Leadership, according to Billy Beane
"You have to combine the two," Beane said. "Jason brings it on the field and in the clubhouse. That's unique."
Courtesy: http://www.insidebayarea.com/athletics/ci_11402488
A true leader in this sport, at least in the estimation of Billy Beane, is a guy that can provide both a presence in the clubhouse and production on the field. In Beane's estimation, and in mine too, that type of leadership is special and worth pursuing and paying for. A true leader in this sport is a guy, like Jason Giambi, who might, statistically, make the 2009 A's 1 to 1.5 win(s) better based entirely on his production...but who might also make the guys around him raise their games via his presence and who's true impact to the team might be more in the range of 2 to 3 wins.
Recent A's history seems to indicate that veteran "presence" or even "production" alone can't lead a team to success. Take, for instance, Mike Sweeney from last season. Mike was universally acknowledged as being one of the best all-around human beings in baseball for the past decade or so. Part of that reputation was him being a positive, upbeat clubhouse presence. Yet, Mike was never able to stay healthy and produce for the A's last season, and while his clubhouse niceties and character-building gestures were noble, they unfortunately didn't translate to a better team on the field. On the other side of the ledger, it's difficult to pinpoint a guy who got it done on the field, but didn't in the clubhouse, since the clubhouse part of the equation is so subjective. Even so, an argument could be made that someone like Rich Harden was much more production than presence. When he was on the field, Harden was great. But, mostly due to his health concerns, he just wasn't able to be a consistent leader for the pitching staff and really help to elevate the games of his cohorts - that isn't to say that Harden was a bad guy or "clubhouse cancer" or anything, it's just saying that it's mighty hard to be a leader when you're not able to take the field consistently.
Monty Poole, in his latest Oakland Tribune column (see above hyperlink), touched on this "presence + production" argument. He focused on the impact that Frank Thomas had on the 2006 A's. While it was true that Thomas, former MVP and World Series winner, was a veritable encyclopedia of hitting information in the clubhouse, he was also able to put this information into practice by having a remarkable year at the plate. Thomas' production and presence in the lineup helped the entire A's team...none more than young Nick Swisher, who went on to post, by far, his most productive season hitting in front of Thomas. Nick has yet to duplicate his production from that season, and while luck and/or BABIP might explain some of that, none can argue that Nick is an especially emotional player and human being and that having Thomas back him up (both in the lineup and in the clubhouse) might just have pushed him to another level that he has found elusive outside of that unique situation.
While the verdict is still out about whether Giambi can have that same type of impact on the 2009 A's, it's hard to argue that the stars have aligned in a similar pattern to facilitate such an impact. Giambi has been around the league almost as long as Thomas had in 2006 and, like Thomas, will bring a distinct American League savvy to the table for the A's. While Thomas's hulking frame swinging a lead pipe in the batter's box was a unique and terrifying form of intimidation to opposing pitchers, the prospect of having to face the ultimate "at-bat-grinder" in Giambi will also likely stick in the heads of opposing pitchers when they are deciding whether to pitch-around Cust or Holliday or Chavez. Giambi has also been healthy and productive for 3 of the past 4 seasons, so you're looking at a guy who has a good chance of remaining in the lineup day-in-and-day out.
Ironically, while his playing time might be cut due to the addition of Giambi, I'm thinking that Travis Buck might be the guy most positively impacted by Jason's presence. I think Buck, personality-wise, is somewhat like a less-garrulous Nick Swisher. A guy who plays with a lot of heart, but who is also susceptible to letting his emotions and/or outside pressures affect his performance. Travis basically admitted to as much earlier last season when he indicated that "being a face of the franchise" made him put too much pressure on himself and in turn led to a deepening of his season-opening slump...
Well, with Giambi in-tow and bound to be the new recycled face-of-the-franchise, Buck doesn't have to worry about the "presence" side of the equation anymore and will be free to focus on "production" instead. Time will tell if that environment will allow Travis to break-out like Swisher did behind the Big Hurt, but even if he doesn't, it's hard to argue that re-creating such an opportunity for him (and for all the other young A's for that matter) is a bad idea, regardless of how many statistical wins it might add to the Pythagorean formula.
0 recs |
140 comments
|
Comments
I was opposed to this deal,
and more for personality reasons than baseball reasons, but now I’m ready to get over it and love Big G.
I didn’t care for Poole’s article (I think he’s hijacking the event to push his own favorite soapbox topic) but the press conference video is awesome. Billy’s comment at 2:10 is classic, but I won’t repeat it here because it’s better to hear it in context.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Jan 11, 2009 11:57 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Nice post Taj.
I also have this really good feeling about Giambi’s effect on the younger guys in the lineup and clubhouse. Combine that with a stud like Holliday, who also happens to have a fantastic rap around baseball as the consumate professional, I think it could cook up to be a very special year.
Man, I can’t wait for A’s baseball again. Go A’s!!!!!
by mrod on Jan 11, 2009 12:00 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Ambiguity
it’s hard to argue that the stars have aligned in a similar pattern to facilitate such an impact
Are you saying it’s hard to make this argument or hard to dispute it? From this paragraph alone, I can’t tell. The only reason I know what you mean is you use a similar construction about Swisher in the previous paragraph, and there I can tell from context what you must mean.
Still, very confusing.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Jan 11, 2009 12:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Meh. Whatev.
I mean, c’mon, what’s Beane gonna say with Giambi sitting right next to him? “We signed Jason because he’s now somewhat of a pariah in baseball and New York in particular, rendering him cheap enough to fit under Crywolffisher’s new even-cheapskatier mandate. Oh, and leadership is an ex post facto illusion created by winning. Any other questions? Susan. What was the question again? OK, thanks. I think Jason is crying because he’s so happy.”
a man has to have something to help the petite vanilla bean scones go down @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jan 11, 2009 12:21 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
It's foma, man
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Jan 11, 2009 12:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A lot of people on this site
Have been saying that Giambi isn’t a big addition compared to Barton statistically. I have more confidence in the stats than most but disagree with the thoughts around here on this signing.
First off after last year any A’s fan should be drooling over having Cust, Giambi Holliday and maybe Chavez in the lineup. The fresh youngsters fit their respective lineup positions much better with those guys in the lineup.
I think this was a very good post because players seem to hit according to their lineup position and feel certain pressures according to it. Giambi replaces last year’s Barton, and while the projections say that Barton will be much better, now he has to be better to get playing time. It also makes it easy to put him in AAA until we get an extra year of control which just might pay for Giambi’s contract for this year alone. You could also argue that Giambi will put more fans in the seats through wins or name recognition.
RIVER CATS: AAA CHAMPS!
by niallmack on Jan 11, 2009 12:25 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I agree - statistically Jason G. is still a very good middle of the order hitter
whereas Barton just does not profile to offer the kind of slugging you can put there, let alone the fact that his progress took a big hit last season.
The one thing I wish everyone could agree on, regarding the questions raised in Taj’s article, is that whether or not “leadership” or “clubhouse presence” makes a difference is something to which we all do not know the answer. No one is right or wrong on this one – it is an unknowable factor.
I’m going to ask Ziggy if he’d be willing to weigh in on the “intangible” issues like this, and see if he’s game. I think that would make for a really interesting GZWI.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 11, 2009 12:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nope, I don't agree with that
If leadership had an effect, it would show up in players’ performance. It doesn’t. There is no observable effect. Maybe leadership makes a player have a happier .850 OPS and no leadership makes him have a sad .850 OPS, but it’s still an .850 OPS.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 11, 2009 1:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If Ziggy is game, we'll find out what people
with waaaaaaaay more credibility than you and I think. Of course, the skeptics will then say, “He thinks he knows, but he’s wrong” and so on, but I’d still love to hear from someone from the inside and find out why or why not.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 11, 2009 1:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How can he, or anyone, explain "it" when there's no "it" to explain in the first place?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 11, 2009 2:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Because you don't know everything
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 11, 2009 5:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If you're trying to knock me down a peg, non sequiturs aren't the best way to do so...
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 11, 2009 5:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's a really dickish thing to say.
Children, until we have taught them better, will be perfectly happy with a seasonal round of games in which conkers succeeds hopscotch.
by salb918 on Jan 11, 2009 6:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I apologize.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 11, 2009 6:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Paul,
Than are dreamt of in your statistical models.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Jan 11, 2009 7:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I've had a former major leaguer/current minor leaguer
Tell me that he “played with guys he hated” but that “we won, so it was all good.”
Obviously only one guy, but considering he’s been around clubhouses most of his life, he would probably know.
by R.J. Anderson on Jan 11, 2009 5:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You're overreaching
And equating the absence of evidence with evidence of absence. I’m sure you are familiar with that one.
I’m not sure what studies you are thinking of, but if they are any of the numerous attempts to try and quantify the general category of “intangibles” then your assertion is unsupportable. Those studies don’t deny that such things exist, only that their effects can’t be measured (at least not in any significant way). “Leadership” as Taj has described it – an experienced player having a positive effect on a younger player – would be one such effect. Actually, I think ‘mentoring’ might be a better term to use, but that’s irrelevant to the point. It’s not an outlandish idea that an experienced hitter might be able to help along a younger player with specific information about a pitcher, a batting situation, or with general advice about hitting, any or all of which could speed up the development of said young player.
This is not to say that Giambi will have a positive influence on certain players, nor that Frank Thomas was a factor in Swisher having his best season in 2006. I’m just saying that to casually dismiss the idea because you aren’t convinced by whatever analyses you’ve read is to reach a conclusion that is beyond the capacity of the study to support one way or the other.
By way of a comparable situation, I would point to studies of pitching coaches and particularly the Mazzone effect which have hardly been conclusive, yet I don’t think you are prepared to say that pitching coaches don’t help (or hinder) pitchers.
"That's not a Sherman tank, it's Frank Thomas!" - Monkeyball
by JLeverenz on Jan 11, 2009 3:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There are also quite a few studies showing that
your belief in something helping can actually be self-fulfilling, both on the psychological (placebo effect) level and also the physiological (changing brain chemistry) level.
I think some of it (not all) is the presence or absence of hope – when someone feels less hope, less expectation of success, the accompanying psychological and physiological changes help to make a bad outcome more of a reality, and vice-versa on feeling more hope.
This phenomenon occurs with health, and with performances / competitions, and is not JUST a placebo effect but also the effects of changing brain and body chemistry. The mind and the body do work together in a profound way.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 11, 2009 5:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Great post
I agree 100%.
The phenomenon has been documented when it comes to personal health, I see no reason why that would not transcend onto the ball field.
See: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthrpt/stories/s13887.htm
I understand many of us are scientifically founded in our observations and do not account for that which cannot be measured, but that does not mean it isn’t there. If we took that approach, we’re 1. assuming we already know everything there is to be known and 2. denying the past injustices caused by the same view (such as Galileo saying the Earth was round and threatened to death for his beliefs, which I believe turned out correct).
Personally I am skeptical of that which I cannot quantify in some known manner. I also tend to give it less credence when I do feel there is something there that I can’t explain, like since it isn’t measurable I just merely accept that it’s there but offer it little importance.
In terms of Sports, I do think positive leadership on a team can go a long way towards success, especially in Baseball, especially over 162 games in a season.
From my personal experience playing the 3 major sports through College, I have found teams with strong leadership & teams with leaders who held players accountable to their level of devotion towards the success of the team, fared much better due to 1. the belief we were going to win every game and 2. the effort that went into obtaining those victories.
I believe that the mere belief that you’re going to win in itself isn’t necessarily helpful, but the motivation it provides into the effort exuded leads to obvious results. It is obvious when one team is trying harder than another, or certain players are playing hard and often times exceeding their skill level just by hard work and determination alone. We usually refer to these sort of players as gamers, a la Mark Ellis. He works very hard at his craft and has no otherwise special physical talents but his hard work IMO makes him the best defensive 2nd basemen in Baseball.
I’m not saying Mark Ellis is a leader, but he has leadership qualities that aren’t spoken. He is a leader by example.
Giambi is more of a vocal leader, and hopefully his leadership will transcend into holding people accountable. If he can inspire and motivate max effort through the belief of contention and success, it can go a long way in helping the A’s have a successful year as opposed to another mediocre year.
I’d love to see a veteran pitcher added as well as being a pitcher, I understand how much of the pitching game is mental. Being positive and believing you’re going to win helps you to attack the strike zone with a fearless confidence needed for sustaining injuries and longevity on the mound. A veteran pitcher who can convey a competitive spirit with a desire to teach the youth is very important. Signing ANY veteran pitcher will not work, you have to find the right veteran pitcher for the job.
by BillMoresi on Jan 11, 2009 6:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well put, BillMoresi
If talent is 95% of determining a team’s success, and other “intangible” factors is 5% of it, clearly talent is the far bigger determining factor in a team’s success – yet 5% can be a lot in sports and should not be ignored or dismissed.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 11, 2009 6:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
I do not dispute PT or anyone who questions the percentage of intangibles being a minimal number, but at the professional level, there is not much to set aside one team from another when you get to the playoffs
Even if intangibles / the unknown account for 1% of a teams performance, that could POSSIBLY determine the outcome
I am not silly enough to believe intangibles trump all else, namely talent, but I do think it comes into play more than we give it credit for.
The mind wants to rationalize all that it can, explain all that it can, but sometimes we cannot (yet)
by BillMoresi on Jan 11, 2009 6:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If it's really the difference between winning and losing, it's not a minimal number.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 11, 2009 7:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
OK, sure
The thing is, as far as anyone can tell, in baseball it’s basically 100% and 0% respectively.
If players routinely had unexplainable shifts in performance, the notion of intangibles might come to the rescue— but they don’t. Even unforeseen breakouts like Cliff Lee and Ryan Ludwick look a lot less weird when you dig deep into their skills and track records.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 11, 2009 6:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes but why did these manifest in 2008 and not, say, 2004?
That’s what’s hard to understand.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 11, 2009 7:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Or why you and others didn't see it coming,
when all you had to do was dig deep into skills and track records – which many are paid to do and many others do for fun.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 11, 2009 7:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Who's the Ryan Ludwick and Cliff Lee for 2009?
We should be digging deep into skills and track records right now!
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 11, 2009 7:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Are you just in a bad mood or something?
Get 10 guys of that ilk together and you can guess that one or two will have breakout/rebound seasons, even if you don’t know exactly which one it’s going to be.
By contrast, collect a hundred Casey Rogowskis and odds are none of them are going to break out.
No one has the time or mental energy to analyze each of the thousands of players in affiliated ball to come up with the ones most likely to break out. And people who design computer programs to predict those players tend to get hired by baseball teams.
I think my point here is that “tangibles” that people miss or don’t focus on, but locate after the fact, are still tangible— it’s not magic, just human error.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 11, 2009 8:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Magic?
In reference to anything we cannot yet measure… that does not make it “magic”.
by BillMoresi on Jan 12, 2009 6:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the Yankee Dynasty
years of 1947-1964, especially the 1949-1953 teams, brought in players who were told, essentially, “We own this league, we expect to be champions, don’t screw it up.” They felt a greater responsibility to perform better than they ever had before…these were the New York Yankees!
A good exercise (which I have no time for) would be to examine www.baseball-reference.com and look at players playing for the Yankees, and how they performed before and after their Yankee years, 1949-1954. After reading “Summer of ’49” I feel the intangibles of expectation are directly responsible for the way in which some players perform.
Officially awaiting the 2009 season.
by One won lost won on Jan 11, 2009 10:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Teleological
Look at any championship team and odds are good that the players on that team outperformed their career norms that year (cough2005whitesoxcough). That’s why they won the championship.
The sample bias makes your proposed exercise junk science.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 12, 2009 5:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Small sample size
The 2005 White Sox, and all the Frank Thomas talk is exactly the type of anecdotal evidence I am attempting to avoid. By taking a team with penultimate success over four-five consecutive years, with multiple players of varying total career lengths, with varying total major league careers, all completed, I believe the best result to the question of “performance on the field in the context of team leadership” could be determined.
I regard your “junk science” pronouncement/judgment, slightly below the Sarah Palin critique of “fruit fly study in France”.
Officially awaiting the 2009 season.
by One won lost won on Jan 14, 2009 12:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
a team with penultimate success
You’re going to study only teams that lost the World Series?
a man has to have something to help the petite vanilla bean scones go down @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jan 14, 2009 3:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
1949-1953 Yankees?
1949-Yankees- WS Champs
1950-Yankees-WS Champs
1951-Yankees-WS Champs
1952-Yankees-WS Champs
1953-Yankees-WS Champs
The Yankees got spotty after that, missing the WS in 1954, and losing the WS in 1955 and 1957. But I think the five-year run says it all.
Officially awaiting the 2009 season.
by One won lost won on Jan 14, 2009 5:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But if the effect is so small that it's difficult to observe, then is it really worth worrying about?
Children, until we have taught them better, will be perfectly happy with a seasonal round of games in which conkers succeeds hopscotch.
by salb918 on Jan 11, 2009 6:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Probably not from any kind of statistical/predictive standpoint
But that wasn’t really my point, only that dogmatically stating that such a relationship between two players has no effect on one or the other is unsupportable (as is it’s converse).
As a subject of conversation like Taj introduced though – sure it’s worth talking about.
"That's not a Sherman tank, it's Frank Thomas!" - Monkeyball
by JLeverenz on Jan 11, 2009 6:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree - though like the pro choice / life debate
it generally promises to rile both sides up without anybody ever changing their opinion in the slightest.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 11, 2009 6:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Except on the observable vs intangibles issue in sports, there's room for more
research into the topic. I’m not going to discuss the other topic to avoid political discussions.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 11, 2009 7:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's not what I'm saying
What I’m saying is, players’ performance is actually pretty predictable once you use the right metrics, account for good or bad luck (eg pitchers’ BABIP), take note of injuries and the effects of aging, and so on.
Once upon a time, people needed to invoke intangibles to explain why Joe Blow had a .300 average and 80 RBI one year and a .250 average and 50 RBI the next year, in much the same way that deities had to be invoked to explain weather. Nowadays, only a crackpot would explain weather as an act of God— meteorologists understand and explain it with stunning accuracy.
To paraphrase a famous comment, “intangibles” are in the gaps— and the gaps in hitting analysis have shrunk down to irrelevance. It’s an explanation in search of something to explain.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 11, 2009 6:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Performance might be predictable
But does performance always dictate success?
The NFL now has a 9-7 team hosting a 9-6-1 team for the NFC Championship.
Neither team performed particularly well during the season but they’re winning as a team at the right time.
They have also knocked out some of the biggest stars in the league, who’s success was predictable, and because of that success, their perspective teams were predicted to win based on their performances, but that did not happen.
You can account for statistics but you cannot account for the effect of a team
by BillMoresi on Jan 11, 2009 6:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Please do not cross-apply this argument to other sports
It’s not applicable there. From an analytic standpoint, no other sport is even remotely close to as well understood as baseball. FootballOutsiders is doing its best, but individual performance in football games is still understood in ways which baseball analysts would find shockingly primitive. There are plenty of “intangible gaps” in a football game.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 11, 2009 6:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm only accounting for team performance
While I understand it weakens any argument to use examples outside of our issue at hand, in this case the intangibles in Baseball, I think a simple look at team performance/record across sports is adequate.
You would expect in any sport a team with a better record will win more times than not versus a team with a lesser record, similar opponents withstanding.
Baseball is without a doubt much further advanced in the statistical analysis, though, and I would agree there are many more “intangible gaps” in Football. A head to head cross analysis would be futile.
by BillMoresi on Jan 11, 2009 6:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
All things being equal, you would expect that, yes
All things are not equal. It’s routine for a better football or basketball team to match up really poorly with a weaker opponent and lose to them. The classic example of this is the Warriors beating the Mavs in the 2007 playoffs.
And of course, in any short series (or single game, if you’re talking football) all kinds of random factors come into play. Is Jake Delhomme as bad as he looked yesterday? Of course not. He just had a bad game at the wrong time of year.
It could happen in baseball too (a team with 2 ace lefties will probably do better than it “should” against an opponent with a lefty-heavy roster) but it’s not as common.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 11, 2009 6:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
100% Agree
There are many factors that go into the outcome of a game
I think this is what makes sports great
We can account for A LOT, but we still cannot predict a victor with any level of accuracy that makes the games being played irrelevant
For that I am thankful.
by BillMoresi on Jan 11, 2009 6:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, football is a different animal than baseball
The success of the team is relies far more on the team working together.
"That's not a Sherman tank, it's Frank Thomas!" - Monkeyball
by JLeverenz on Jan 11, 2009 6:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So head coaches should make $20M per year?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 11, 2009 7:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree the gaps have shrunk
Focusing on the mentorship aspect though, I think it’s pretty safe to say that coaches make a difference in developing players. What Taj was talking about (and what Nico was restating in the comment you replied to) was that in some cases having an experienced player like Giambi (as opposed to, say, Jeff Kent) could help one or two of the younger guys by having some coach-like qualities. We’ll never be able to say for sure if he helps Barton or Buck, but that’s okay. It’s still worth talking about.
"That's not a Sherman tank, it's Frank Thomas!" - Monkeyball
by JLeverenz on Jan 11, 2009 6:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why do you think we'll never be able to say that for sure? Isn't that what psychologists
and organizational behaviorists do?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 11, 2009 7:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, mostly because what we're talking about is on an individual level
And speaking purely in terms of outside analysis, there’s just not going to be enough information to detect a change created by influence/teaching from another player.
Maybe one day there will be a situation in which two players will share the time and place of every baseball-related conversation they ever have and those conversations can be paired with at bats to see if there is any change in how the player receiving advice performed in certain situations, but I doubt it.
"That's not a Sherman tank, it's Frank Thomas!" - Monkeyball
by JLeverenz on Jan 11, 2009 7:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Given the stakes, it sounds like it's worth some exploratory research, no?
I don’t see how you can be so sure that the information challenges cannot be overcome without a professional taking a shot at it.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 11, 2009 7:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe at some point it might, but I doubt it
Mostly because of the inherent difficulty in doing such an analysis. To get any kind of meaningful results you would have to know which players talked to each other and what they talked about. Even then you would have so few elements in the population that it would be impossible to know if anything you found was real or just randomness – and that’s a statistical issue, not a baseball one.
"That's not a Sherman tank, it's Frank Thomas!" - Monkeyball
by JLeverenz on Jan 11, 2009 8:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It would hardly be the most difficult scientific problem conqurered by man.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 11, 2009 8:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, I'd have a hard time thinking of a harder one
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 11, 2009 8:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Been to the moon lately?
Fused subatomic particles in your spare time?
Cured bacterial illnesses while taking a crap, without ever having heard of penicillin?
If so, organizational behavior problems should be child’s play for you?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 11, 2009 9:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Cure bacterial illnesses!
I KNEW there was something more productive I could be doing with that time.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 11, 2009 9:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
um, hasn't mankind done all those things?
or was that your point.
on the issue of sporting psychology, i don’t know about baseball teams, but a lot of soccer teams employ full time psychologists to help their players realise their full performance.
there is a quite a lot of research done on this (whether or not it looks at players helping other players with their levels of gamership). University of Loughborough, England, has the top research group in the field, should anyone be in the slightest way interested.
here’s their website.
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/sses/research/psychology/index.html
when did we stop using adverbs proper?
by alea iacta est on Jan 12, 2009 12:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That was indeed the point.
Interesting on Loughborough…I wonder whether they do anything on the impact of leadership on team member performance.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 12, 2009 4:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know a lot about Loughborough
but i do have friends who went through the Sports Science faculty at the University of Bath (the UK’s second best sporting university. probably. some may debate that, but nevermind).
Their research seemed largely in the field of helping atheletes reach their full potential; ie, that any failings would be physical, not psychological.
I’ll have an ask around and see what i can find out about Loughborough, though
when did we stop using adverbs proper?
by alea iacta est on Jan 14, 2009 10:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How is "leadership" defined?
I think leadership has replaced the word experienced in baseball GM’s vocabulary. By this I mean that there is not a situation in baseball that is foreign to Giambi. For instance when a younger player (Buck, Barton etc.) is slumping or down, they can look to Giambi for guidence. After all Giambi’s career has pretty much spanned the spectrum, from MVP years in Oakland, to being made an example of during the mitchell investigation, to the health worries that conceviably could have ended his career. I think someone with those experiences can offer a lot to the current A’s club.
by deathby9 on Jan 11, 2009 2:04 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Leadership=Gold Thong
"It's like déjà vu all over again." -yogi berra
by Cheezombie on Jan 11, 2009 8:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Leadership = teaching the best angle to stick a needle in your rear
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
by Kyli on Jan 12, 2009 10:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree with PT
In every other facet of life, when you are happier, your production tends to increase. Maybe this is a loose correlation, but it has been proven more often then not (Manny in LA comes to mind and ZIto and the huge contract filling the other end of the spectrum). If someone like Giambi can permeate the looseness of the clubhouse, while offering sage advice and being productive, I would be surprised if the overall production of the team is not increased. Perhaps I am blurring the line between production and intangibles.
by deathby9 on Jan 11, 2009 2:09 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
That's because they are blurred
Where and how much they intersect is a difficult Venn diagram to estimate.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 11, 2009 2:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you're inverting the causality, personally
I suspect that poor performance causes unhappiness, not the other way around. The difference is that the poor performance doesn’t beg an explanation and the unhappiness often does.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 11, 2009 2:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If you don't believe that mood can profoundly affect physical performance,
then…like, wow.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 11, 2009 5:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Of course it affects physical performance
The thing is, it’s totally idiosyncratic. The effects are random. Some players play like men possessed when they’re angry. Others lose focus and start sucking. Some react to personal trauma by getting distracted, others turn it into motivation. Some get complacent when they’re surrounded by chummy people, others do their best when they’re hung over from partying all night. I could go on for hours.
The most you can say is that bringing in Giambi will probably have “an effect” on the A’s players. Is it large? No. Is it positive or negative? We have no idea. Can we predict it? No. Is it useful? No. Is it worth paying the slightest bit of attention to? No.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 11, 2009 6:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Good point
The effects are not the same on every player, not everyone will respond the same
But I disagree that it is not useful or worth paying attention to
Why not explore why some teams who appear very average statistically succeed? Is it possible there is a “team effect” or possibly a leadership role responsible?
Last year the Phillies leader was their manager and I would argue he had a profound effect on that team outside of making a line up, etc. – at the intangible level.
Can I prove that? No I cannot. Currently I cannot conceive of a way it would be possible to prove this point since you cannot have the same team with the exact same variables play without their leader to provide a reasonable variable.
by BillMoresi on Jan 11, 2009 6:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The 2008 Angels notwithstanding, teams that are average statistically basically DON'T succeed
Not over a long enough period of games that the result reflects anything other than luck (i.e., the regular season).
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 11, 2009 6:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If this is true, Charlie Manuel is vastly underpaid. He should make something like $50M per year.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 11, 2009 7:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
FWIW, the counterargument WRT professional athletes
is that the kind of people who are talented but let off-field problems mess up their on-field production are the sort of people who don’t rise to the top of professional sports.
In other words, it’s quite possible that the vast majority of Major League baseball players have an uncanny ability to leave their off-field problems off the field. If they didn’t have that ability, they would’ve flamed out long ago.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
by Nick on Jan 11, 2009 6:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Or they become Joaquin Andujar,
and kind of keep it together until Game 7 of the World Series.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 11, 2009 6:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Joaquin was slowly deteriorating since the midpoint of the 1985 season.
He was denied the Game 7 start in favor of Tudor on 3 days rest for the second start in a row for a reason.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 11, 2009 6:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm talking about the 10-0 game
in which Andujar “charged the umpire.”
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 11, 2009 6:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I saw that in a bar in St Louis. That may have been Joaquin's low point in
’85, but he had been sinking to that point since midseason. He had a crappy second half, was demoted behind Danny Cox in the rotation, was passed over for the Game 7 start, and the cumulative frustration came out all at once.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 11, 2009 6:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
When I saw it, I immediately thought of Joaquin's favorite word:
“You never know.”
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 11, 2009 7:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Isn't that what your post below was about? Humility?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 11, 2009 7:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Best post ever written, too
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 11, 2009 7:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But Joaquin was more succinct.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 11, 2009 7:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But the example of Swisher thriving on a team with Thomas
isn’t all that comparable to an Andujar or Milton Bradley situation. There are a few players who are pretty nuts — Andujar and Bradley acted pretty nuts wherever they played, as far as I can remember. No one thinks that Swisher is really nuts.
And since I brought up Bradley, he brings up another complication to this discussion. Swisher really, really loved playing with Bradley, and had a great season alongside him. So one could call Bradley a key, veteran leader according to that standard. But Bradley is also kinda nuts.
I think it’s very hard to suss out human relationships. The A’s players loved Thomas. But one reason he was available was that the White Sox organization despised him and thought he was a terrible presence on the team. And the Blue Jays hated having him around, too. So even if you sign a guy to be a leader, he might disrupt everything; and if you sign a guy worrying about his attitude, he might be a key clubhouse leader.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
by Nick on Jan 11, 2009 6:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So Beane's job is a lot more about organizational behaviour than scouting and
projections?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 11, 2009 7:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely.
That and soccer.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 11, 2009 7:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps a reading of "Summer of '49"
by David Halberstam (such a fine author, so tragic they way he died) with this whole “leadership in the clubhouse” thing would be in order. Casey Stengel, the precursor of the Joe Torre’s career, had just taken over the Yankees. DiMaggio was still playing, already a legend. Yogi Berra was up and coming. It’s an interesting read, though I admit I was more fascinated by Ted Williams and the Red Sox than the personalities on the Yankees.
But I believe it could provide some better perspective on leadership than Frank Thomas/ Nick Swisher and the minor consequences of that relationship.
Officially awaiting the 2009 season.
by One won lost won on Jan 11, 2009 10:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
good stuff
I’m excited about Buck and Barton and the other young guys being around and learning from Giambi. It’s not just inspiration, the guy can pass down unique knowledge. As confused as Barton often looked at the plate last year, it’s hard for me to believe he had anybody remotely useful to talk to about hitting. Hopefully Skaalen can help there, but I definitely expect Giambi to.
Side point, but the other factor being underrated around these parts is that, other than CC Sabathia on the days he pitches, I don’t think the A’s could have added one player from FA who will help so much at the box office. With Holliday and Giambi, the A’s have two legit drawing cards now. That’s a very good thing.
by AgitationStation on Jan 11, 2009 2:23 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Disagree
Buck and Barton will develop based on their own talent, not because Giambi has some sort of Midas touch. If they fail to develop, will Giambi be blamed? I hope not.
And the drawing card issue isn’t being underrated. It’s been given all the consideration it’s due. People aren’t going to buy tickets in significant numbers because Jason Giambi is on the team. We’ve heard this so many times before and it turned out false each time. Giambi won’t affect attendance any more than Jose Canseco did in 1997. The A’s will sell more tickets if they play exciting baseball and win, with or without Jason Giambi. If they play uninspired ball and lose, they won’t sell many tickets even if Giambi wins the triple crown.
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
by Monday Fan on Jan 11, 2009 3:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I bet if you ask Jason Giambi, he’ll say Mark McGwire had a tremendous amount of influence on how his baseball life took shape.
“McGwire was like a big brother to Jason. Perhaps he saw a bit of himself in the developing slugger—even though outwardly the difference in the two appeared to be night and day. They talked baseball and discussed life off the field. McGwire taught Jason to approach his hitting analytically, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of enemy hurlers, and gaining an understanding of how they would pitch to him in different situations. Then and only then, McGwire explained, could you work an at-bat so that you got a pitch you could really drive.” – Jock Bio
by Colorado Fan on Jan 11, 2009 3:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
re
Well, attendance was actually up close to 10% for the 97 team, which happened to be quite a bit worse than the 96 team. And the A’s were down 15% in attendance last year even though the team had a nearly identical record as the 07 team.
Players don’t develop solely based on their own talent. There would be no use for coaches if that were the case. Obviously the success or failure of Buck and Barton doesn’t rest on Giambi’s shoulders. That doesn’t mean he can’t have a powerfully positive effect on their careers, like he did for Miggy and Chavvy, and like McGwire did for him.
by AgitationStation on Jan 11, 2009 4:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Attendance tends to lag record. Part of the reason '08 attendance was down was the '07 record.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 11, 2009 6:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A's on MLB channel.
Maybe this was brought up elsewhere but the A’s vs Jays, game 4 of the 1989 playoffs is running on MLB channel right now. (3:10 PM PST). Rickey just hit his second homer of the game with Gallego on. Game 2 is coming on later tonight.
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
by Monday Fan on Jan 11, 2009 3:09 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Good Point PT
But wasn’t Manny performing well, on a winning team and still was unhappy? I think environment may have more causality then previously assessed. Either way, there is no way to tell. Our very own (I lIve in San Francisco) Golden State Warriors are an eample of this. Why do players tend to succeed more after they leave the GSW? Was the poor performance of the players what initiated the cycle of constant losing? Or were those players so unhappy in the environment they were in that they refused to be accountable for their personal performance? If mood is so tied to performance then the “loose” clubhouse vibe so often tied to the A’s is irrelevant, which is what you are saying anyway, but I find hard to believe.
by deathby9 on Jan 11, 2009 3:10 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Don't make the mistake of cross-applying this argument to other sports
There may well be factors in basketball which are unexplainable except as effects of environment or leadership, and more to the point, “production” on a basketball team is intricately tied in with the performance of the other players on a team. The point guard doesn’t get an assist unless the center actually makes the basket. It would be raving lunacy to assert that basketball players don’t make their teammates better.
Thing is, it’s a completely different game.
I don’t understand your point about Manny, so you’re going to have to clear up what you’re arguing here.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 11, 2009 3:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The canseco homer in that game was classic!
by deathby9 on Jan 11, 2009 3:11 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Said Rickey afterwards:
“It was hit so hard, I fell off the bench.”
I'm here to talk about the past.
by 67MARQUEZ on Jan 11, 2009 4:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The 5th-decker off Flanagan?
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
by Nick on Jan 11, 2009 6:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Manny. . .
You asserted that a players poor performance is the cause of of their unhappiness. I was pointing out that while it seemed Manny was unhappy in Boston, his performance wasn’t the cause of his unhappiness rather his environment. Which is tied back to Giambi being a positive clubhouse influence and possibly affecting the performance of other players on the team. Now I will give you the fact that the basketball reference may have been a stretch, but as I said before, happiness in every facet of life is related to productivity, why wouldn’t this apply to baseball?
by deathby9 on Jan 11, 2009 3:23 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Manny may have been unhappy in Boston, but his numbers were still awesome, albeit more mortal than in LA
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 11, 2009 6:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
His environment caused his unhappiness, sure
And yet his production soldiered on, heedless of said unhappiness (except when he was blowing off playing entirely… that’s not exactly an “intangible” effect…).
Seems like grist for my mill, but eh.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 11, 2009 6:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
As you have explained...
All players react differently.
Without doing an in depth analysis on each and every player, there would be no way to even begin to attempt to measure anything that has been discussed.
Manny seems like he’ll perform whenever he wants to, thanks to the level of talent he possesses. I’m sure it pisses off those who are less fortunate, those who have to work hard to simply bat .270, but Manny has shown he is capable of greatness at an all time level when he WANTS to.
I would argue his attitude may be a detriment to his team, once again contingent on who he plays with and how they react to him.
by BillMoresi on Jan 11, 2009 6:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Given the stakes, it sounds like you're saying it's worth doing that analysis on each and every player.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 11, 2009 7:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know
If such a study would be worth the cost to fund it.
I for one don’t want to know all there is to know. I want a reason to still watch the game.
Statistics balance out over time (over 162 games) but the playoffs are a crapshoot. That is enough for me.
by BillMoresi on Jan 12, 2009 7:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Really? You don't want to know something that could be the difference between
winning and losing? I sure do.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 12, 2009 10:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The fact that "statistics balance out over time" is precisely my point
If there was a small-yet-real effect of psychology, the statistics would NOT balance out over time. There would be unexplained discrepancies in team performance, more frequently than random variation would suggest. In actuality, those discrepancies don’t exist.
By contrast, in a series as short as a playoff series, where massive skill differences don’t always (or even often) translate into victory, minute effects of personality and “team chemistry” will invariably be swallowed in probabilistic noise.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 12, 2009 5:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
oops
reverse that, productivity is related to happiness, sorry typing fast.
by deathby9 on Jan 11, 2009 3:24 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I'm consistently amused by those who think that
baseball players who have risen through the top of their profession through hard work, intense competition, incredible physical and emotional sacrifices, etc. are such dewicate widdle fwowews that we need to consistently harp on chemistry, leadership, clutch, and a bunch of other garbage rationalizations.
It’s true that someone will work harder given the appropriate motivation. Baseball players have incredible financial motivation, for one. To rise the top of their profession, they have to have incredible internal drive as well. While some may be more driven than others, and for different reasons, the vast majority of players are likely happy to be doing the thing they love for a living. This is generally true of successful people who have risen to the top.
Anyway, Big G might be a good influence in the clubhouse, and if that makes the team fun to follow than I’m all for it. But there are plenty of instances of teams with fractured clubhouses and poor leadership (the 2006 A’s, for one) playing well because talent. Talent trumps all, and it ought to be (and probably is) the overriding factor in making any decision about a baseball team.
Children, until we have taught them better, will be perfectly happy with a seasonal round of games in which conkers succeeds hopscotch.
by salb918 on Jan 11, 2009 6:08 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Talent doesn't always work out
See: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/joe_posnanski/12/26/yankees.spree/index.html
Baseball has the most parity of all the major sports
We think we can explain Baseball but we cannot
You can use stats to measure one players ability, but how can you measure a team?
We try every year and we fail
Who predicted the Phillies were the best team in the league last year? Or were they simply hot at the right time?
it doesn’t matter because they’re World Series champions
Who has more talent than the Dallas Cowboys in the NFL? And they’re at home watching the playoffs?
What about the 9-7 Cardinals, the 9-6-1 Eagles? They’re playing with the 11-5 Ravens and the 12-4 Steelers
While I use the same statistics as an awesome tool to measure predicted performance, and while it is generally very accurate, I’m never able to predict the correct TEAM to win it all
This is the reason we all watch, no?
If we could predict everything in the game, there would be no reason to watch. Baseball has the most intangibles IMO, and also the most parity among who wins it all, which is why I love Baseball more than any other sport.
by BillMoresi on Jan 11, 2009 6:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I love this series of lines:
"We think we can explain Baseball but we cannot.
You can use stats to measure one players ability, but how can you measure a team?
We try every year and we fail."
If those who prefer stats, metrics, and objective analysis would just show the humility Baseball (notice how I capitalize the "B" to liken it to a God) deserves, then I wouldn’t feel all snarky when engaging in debate. Respect the game by understanding that you don’t actually ever truly understand it.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 11, 2009 6:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
My mind tells me I need to know everything and that which I cannot explain should be discarded… but if I truly believe that, OR if I was able to explain everything, I would not love Baseball the same knowing the outcome.
Some things do go better unmeasured.
Baseball is great not because of what we know but that of which we cannot explain
by BillMoresi on Jan 11, 2009 6:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well some things are measured, like giving Giambi a $5M contract.
If you can measure his leadership then you’re more likely to make better decisions on whether he’s worth $5M or $2M or $10M.
In fact if he can really get Buck and Chavez and Barton to play to their 90th percentile outcome rather than their 25th percentile outcome, and thereby increase the team’s shot at the postseason from 5% to 75%, he’s worth a lot more than $5M, more like $50M. If that then causes CSN CA to pick up the A’s on a 10 year deal at above average MLB terms and get a new stadium built in San Jose, he’s worth more like $200M. If he had this ability in 2002, then the A’s were fools not to offer him double what the Yankees got him for.
It’s fine for us as fans to appreciate something mysterious and revel in our humility, but management has to make real business decisions based on some assumptions and/or deductions about Giambi’s contribution.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 11, 2009 7:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just like life
Baseball is great not because of what we know but that of which we cannot explain
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Jan 11, 2009 7:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Phillies were simply hot at the right time. Like the Cubs were simply cold at the wrong time.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 11, 2009 6:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Does that mean teams and players get hot?
This is not universally agreed on AN.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 11, 2009 6:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oohh trick question. I guess I should have said the Phillies picked a good time to play
their best ball, and the Cubs a bad time not to.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 11, 2009 6:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This is what "My shit doesn't work in the playoffs" means.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
by Nick on Jan 11, 2009 6:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bingo
Children, until we have taught them better, will be perfectly happy with a seasonal round of games in which conkers succeeds hopscotch.
by salb918 on Jan 11, 2009 6:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You must have a really weird set of bingo cards, sal
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
by Nick on Jan 11, 2009 6:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No kidding - I distinctly called "urine - regular season"
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 11, 2009 7:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also agreed
But is it possible leadership / intangibles had something to do with that?
I find it very possible if not likely.
Over 162 games, we can nearly account for and predict what a given player will do.
What we cannot predict is how a team responds together, the intangibles at work that we do not see and quite possibly the luck / lack of luck that takes place in a short series.
by BillMoresi on Jan 11, 2009 6:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If that's so, where was said leadership and intangibles during the regular season?
And what happened to those qualities for the Cubs?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 11, 2009 6:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It is univerally agreed on AN
that teams get hot by signing Harden, Swooney, and Chavez’s butt.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
by Nick on Jan 11, 2009 7:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But how do you measure the value of Chavez over a replacement butt?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 11, 2009 7:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I signed Chavez's butt,
but the autograph washed off the next time he showered.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 11, 2009 7:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
shouldn't that be "dewicate widdle wobots"?
a man has to have something to help the petite vanilla bean scones go down @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jan 12, 2009 10:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Taj, I liked this post .
It had a feel good vibe when reading it…but like most of the threads as of late the contentiousness kind of wrecked that. Good try, though.
by IM4Oakgal on Jan 11, 2009 8:55 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
No it didn't!
Your turn.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 11, 2009 9:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No I'm not!!!! The metrics say otherwise!!!!!!
;-)
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 11, 2009 9:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I see music in those words...
Say Otherwise!!!!!!!
The Metrics
…which was a virtuoso followup album to their first,
Meet the Metrics
Officially awaiting the 2009 season.
by One won lost won on Jan 11, 2009 11:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Let me summarize.
Taj — Giambi might provide leadership qualities that go beyond his stats.
IM40Gal — How cool! This gives me a good vibe.
Bill — I felt leadership when I played. It’s real I tells ya!
PT, Monkeyball and Sal — You ain’t proved nothin’ yet.
Nico — And Leon’s getting larger….
My simple solution — have experts research the topic so we don’t have to have this same tired discussion every time there’s a transaction involving an old player.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 11, 2009 9:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
First I would want to know that a veteran expert
was mentoring the expert, and exerting a positive influence, as he/she did the research.
And Leon is getting larger!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 11, 2009 9:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I hate veterans. I've worked with a lot of incompetent old people who were paid for no reason
other than the added “grey hair” to the organization. They’re worse than useless. They’re overpaid, and as a result of their seniority and high pay, they’re vocal about their opinions. It’s impolite to tell them they’re stupid and no one wants to hear their opinions so no one does, including their superiors.
Also because they’re stupid, their careers have lagged behind those of their peers, making them bitter, making them “cancers in the clubhouse”. I really have no time for old people.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 12, 2009 1:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Gee, I hope you never become one
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 12, 2009 7:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Too late!
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 12, 2009 10:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Chemistry: It's good if you've got it.
In a sport that is driven so much by individual performances, it is difficult to assess the value of chemistry in baseball.
It seems reasonable that teams that genuinely enjoy playing with one another may be more equipped to handle adversity. The 2003 Marlins would be an example, as well as the 2004 and 2007 Red Sox.
In the more team oriented sports of Hockey and Football, there is absolutly no doubt having the right chemistry within the locker room is invaluable. Anyone who has played these sports will attest to this.
by Pucking Insane on Jan 11, 2009 10:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Wow
I don’t log in for a day or two and you guys have this awesome contentious argument.
Wait, I don’t like arguing. Still.
I see a deranged rabbit, on fire, cowering away from a vagina. I await the results of the Rorschaschererer. -Nico
by Leopold Bloom on Jan 12, 2009 1:03 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Yes, you do like arguing.
a man has to have something to help the petite vanilla bean scones go down @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jan 12, 2009 1:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I do?
I see a deranged rabbit, on fire, cowering away from a vagina. I await the results of the Rorschaschererer. -Nico
by Leopold Bloom on Jan 12, 2009 2:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
(yes, I do, but don't tell 74 or PT)
I see a deranged rabbit, on fire, cowering away from a vagina. I await the results of the Rorschaschererer. -Nico
by Leopold Bloom on Jan 12, 2009 2:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

by 




















