From: thornley@cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)
Subject: Re: Value of Stats
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:51:22 GMT

In article <Bs28on.4Ar@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> djohnson@cayley.uwaterloo.ca (David Johnson) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.135404.11356@cs.umn.edu> thornley@cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley) writes:
>>In article <BrunC5.7zw@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> djohnson@cayley.waterloo.edu (David Johnson) writes:
>>>
>>>There are two question which I feel can be asked when comparing players.
>>>[first one deleted - we agree]
>>
>>>2)  Who is more better for the team?  This requires the combination of using
>>>    statistics and analysing the intangibles.
>>>
>>In the first place, a player with good individual performance is obviously
>>good for the team and a player with bad individual performance is bad.  The
>>stats are a good way of determining this.  So far I think we agree.
>>
>>Now, exactly what do you mean by "analyzing" the intangibles?  I'm going to
>>take a real case.
>>
>>[Kent Hrbek, Twins' first baseman - stats and minor adjustments deleted]
>>
>>His performance over the last decade can be summed up as good hitting,
>>fairly good defense (probably better near the beginning of his career, but
>>still perfectly acceptable), not particularly durable.
>>
>>Moving on to more intangibles, we find that he's overweight and generally
>>not in shape.  He works hard on the field, but is by all reports very
>>lazy off it.
>
>The fact that he is lazy off the field may be a bad influence on younger
>players.  If a young player sees that Hrbek can be this good, make good 
>money and do little work off the field he may think that he could too. 
>This is not always true but if that player saw that he was a hard worker
>then the younger player is more likely to work hard too.  Most young
>players tend to look up to experienced players and try and do what they
>do.  This is natural.  Young kids look up to their parents and (usually)
>try to be like them.
>
Certainly nobody is going to make laziness off the field sound like a
virtue, but how bad is it?  Particularly, how bad is it for the rest of
the team?  Does it affect, say, Knoblauch?  I suspect that most major
leaguers are self-driven and one bad example isn't going to be very harmful.
I've also been wrong before.  How can I tell?

>>Hrbek has been a good first baseman over his career.  How good has he been
>>for the Twins?
>>
>>As I have pointed out above, Hrbek plays hard and is lazy off the field.
>>He enjoys the game and tries to keep the atmosphere loose.
>>
>>In 1990, he missed a large chunk of the season after injuring himself in
>>horseplay with a clubhouse attendant.
>
>This was stupid on his part but it happens.  He shouldn't have been fooling
>around.
>
Accidents happen, whether in clubhouse horseplay, trimming hedges, or
closing cab doors.  People can look awful stupid for it.

And should he have been fooling around or not?  By all reports, he does like
to keep the clubhouse loose.  Is this good or bad?  Is it worth taking a
risk for?

>>Hrbek was considered a leader in most media reports about the team, but I
>>haven't seen this report much lately.
>>
>>One of the local columnists is strongly anti-Hrbek, and claims that he lets
>>the team down by his proneness to injury and off-season training habits.
>
>The fact that he is anti-Hrbek should be considered when looking at his 
>opinions but you should still look into why he is anti-Hrbek.  Maybe he has
>a good reason and maybe he just has personal problems with him and thus his
>opinions should be thrown out the window.  Being prone to injury happens
>to many players (Kelly Gruber quickly comes to mind) but how much can he
>help the team if he is in and out of the lineup.  Maybe if he worked harder
>off the field he would be less injury prone.
>
The columnist in question likes being anti-.  Other columnists don't write
as much about Hrbek.  I can't tell whether Reusse (a) irrationally dislikes
Hrbek, (b) knows something I don't, or (c) thinks bashing people makes good
copy.  Hrbek's injuries are usually described as those that being thinner and
in better shape wouldn't affect.  I don't know, and I really don't expect
truth out of the team when lies might win games in the long run.  If Hrbek
worked harder, he might well be less injury prone, and this would be reflected
in his stats.  Does his fragility affect the team in other ways than merely
forcing them to play Larkin or Bush?

>>I can go into more detail on all of these.
>>
>>My question:  How do I analyze this?  Hrbek obviously has some sort of
>>influence on the people he plays with.  Is this insignificant, small, or
>>large?  Is it positive or negative?  If he had been less talented and more
>>determined, would the Twins have won in 1988 and 1984, or would they have
>>been also-rans in 1987 and 1991?
>
>There are also other ways that Hrbek can help the team.  Does he teach the
>younger players the knowledge he has learned about opposing pitchers, hitters,
>defensive positioning etc.  You can determine this by looking on the bench
>during games, and watching practices.  You don't have to depend on the media
>for this.
>
There are not many seats where you can see the bench, and these seats are
either unavailable or expensive and bad.  Nor could I tell whether he was
talking about hitting or fishing.  I should probably watch practice more
when I arrive early enough, rather than sitting there mindlessly watching
what's going on.  Again, how do I tell whether Hrbek is helping?

>>Until somebody can show me how to analyze these intangibles, I'll go on
>>judging players by what they do on the field.
>
>When analyzing these intangibles I look at:
>    a) The player on the field:  Does he have fun.
Yes
>                                 Does he work hard.
Yes
>                                 Does he help other players.
Dunno.  Don't know how to tell this, really.
>                                 Does he want to learn.  Does he take extra BP
>                                                         when in a slump etc.
Hrbek's approach to hitting is basically r.s.bb correct.  He isn't presented
as too bright in the media.  Don't know about extra BP, but remember that
some slumps are caused by injuries, not all injuries are reported, and not
all injuries are helped by BP.
> 
>       These can all be seen by the fan watching the game.
>
Helping other players is iffy.  Wanting to learn is iffy.  You can see
extra BP if you arrive early enough, but I don't go to many games early
enough to watch all the Twins' BP, so it would be a small sample.

>    b)  The player in the Clubhouse:  We often need media reports or direct
>               interviews with the player.  In analyzing these reports we 
>               have to take into consideration the media's personal bias's 
>               towards a player.  If we have a lot of media reports and
>               actual players interviews I think we can get a good accurate
>               impression of the player and what he does or doesn't do in
>               the clubhouse.
>                                                   
You trust the media more than I do, then.  I don't actually have many
reports on Hrbek's clubhouse behavior other than one (probably) biased
columnist.  The player interviews I usually see are the ones after the
games in which the player recites the appropriate cliches and technical
information, and clubhouse behavior is not mentioned.  Nor would I trust it
if it was.

Besides, what clubhouse behavior is good and what is bad?  And how do I know?

Finally, I don't want to sound ungrateful for your post, but you still have
not answered my main question:  Taking all of Hrbek's intangibles together,
is he a lot worse than, slightly worse than, as good as, slightly better
than, or a lot better than, his individual stats?  If you can't answer
that, can you tell me how I could?  We tend to agree on what's good and
what isn't, but how good and how bad are these behaviors?

Until I can reliably classify players into the five categories I mentioned,
and have some faith that my classification is correct, I still don't see
how I can analyze the intangibles.  I *know* some players have had
seriously bad intangibles (Hal Chase and Dave Parker come to mind).
I strongly suspect that Puckett's intangibles are good (see Bill James '92).
I think Hrbek's on-field performance is intangibly good, his off-season
performance is intangibly poor, and I have no idea what it all adds up to.

David Thornley
"The Prince must not be distracted by the baserunner, but must get
the batter out." - Niccolo Machiavelli


Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball