From: djohnson@cayley.waterloo.edu (David Johnson)
Subject: Re: Value of Stats
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 14:31:19 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.215441.13911@cs.umn.edu> lsmith@cs.umn.edu (Lance "Not Here" Smith) writes:
>In article <5035@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
>>
>>I think where this "choosing the lesser player who has a good
>>attitude" comes into play is when the players are reasonably close.
>>For example:
>>
>>Player A:   OBA: .340    OPS:  .800   Grumpy, hard to get along with.
>>Player B:   OBA: .325    OPS:  .765   Leader-type, known to help
>>                                      loosen folks up in the clubhouse.
>
>OK, assume that you have to make a trade for one of these players. 
>(You have a solid outfield and you want to get rid of Dan Gladden.) 
>How do you know the stuff in the psych column. Where do you get your
>source of information?

If you are in a position to trade that player then you must be a GM so
you can talk to the manager and coaches about how that player acts in
the clubhouse, attitude, willingness to learn etc.

>Do you read the newspaper? I've seen enough writers with chips on their
>shoulder to know that isn't dependable. Just about every writer/columnist
>seems to have their favorite and least favorite players. Even good writers
>will often hype some player based on his intangibles. Seems that the
>Boston press tended to ride Ted Williams pretty hard considering his
>talent.

Newspapers arn't the only way to get information.  I listen to a lot of
radio and TV where you can get live interviews with players and the interviewer
has a more difficult time making players look worse or better than he is.
After hearing from players, managers and GMs you can get a better feeling
on who is a problem in the clubhouse and who isn't.  I will admit that this
still isn't as good as actually being in the Clubhouse all the time like a
manager would it is much better than relying on newspapers or totally
ignoring these intangables.

>Do you base your opinions on what you see when you face that player. Bit
>of a problem if you're in different leagues or different divisions of the
>NL. Plus players seem to improve when their on your team. The difference
>between a "complete ass" and a "competitor" is often the difference in
>uniforms.

I agree.  That player could be totally different on different teams.  The
reason for this may be that on team A he got along reasonably well with
all other players, manager, media and fans while on team B he had a problem
with another player or didn't get along with him too well and he let it
bother him and affect his play.  I do think that there are some players
who will always get along with others and never be a problem.

>
>Do you ask the other players? Two problems with this. First, players
>will lie or hedge when talking about their teammates. Second, how do
>you know that the player you're asking isn't the grumpy player that
>happens to disagree with the leader-type you're looking at? 
>
>As the aesthetics-drunk non-statheads keep pointing out, the game is not
>played by robots. Human relationships are complex things. Why Gary
>Sheffield is grumpy in Milwaukee and suddenly a likeable guy in San Diego
>is something I don't want to deal with. Maybe a player is getting a bad 
>rap because of personality conflicts. Maybe he is a leader-type, but the
>team already has some entrenched leaders.  

What happened to Sheffield was that in Milwaukee the fans got on his case
for whatever reason and he let it bother him and it affected his play.  Now
that he is in San Diego he doesn't have a problem with the fans so now
he is showing everyone that he is a good Major League player.  If he has
a poor season next year and the fans get on his case he will probably play
poor again because it will bother him and affect his play.  The same thing
happened to Devon White in going from California to Toronto.

>Unless you have much better insight into human relations than I do, I say
>take the player that can produce more on the field and let the manager
>worry about what happens in the clubhouse. (Unless you have Chuck Tanner
>as your manager that is.) A players rep is no guarantee of how a player
>will interact with your team.

How can the manager control personality conflicts between two players or
control the fans who are booing a player.  He can't.  The better team players
will not let these problems affect their play.

>>Now, if A's OBA was .380 and his OPS .950, well, that's a different
>>story.  I'd put up with grumpyness for that much difference.
>
>Plus a winning team often makes the grumpiest of players agreeable.

Yes this is because that player really wants to win and when he or the
does bad he gets grumpy.  Some players can deal with losing better than
others.  This is going to happen.  We can't do anything about it, there
are too many players with too many different personalities but the good
GMs get the talented players with a good set of intangables as well.

I will give you an example.  George Bell and Junoir Felix.  My impression
and the media's as well was that they didn't like each other.  This is
fine but they let it disrupt their play and the teams play.  I think that
this is why neither Felix or Bell are now in Toronto and guys like Carter
and Alomar are.  I believe Carter and Alomar can get along with almost
anyone.

>-- 
>   Lance "Zeppelin" Smith      | "O hateful error, melancholy's stat!
>    (lsmith@cs.umn.edu)        |  Why dost thou show, to the idle thoughts of
> Prove it! Show us your work!  |  Mediots, the things that are not!
>    Huh? What's your point?    |                 _Jose Caesar_, V. iii. 67           
--David Johnson
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball