From: thornley@cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)
Subject: Re: Value of Stats
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 06:56:45 GMT

In article <3449@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> dtate+@pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:
>In article <BrpELt.A6t@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kenf@uiuc.edu writes:
>
>>Well, I don't consider myself an "anti-stathead" but I do think that
>>there are "intangibles" that are important when evaluating players.
>
>[...]
>
>>Anticipating the obvious "Please tell us just exactly what an 
>>"intangible" is", I'll define it for the purposes of this discussion
>>as a baseball-related skill or attribute that cannot be measured with
>>performance statistics. 
>
>Fair enough.  The hangup that most of us statocephalics have that we don't
>much care for the remaining options.  If it can't be measured (quantified,
>whatever) by looking at performance statistics, then how *can* it be
>measured (quantified, whatever)?

I see two types of intangibles:  the ones we can effectively "cap", and the
others.  Missing the hit-and-run sign is certainly unfortunate, and not
possible to count with our current resources, but it doesn't affect the
game more than a few times a year.  Similarly, we can make good guesses
about the value of consistently hitting the cutoff man, and come up with
an upper limit as to its value (probably much lower than the ability to
field the ball, which we can measure).

We can't place a convenient cap on the value of hustle and leadership, but
we can make some observations.

Hustle is a very desirable quality in a ballplayer.  It can turn outs into
hits on offense, and hits into outs on defense.  This makes it statistically
indistinguishable from talent.  The fact that Dan Gladden hustles makes it
clear that he really doesn't have major-league potential, if he makes the
most of it and still is a lousy hitter and fielder.

We can define leadership as the ability to inspire the rest of the team to
play better.  This difference between hustle and leadership, from the
analytical point of view, is that a player's hustle affects his own stats
and so we can use the stats without worrying about how much is talent and
how much is drive, while the effects of leadership are to be found in
other people's stats.  If Kirk Gibson inspired Franklin Stubbs in 1988,
the credit due to Gibson is the difference between Stubbs' real stats and
his stats had Gibson stayed a Tiger, and this is a true and potentially
large intangible.

One negative example comes to mind.  In the Bill James Historical Abstract,
Hal Chase is mentioned as a pretty good ballplayer, and that the teams he
joined did much worse until they got rid of him, at which time they did
better.

The problem with trying to study leadership is that it doesn't stand still.
Gibson may well have provided leadership for the '88 Dodgers, but was he
still a major leader for the '89 Dodgers?  I can't think of any players
who have been consistent and successful leaders for enough teams to make
any deductions possible.  (One reason may be that teams tend to hang on
to their real leaders, and therefore they don't move around much.)

This also means that leadership is very unreliable, and impossible to
predict.  A good leader for one year might be useless as a leader for
the same team next year.  Therefore, if a team was considering whether it
wanted a leader or a player with better individual stats for next year, it
might well be wise to go with the better player rather than the leader,
since leadership is likely to be worthless next year, but the walks and
hits are far more likely to remain.  This is especially true when the
leadership was on some other team, IMHO.

Also, since we have defined leadership as the ability to make other players
do better than they otherwise would have, we don't know what form it will
take when we see it.  A leader may be fiery and aggressive, to inspire the
team.  He may be calm and stoic, to keep the team collected and thinking.
He may stand out and inspire with gestures and quotes.  He may quietly
talk to other players.  He may simply inspire by example; at this hour of the
morning, my memory is most unreliable, but I remember reading somebody
saying he watched Stan Musial work for hours on his swing, and felt he could
do no less (not being nearly as good a hitter).  It isn't necessary for a
leader to make people feel good about playing; some people are too relaxed
when playing for fun and will play better if they are less happy.

Therefore:

It can be very difficult to identify leaders, even with full access to the
clubhouse.  As long as we only know what the media tells us, it will be
almost impossible.  Even if they were completely honest, they simply 
couldn't print enough information for us to know.  I don't trust the
manager to know (although a good manager certainly will), and I wouldn't
trust the manager when quoted.  The job of the manager is to win games,
and if that means lying, many will (consider Tom Kelly's public opinion
of Hrbek's defense).  Therefore, any evaluation of a player involving
leadership is going to be highly subjective, and the actual leadership
is unreliable anyway.

This is why I'm not impressed with arguments that Player A is better than
Player B because of intangibles.

David Thornley
"The GM should not rely on mercenary free agents.  If you lose with them,
you have lost, and if you win with them they will despoil you with their
contract demands." - Niccolo Machiavelli

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball