From: thornley@cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)
Subject: Re: Value of Stats
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 13:54:04 GMT

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.
>1)  Who is more talented?  This requires statistics alone.  Attitude,
>    enthusiasm etc. won't change talent.

This question should be "Who has better individual performance?", not
"who is more talented?".  Modern statistics do a pretty good job of showing
individual performance.  They don't show talent.

Wouldn't you agree that the proper attitude can help a player be in shape,
focus on his job, and in general improve his performance?  Turn outs into
hits while batting and hits into outs on the field?  This affects the stats
every bit as much as talent.

If you want to know how a player did, check the stats.  If you want to
know attitude or talent specifically, you'll have to do more digging.

>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 has been the Twins' regular first baseman since 1982.  He has
career BA/OBP/SLG of .289/.369/.490, has played in 1431 games, and has
243 HR, 757 R, 892 RBI, 1484 H, and 659 RBI (as of the start of this
season - these totals are higher now).  In a typical season he might
have 25 HR and 90 RBI in 145 games.  Almost all of his career has been
in the Metrodome, so these figures need to be discounted slightly for
comparison purposes, but they're still pretty good.

For his defense, his DA shows that his range afield is slightly below
average.  We also know (from other sources) that he turns the 3-6-3 well,
and we can see on the field that he is truly excellent at catching throws
from other fielders.  He is therefore somewhat better defensively than
his DA indicates.  I can estimate the value of these intangibles and, at
a quick estimate, they seem to me to be worth more than the small amount
Hrbek is below average in DA (although certainly not as much as the large
amount Hrbek is below McGwire in DA), so it seems reasonable that Hrbek
is slightly better defensively than the average first baseman, but not
nearly as good as McGwire.  (As an aside, I can make an equally good
argument that Puckett is a better fielder than his DA indicates, but
there's no way I can argue that he is good defensively; his DA is just
too bad.  He's still one of the better CFs around, of course, but don't
play him for his glove.)

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.  It seems reasonable that an extensive off-season health
program like many players do would improve his performance, and probably
his durability, noticeably.  This does not change our findings about his
individual performance, but it indicates that he's more talented than we
might have thought, but is getting less out of his talent.

Hrbek has been a good first baseman over his career.  How good has he been
for the Twins?

In 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1990, the Twins were a bad team.  In 1988 and
1991, they were a good team.  In 1984, 1987, and 1989, they were an average
team.  The Twins won the World Series twice in this span, finished second
and tied for second in two other years, and otherwise finished unremarkably.

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.

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.

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?

To answer these questions, I have years of media reports, much of it by
the anti-Hrbek columnist.  I have visual observation.  I have team records.
How the heck do I come to a conclusion?

I can have an intelligent argument about Hrbek's performance.  I can quote
stats, argue the small intangibles that lurk between stats and performance.
I can intelligently discuss how much fun Hrbek is to have on one's team
(it's a lot of fun to watch him bunt - he's a good bunter, and is going
to bunt on a pitch he likes).  What I don't understand is how I am
supposed to convince myself, let alone anyone else, that Hrbek is better
or worse for the team than a generic player of his abilities.

Until somebody can show me how to analyze these intangibles, I'll go on
judging players by what they do on the field.

David Thornley
"Philopoemon was renowned as a great manager.  Whenever he was watching a
game, he would ask his friends 'If we were in this position, with 
Phillipeides on first, whether we would be likely to score runs or not,
and whether they would pitch out.'" - Niccolo Machiavelli

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball