the things Harry Pavlidis has to say on this subject as well as Wreckard. It might actually change your perspective on how “stat-oriented” people view baseball and intangibles.
by Acapulco Taco Pie on Sep 29, 2009 9:34 PM CDT up reply actions
Not trying to be argumentive here...
but i did read a bunch of this, including Harry and Wreckard’s, stuff.
most of these points and counterpoints have been hashed out in other threads. I’ve read them all. they pretty much spell out how "stat-oriented" people view baseball and intangibles. it’s been stated and re-stated so much that it’s hard NOT to know how each side feels about it. you either believe one way or the other and neither side of the argument will budge from its position. Neither side has produced any “proof” that satisfies or sways the other. It’s like arguing religion.
I respect everybody’s opinion and their right to have it, and i try my best to be open minded. I’m not always the brightest bulb in the lamp nor am i the dimmest. I’m bright enough, however, to understand the points being made. I just disagree with some of them, that’s all. and i’m not really trying to sway anybody toward my way of thinking, although i may sound like i am. I’m just trying to express the way I see it. Some will agree and some won’t. So be it.
This is a topic that seems to have two distinct points of view, but it seems also like the unstoppable force meeting the immovable object.
Simply put (in my opinion) we should just agree to disagree on this one and give it a rest instead of trying to say the other guy’s opinion is flawed or wrong.
That’s what i’m going to do.
Baseball first, teams second, players third, agents last.
by Dave Pendleton on Sep 30, 2009 12:41 PM CDT up reply actions
Dave, I like your posts, but your one good
example with Uecker is flawed. If Ueck’s manager acted on a hunch to put him in to face Koufax, that would be intangible. If Uecker was only in because the starting catcher has caught 12 straight games, it’s random.
After Uecker had success versus Koufax, the success was tangible. The factors leading to the sucess may be intangible, but Harry’s points above are that the intangibles roll up and become part of the tangible statistics.
I agree with the idea that there are unmeasurable intangibles, especially the instinct and hunches that lead to the actions that become the tangibles.
I get what you’re trying to say, but you’ve proved the other sides point.
if this was still new to me, i wouldn't understand
And oddly enough, Uecker's managers would have been wrong.
Lifetime vs. Koufax, Uecker hit .184/.244/.316 in 38 at-bats. That’s below his lifetime numbers of .200/.293/.287, though not by much.
Uecker did hit one of his 14 career HR off Koufax.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Cubs By The Numbers
Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.
Click here to order your copy, available now!
Recent Stories in Ticket Exchanges
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
