From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Value of Stats
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 05:06:46 GMT

In article <Bs4EJ2.7Kw@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> 
djohnson@cayley.waterloo.edu (David Johnson) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.135122.13351@cs.umn.edu> 
thornley@cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley) writes:

>>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?

>You can't say exactly how bad it is.  You can't put any numbers on it.  We
>both agree it is not a good virtue though.  Is it a bad virtue?  

Here in the lower 48, "bad virtues" are called "vices," for what it's
worth.

>It might not be.  That depends on how it affects the other players.  

Indeed.  It might IMPROVE their attitude, even.  Or it might hurt it.
Conclusion: we have no way of knowing.

>As for does it
>affect Knoblauch that is tough to say from a non Minnesota fan.  Does

Why would a Minnesota fan be able to tell?  How would a Minnesota fan
even become privy to information about his training habits, let alone
their effect on his perfromance?  How do they know that performance
changes are due to that and not to something else?  

>Knoblauch have much the same work habits as he had in the minors?  

I submit that not even his manager knows that, because he wasn't there
in the minors to watch him.  How the hell would a fan know this?

>Has he put on weight?  

a) How would a fan know that?  

b) Is it good or bad for him? Some players play better after they bulk
up a bit.

c) Even if they do, DID THAT CAUSE THE CHANGE?  Fantasies about causes
and effects are pretty useless in the long run.  You simply have no idea
what it means if he did or didn't gain weight.

>Is he in poorer shape now than he was before joining
>Minnesota?  A Minnesota fan may be able to answer this better than I.  The

Name one Minnesota fan who has *any* information about Knoblauch's
conditioning and training habits off the field.  Come off it!

>fact that he has this virtue has to be a negative on his evaluation.  We

Why?  You don't know WHY he's training more or less, even if you know
THAT he's training differently, which you don't.  If it's because of a
transient injury -- something else you don't know about -- then that
shouldn't affect a long-term outlook.

>both agree it is there so then why shall we ignore it.

Because you have no way of determining what it means.  None at all,  You
don't know the cause, and you don't know the probable effect.

>>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?

>Keeping the clubhouse loose is good.  

Except in 1990, when it was bad.  See under "Kelly, Tom."  

WINNING is good.  LOSING is bad.  People will find excuses for both, and
they often turn out to be the same things.  Tells you a lot about the
excuses.

>If he is constantly putting his
>physical ability to play baseball at risk this is not good because if he
>can't play he is not much good to the team.  

What if he gets antsy when he's not horsing around, or doing risky
things?  What if the nervousness caused by putting him on a short leash
destroys his attitude on the field?  Again, you have no clue as to the
effect of a given behavior or attitude, compared to that of other
attitudes or behaviors.

>I can't recall the incident you
>referred to but if it was a fluke accident then you have to accept that as
>an accident but if he put himself in unneccessary danger then this should be
>considered when evaluating him.

How?  Might one assume that he's learned?  Or that he's not learned?  Or
might one be better off not trying so hard to make a fool of oneself by
playing guessing games?

>>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?

>From what you say, I see this Reusse as a writer not to trust.  

In other words, you haven't actually read what he writes, but somebody
you've never met assures you that he's unreliable, and that's good
enough for you.  

You aren't pre-law, by any chance?

>If all other
>media people don't write or say much about Hrbek I come to the assumption that
>he neither does anything exceptionally bad or exceptionally good in the
>clubhouse.  

So the truth is a matter of majority vote -- or, in this case, majority
silence.  Maybe they just don't care to write much about him.  Maybe
he's a lousy influence to his teammates, but great buddies with most of
the press.  Could that be?  How would you know?  

>Of course you can't be sure about this, but since there is only 
>one writer who is anti-Hrbek I tend to think that he is an ok guy in the
>clubhouse.  

On absolutely no evidence.  Why not say what's obvious: that you don't
know what he's like in the clubhouse, and that you have no way of
knowing?

>>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?

>Well, when he is helping a fellow hitter, he will often be at the batting
>cage talking to the player at bat, or showing him what he sees wrong or
>what has changed in that players swing.  

Does he help or hurt when he does that?  How can you tell?  Do players
do better after talking with him?

>I have seen Winfield do this
>with Derek Bell after one of Bell's few plate appearances.  I know that

Did it help?  

>this is more what the hitting coach does but a hitting coach also has
>24 other players to work with and may not have the time to spend with
>a batter when he really needs it and an experienced veteren quality hitter 
>can do this.  Rance Mulliniks is another example.

Of what?  WHom has he helped? How do you know?  

>>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.

>True but if you can find out if he takes extra BP it shows he is willing to
>put extra work in to get out of slumps.  

Only if the work he does in extra BP actually helps him.  Otherwise it
just tires him out.  Again, how do you know?  Does extra BP actually
bring players out of slumps any faster?  

>This is good in evaluating younger
>players.  If two players have the same stats and one starts to do extra BP
>then I will take that player for my team because it shows he wants to improve.

What if the other one found out that estra BP just didn't help him?  

>>>       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.

>Listen to the radio broadcasts and they sometimes say when a player is taking
>extra BP or not.  

And sometimes they don't.  And never do they tell you if it's helping.

And when it DOESN'T help, they stop telling you.  And when the slump
ends, they sometimes tell you the guy DID take extra BP -- and he
didn't.  

How can you tell?

>If you see it a couple of times it shows that he is putting
>the effort to improving his hitting.  If you never see it then you can't say
>he doesn't because you havn't seen all of the practices but you can't give
>him a bonus or positive point when evaluating him.

BUT YOU NEVER SEE IT!  Sometimes you hear it on the radio; sometimes you
don't.  Some guys knock themselves out taking worthless BP; which ones
are they?  How do you know?

>>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?

>Rating the clubhouse behavior is the hardest to do.  I will admit this.  If 

Admit that it'sd IMPOSSIBLE to do, because you don't know a single thing
first-hand about what goes on in there, and we'll be getting somewhere.

>there is only one bad report against Hrbek from a 
>writer who is anti-everything
>then I suspect he is not a problem.  

So, if another writer writes similar stuff, with the same amount of
information, this changes things?

>If he only gets rave reviews from players,
>manager and media then he must be doing something good.  

Buying rounds, perhaps?  That's worked since time immemorial.  Does it
improve on-field play?  YOU don't know.

>What is bad clubhouse behavior is causing problems with other players.  

How do you know when it happens?  How do you know which of two players
started a fight or a disagreement? Often the players themselves and
those around them don't know either.  

>One way to tell how well he
>gets along with other players is look at him on the bench during games and
>practices.  

What does that tell you?

>Does he associate with all players or does he often avoid sitting
>beside and talking to certain players?  

Me, I watch the game.  Do you really keep score on these things?

Most players sit with the same few buddies almost all the time -- if you
DID watch the dugout, you'd know this.  

Some players don't talk much -- because they like to concentrate.  Keeps
them sharp.  Others like to talk -- keeps them loose.  SHOULD such
players sit together?  How can you tell which ones are which?

>These types of problems may or may
>not affect his play or other players play but if the problems occur we must

Which problems?                  

>give him a negative rating in this category just because it may cause some
>players have their play affected.

For better or for worse?  How can you tell?  

>>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?

>How good and how bad depends on how the team reacts.  

How would you know?  How would Tom Kelly know what portion of a change
in team performance was due to what Hrbek did?  

>Some players will
>let problems affect their play.  

Which ones? Can you tell in any but a tiny percentage of cases?

>Look at Sheffield last year and this year.

OK.  Interesting case.  Note the source of information, though.

NOT the press.  

NOT other players.

The man himself.  

Note also that he referred to SPECIFIC on-field things he did, SPECIFIC
things that were affected by his surroundings.

>He didn't likely improve that much over one off season.  

Why not? He's young, and improving.  Big bursts in performance come all
the time.

>He probably had a
>problem with another player or two and let it affect his play.  If the

Or he was playing badly and it got him in a bad mood.  How can you tell?

>same situation happens in San Diego he will likely play poorly again.  This

WHAT SITUATION?  You ahven't even found out what the relationships
between him and other players were!  If by "same situation" you mean that
a) he plays poorly and b) doesn't get along with teammates, you still
don't know who caused the disagreements, what caused the bad play (could
be a hidden injury), etc.  You also haven't a CLUE whether "it" will
affect his play, because some player simply learn to tune things like
disagreements out over time.  They grow up.  

Again, you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about Sheffield's personality,
maturity, attitude, and so on.  

>has to be a negative to his evaluation as a team trading for him is taking
>the risk that the problem won't occur on their team.

WHAT problem?  You can't even describe the problem; how can you gauge
its effect?

>>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.

>Now for the players you know have good intangibles or bad intangibles don't
>you think that these should be included when analyzing players.  

Usually we don't find out until after they retire, when publicity isn't
as important, and when the players have less to lose by talking
candidly.

At which point, trading them is pretty useless...

>If two players
>that have the same stats, and one we are almost sure has good intangibles and
>one we are not sure has good intangibles or not, I will take the first one and
>I am sure you would too.  

Now name a pair of such players who aren't already on your team.  And
tell me how, if they're NOT on your team, you even know about this.

>For this reason I think that intangibles should be
>evaluated as well as stats.  

Sounds like a big waste of time, short of a player who has actually spat
in your eye or done cocaine in the locker room.

>As for your classification, why not classify
>the players you are almost sure about and not classify the rest.  The fact

Well, that leaves about 99%.  We can classify offense prospects rather
better than that.

And look at your prime example: Dave winfield.  For a long time he was
NOT in the "clearly good intangibles" category; why did he suddenly show
up on top?  What good would it have done anyone to classify him?  

Now look at some of the ones who DO have those intangs.  And follow them
for a year or three and see if they last.  Usually they fade.  

Heck, I could use the time I spent on that sort of thing -- even if I
*did* have the information, which I don't -- washing my hair or
something.  If *I*, a fan, wish to evaluate players, I sure as hell
won't use intangibles because a) I can't even get at the information
that might help, and b) it's worthless most of the time.

>that you may not be able to classify everyone shouldn't stop you from
>classifying the one you can.

Roger
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball