What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?

[dickay]

GARY SHEFFIELD? The guy who made fielding errors on purpose because he wanted to be traded? And repeatedly accused managers of racism? That guy's a great leader who can will others to win?

How are you "identifying" these players? Gut instincts? Are you able to throw out ANYTHING to support this?

Yes gut instincts. As I said earlier, its like porn...you know it when you see it. No I can't quantify it. Sheffield was a tough one to put on the list because he has had a falling out everywhere he's been it seems. From everything i've seen & heard he seems like a leader, who is a winner that people like to play with.

[HoustonGM]

Yes gut instincts. As I said earlier, its like porn...you know it when you see it. No I can't quantify it.

Well, sorry, that just doesn't pass the smell test. If there's absolutely no evidence in support of your view, and especially considering that you've never played with these guys so you really have no idea, I'm not buying it. "You know it when you see it" is not a valid argument because it's entirely perception-based.

Sheffield was a tough one to put on the list because he has had a falling out everywhere he's been it seems. From everything i've seen & heard he seems like a leader, who is a winner that people like to play with.

And everything I've heard is pretty much the exact opposite of what you've heard, apparently, and that he's had a "falling out everywhere he's been it seems" would support the things I've heard.

[dickay]

Well, sorry, that just doesn't pass the smell test. If there's absolutely no evidence in support of your view, and especially considering that you've never played with these guys so you really have no idea, I'm not buying it. "You know it when you see it" is not a valid argument because it's entirely perception-based.


And everything I've heard is pretty much the exact opposite of what you've heard, apparently, and that he's had a "falling out everywhere he's been it seems" would support the things I've heard.

You're entitled to your own opinion. Even if its wrong

[HoustonGM]

You're entitled to your own opinion. Even if its wrong

I don't think you should be calling somebody wrong when you have absolutely zero evidence to back up your stance.

[ragecage]

uh oh...

[bucher34]

Exactly what I was thinking. This Sheffield argument is a dead-end for those that are "for".

[filihok]

uh oh...

you mean...

"Ruh Roh!"


I found this article regarding productive outs.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/ar...oductive-outs/

Now, it is late and I'm getting ready to go to bed, so I can't delve into this as much as I'd like but I'll pull out these quotes

Productive outs are defined as advancing the runner with the first out of the inning, scoring a runner with the second out, or when a pitcher sacrifice bunts with the second out.

This is similar to but not exactly what I was talking about.

Teams that win one-run games have a .348 POP compared to the .303 of their opponents, a .045 difference. But again, the OBP difference dwarfs it: .373 to .277.

Yeah, getting on base is better than making an out. No argument here.

There are many problems with productive outs. The first, and most obvious, is how it credits a one-out sac bunt as a productive out if it's by the pitcher, but not by any other player. An out by a pitcher that advances a runner is certainly more productive than one would normally expect, but to include it in a team statistic is ridiculous. If POP is supposed to help teams win, does that mean you should pinch-hit a pitcher every time you have a runner on and one out, so they can sac bunt?

Strawman argument. No one is saying this.

There is a very small value to tracking productive outs, if altered from it's current form, and using it as a value statistic, rather than a skill statistic, since a productive out is worth more than a non-productive one. However, it shouldn't be viewed as a shortcut to victory, or emphasized as a strategy. It doesn't work.

Yeah, there could be a better definition of a productive out. And I don't think anyone things that finding a magical hitter who has a .874 POP is going to add 73 runs to a teams offense in the course of a year.

But, 'since a productive out is worth more than a non-productive one' if you have two otherwise equal hitters the one with the higher POP would have more value to the team.

[RedsoxRockies]

I know how the play the game, so does that mean I can make the Dodgers go 30-24?

[HoustonGM]

I know how the play the game, so does that mean I can make the Dodgers go 30-24?

But do you know how to WIN?

[etothep]

will

as in tyler hansbrough willed jesus back to life so that the world could be saved or that tim tebow willed the cure for small pox

[RedsoxRockies]

But do you know how to WIN?

That is my weakness! Oh crap, I don't know how to win, so I may be able to go 8-8 with 6 HRs, but I guess that is not enough effort... I need to learn how to win.

[dickay]

I don't think you should be calling somebody wrong when you have absolutely zero evidence to back up your stance.

There's alot in life that can't be explained. I never said you were wrong either...only that I you are entitled to your opinion, even when it's wrong.

[ragecage]

There's alot in life that can't be explained. I never said you were wrong either...only that I you are entitled to your opinion, even when it's wrong.

call me naive but I think you are saying he is wrong.

[wahoosamC]

"Clutch" and "Knows how to play the game"

Yeah, also can't forget "just watch the game" or "sabermetric geeks."

[Swampdog]

There are intangibles that nobody can put a number or stat to and quantify. I believe those who can't or refuse to understand them, probably haven't truly played organized sports. There are people who are just winners and will be winners wherever they go. Maybe not winning the whole thing, but they have an ability to improve those around them largely because of their work ethic, leadership abilities, game knowledge, and confidence. Jeter and Pedroia are two examples. If they weren't on such talented teams, I firmly believe they'd find a way to win wherever they were. Again, maybe not the championship but they'd improve their team with their intangibles greatly.

I agree in baseball this is harder than the other sports. McNabb is a guy who just knows how to win. He'd win wherever he plays. Same with a guy like Ray Lewis and Troy Palamalu. Ben Rothlisberger i'd put in there too. Basketball has become such an individual sport that its harder to find these people. Chris Paul would go in that category. A guy like Rasheed Wallace would go in this category to a lesser extent.

Its like porn...you know it when you see it. Some refuse to believe the eye test and will resort to their stats to try and diffuse this as myth. Thats fine...they can try all they want but to those who have seen it they know it to be true.

"knows how to win", "knows how to play the game"...these are cliche's for the most part but there is fact to them as well in some instances.

This is the sort of thing that Bill James once described as a "bullsh*t dump". People use this type of "logic" to explain why player A is better than player B, despite the fact that player B has better stats. This BS dump includes things like clutch ability, character, determination, leadership, etc., and it is just the fact that these things cannot be measured that make them the last resort for anyone that can't make a structered argument, and/or cannot use factual data. Its a combination of myth, legend, and pure subjective speculation, in other words.

When someone claims that Brooks Robinson was a better player than Mike Schmidt, they support this inane position by claiming that he was a clutch player (while Schmidt mainly tanked in the clutch...just check postseason stats), Brooks was a leader, Brooks was a winner, Brooks had character, blah, blah, blah. It can be proven that, in everything that can be measured, Schmidt was a far, far better player. So the proponent of the argument is forced to rely on conjecture...things that, real or unreal, cannot be measured.

Personally, I believe that there is such a thing as "leadership", and certainly "clutch play" is a reality. The thing is, especially in baseball, leadership is making a big play, getting a key hit, that sort of thing. Leadership does not make anyone else play better. Getting a clutch hit is a form of leadership, at least to some of us. But it does not somehow inspire anyone else to perform at a level measureably higher than normal.

Let me quote Bill James, briefly, talking about clutch performances. "Baseball men often like to attribute the success or failure of a team to clutch performances. Those of us who study baseball systematically know that this is largely untrue, that the number of runs a team scores is a predictable outcome of their hits, their walks, their home runs, and their other offensive accomplishments-and further, that the number of games that the team wins is largely a predictable outcome of their runs scored and runs allowed."

I too would like to see some evidence that Jeter or Pedroia (or McNabb, or Lewis, etc) have made others better players, or that they possess some innate ability to "win", where others will fail, and lose. Had these two played for Washington in 2008, the Nats would have probably won 4 or 5 more games. They would not have been magically transformed into division winners just because Pedroia and Jeter "really know how to win".

I remember, years ago, people would talk about NBA star Larry Bird, and how he knows how to win, and how he made his teamates better. Larry Bird was one helluva basketball player, let me tell you. He was a hard worker by all accounts (his workouts were the stuff of legend), he had uncanny instincts, he was fundamentally sound, and he had great TALENT.

That being said, Larry Bird did not make anyone else better. He did not make Danny Ainge a better three point shooter. He did not make Robert Parish a better rebounder, or improve Kevin McHale's post play. Bird did make it easier, at times, for Ainge to score, or Parish to rebound. Because he was so good, he did open up the game for others, i.e., made it easier for them to produce. His passing skills led to easy layups for others. This, in the strictest sense, does not make anyone better, it just makes things easier for them.

Football. You often hear it said that one great player makes another better. Not true, for the same reasons. We also hear how a strong running game makes the passing game better. This, again, is untrue. A good running game makes it easier to pass because the defense has to focus on the ground game. But a good running game does not make the QB better at throwing a football, and does not make a receiver better at catching one, or running his pass routes.

I realize that the "makes better" debate, as outlined here, is dangerously close to just being an argument over semantics. I have no problem with how the phrase is normally used in sports, because what it really means is that this player makes "things easier" for other teammates. It's just another worn out cliche, thats all.

Baseball traditionalists denounce sabermetrics proponents as wannabe's who never played the game, and use frivolous stats in lieu of real baseball knowledge. Sabermetricians and stat geeks ridicule the other side, claiming that the new age stats provide greater insight into what really matters in the game. Both sides believe that they are superior, for different reasons.

Those that place a lot of stock in things like "leadership", "inspires confidence in teammates", "character", etc., are just as bad, if not worse. They seem to think that, because they are so much smarter than anyone else, they can see these things, when no one else does. They can tell who is a "winner", when none of the rest of us can. They can detect who is making their teammates better, even though it is invisible to everyone else. To me, these individuals place far too much emphasis on these "intangibles", and far too little emphasis on factual evidence.

To sum up the bullsh*t dump of intangibles, I will quote Bill James again. "It's a dangerous area to get into, because when you reach into the bullsh*t dump, you're not going to come out with a handful of diamonds".