From: nss3@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Noel Steere)
Subject: Re: Value of Stats
Reply-To: nss3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 02:21:54 GMT

In article <BrquMr.27J@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> djohnson@cayley.waterloo.edu (David Johnson) writes:

>I will say this once again because it seems that people don't understand.  I
>think that statistics are very important to show a players ability but baseball
>is a TEAM sport and there are 25 men on a team and a player with a good 
>attitude and a player that works hard and enjoys playing makes the game more
>fun for both himself, his team mates and the fans.  In anything that anyone
>does in life for any reason IF THEY ENJOY WHAT THEY ARE DOING THEY WILL BE 
>BETTER AT DOING THAT.  A player like Dave Winfield really like to play
>baseball and is a hard worker and thus in turn is a good influence on younger
>inexperienced players.  This makes Dave Winfield a better player than another
>player even if thay have the same numbers because the other player doesn't
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>create this good atmosphere in the clubhouse.  Not many teams win if there
>is no winning spirit and dedication to winning in the clubhouse.  Remember
>this is a team sport and the players should play as a team.

I don't think anyone here disagrees that, given the same numbers,
you'd rather have the player who gets along with everyone else in the
clubhouse.  However, one rarely has that choice.  Usually, people
claim that Player A is better to have than Player B because Player A
is a hard worker and is a good influence on the rest of the team,
while Player B is a malcontent, even though Player B gets on base more
and has a higher slugging average (i.e., has better numbers in the
areas that correlate best to scoring runs).

A perfect example of this is when I went to a Strat tournament last
weekend (watch rec.sport.baseball.fantasy for exciting details!).  I
claimed that the White Sox would stomp on everyone if they signed
Barry Bonds, and, to my surprise, was met with the response that Kirby
Puckett would be a better off-season signing.  Admittedly, one of the
reasons was that it could possibly be a marketing coup for the Sox,
since Kirby grew up on the South Side (and Dave Kircsh wouldn't have
to travel *too* far to see him in the Kirby-Kitty-Litter-Mobile [new
from Stimpy/Blammo!]), but the other reasons that were expressed had
to do with Kirby being a good influence in the clubhouse while Barry
was considered poison (if I were an opposing pitcher, I would too).
This, despite the fact that Barry is younger, faster, a better
fielder, and, by the way, gets on base more and hits for more power.
I'd be very surprised if any of the people who would sign Kirby before
Barry actually pick the former over the latter in any tournaments next
year, assuming they each keep their production at the same level
through the rest of the year.

Noel Steere                  |...of the Dave Rossing fan club
GM/Manager, New York Knights |Knights' Run Total: 419 Runs in 84 games
Internet Baseball League     |Projected Season Total: 828  Target: 1000!
nss3@midway.uchicago.edu     |HECTOR VILLANUEVA FOR PRESIDENT
                             |(Heck, the Cubs sure aren't using him!)

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball