From: djohnson@cayley.uwaterloo.ca (David Johnson)
Subject: Re: Value of Stats
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:29:11 GMT

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.
>>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.

Correct.  I corrected this statement in another post.

>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.

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.

>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.

This was stupid on his part but it happens.  He shouldn't have been fooling
around.

>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.

>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.

>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.

When analyzing these intangibles I look at:
    a) The player on the field:  Does he have fun.
                                 Does he work hard.
                                 Does he help other players.
                                 Does he want to learn.  Does he take extra BP
                                                         when in a slump etc.
 
       These can all be seen by the fan watching the game.

    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.
                                                   
>
>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

--David Johnson
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball