Great Phil Rogers column in today's Trib

[snoodmonger]

This is one of those moments where stats really don't tell the story, IMO. Would Lee have accounted for 15 more wins? Of course not. But I doubt it would have only been three wins, too.

 

Anyone who's ever played sports knows psychologically, you play differently when your best player goes down. At the beginning, there might even be an upwards spike in intensity, but overall, a lot of teams play with less hope and less confidence. Is that measurable? No. But do confidence and hope, for lack of a better word, play a role in sports performance? Without a doubt. That's why there's such a big sports psychology industry. Because thinking you can win is a key part of winning.

 

Unfortunately, because it's not measurable, many people will discount it or, at least, say its lack of measurability makes it pointless to discuss. But I think it's foolish to ignore the psychological impact losing the team's best player--both defensively AND offensively--can have.[/i]

[Soriano12]

I really don't care if I convince anybody. To me a healthy D. Lee gives this team 8 extra wins...4 in the VORP(stats deparment) and 4 via intangibles. Thats just my opinion. Maybe some players dont' go into slumps...confindence is up...etc..etc..Its just my opinion..I do respect stats but I also think you have to acknlowdege the non measurable factors.

 

Now you're changing your estimates.

 

This is the problem. When you arbitrarily assign value to things you are almost certain to value them incorrectly. This is how the Cubs build a team. They haphazardly put together a team with random and arbitrary stats (Jones hit .300 once, so-and-so hit great with RISP, Izturis led the league in hits for two months, etc), and the end result is a mess of a team with no direction.

 

As a fan, it really doesn't matter how you value players. You can choose to value whomever or whatever you want. But a GM, and any other person concerned with how a team is put together, has to use tangible, measurable, objective means to value the players they are considering for the roster.

 

This is how the Cubs build a team.

 

 

Are you accusing me of being a Hendry?

 

Those are some fighiting words!

:lol:

[Banedon]

This is one of those moments where stats really don't tell the story, IMO. Would Lee have accounted for 15 more wins? Of course not. But I doubt it would have only been three wins, too.

 

Well nothing does tell this story. We're all trying to predict what would have happened if a certain event wouldn't have transpired. What in life has definite answers like that? Stats can give you a solid foundation for your opinion. The rest is guesswork.

[goonys evil twin]

Anyone who's ever played sports knows psychologically, you play differently when your best player goes down. At the beginning, there might even be an upwards spike in intensity, but overall, a lot of teams play with less hope and less confidence. Is that measurable? No. But do confidence and hope, for lack of a better word, play a role in sports performance? Without a doubt.

 

If it did, then it should be measurable through the production with and without Lee.

[snoodmonger]

This is one of those moments where stats really don't tell the story, IMO. Would Lee have accounted for 15 more wins? Of course not. But I doubt it would have only been three wins, too.

 

Well nothing does tell this story. We're all trying to predict what would have happened if a certain event wouldn't have transpired. What in life has definite answers like that? Stats can give you a solid foundation for your opinion. The rest is guesswork.

 

When did I say stats did otherwise? My argument is that people take those stats and then effectively stop thinking. VORP says four wins, so that's that. Four wins it is. It's silly. VORP doesn't measure a player's total effect on the field. I know intangible is a naughty word here, but there are aspects to player and team perfromance that aren't measurable.

[goonys evil twin]

This is one of those moments where stats really don't tell the story, IMO. Would Lee have accounted for 15 more wins? Of course not. But I doubt it would have only been three wins, too.

 

Well nothing does tell this story. We're all trying to predict what would have happened if a certain event wouldn't have transpired. What in life has definite answers like that? Stats can give you a solid foundation for your opinion. The rest is guesswork.

 

When did I say stats did otherwise? My argument is that people take those stats and then effectively stop thinking. VORP says four wins, so that's that. Four wins it is. It's silly. VORP doesn't measure a player's total effect on the field. I know intangible is a naughty word here, but there are aspects to player and team perfromance that aren't measurable.

 

I don't think many people have said "VORP says four wins, so that's that." I think it's quite offensive, and typically insulting of people who follow stats, for you to say that people "stop thinking". Most have looked at several different measurements and came up with the conclusion that whatever number it was, it was probably less than 10-15. It's not a case of people looking at a stat and saying "that's that".

[CubsInNC]

Anyone who's ever played sports knows psychologically, you play differently when your best player goes down. At the beginning, there might even be an upwards spike in intensity, but overall, a lot of teams play with less hope and less confidence. Is that measurable? No. But do confidence and hope, for lack of a better word, play a role in sports performance? Without a doubt.

 

If it did, then it should be measurable through the production with and without Lee.

 

And just because someone hasn't derived the mathematical formula for it (the psycholofical effects), doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

Luck can't be measured either, but it's alluded to, in explaining why someone's stats vary significantly from normalized stats, like BABIP.

[snoodmonger]

This is one of those moments where stats really don't tell the story, IMO. Would Lee have accounted for 15 more wins? Of course not. But I doubt it would have only been three wins, too.

 

Well nothing does tell this story. We're all trying to predict what would have happened if a certain event wouldn't have transpired. What in life has definite answers like that? Stats can give you a solid foundation for your opinion. The rest is guesswork.

 

When did I say stats did otherwise? My argument is that people take those stats and then effectively stop thinking. VORP says four wins, so that's that. Four wins it is. It's silly. VORP doesn't measure a player's total effect on the field. I know intangible is a naughty word here, but there are aspects to player and team perfromance that aren't measurable.

 

I don't think many people have said "VORP says four wins, so that's that." I think it's quite offensive, and typically insulting of people who follow stats, for you to say that people "stop thinking". Most have looked at several different measurements and came up with the conclusion that whatever number it was, it was probably less than 10-15. It's not a case of people looking at a stat and saying "that's that".

 

Well you're easily offended then. Because that's the danger for relying too much on stats, IMO. People stop thinking and just trot out numbers, ignoring the immeasurable parts of sports.

 

On the flipside, there's perhaps greater danger in ignoring stats--not thinking at all. And that, I suppose, is an even worse alternative.

[snoodmonger]

Anyone who's ever played sports knows psychologically, you play differently when your best player goes down. At the beginning, there might even be an upwards spike in intensity, but overall, a lot of teams play with less hope and less confidence. Is that measurable? No. But do confidence and hope, for lack of a better word, play a role in sports performance? Without a doubt.

 

If it did, then it should be measurable through the production with and without Lee.

 

The statistical measurement would have to be a Lee-specific, wouldn't it? Because not every player brings an equal component of confidence to his team. (VORL? Value over replacement Lee?)

 

And it would have to measure Lee's teammates, too. Because not every group reacts the same to a key loss. For example, a team of young guys might take it harder. A team with an obvious co-leader might react better.

[goonys evil twin]

Anyone who's ever played sports knows psychologically, you play differently when your best player goes down. At the beginning, there might even be an upwards spike in intensity, but overall, a lot of teams play with less hope and less confidence. Is that measurable? No. But do confidence and hope, for lack of a better word, play a role in sports performance? Without a doubt.

 

If it did, then it should be measurable through the production with and without Lee.

 

And just because someone hasn't derived the mathematical formula for it (the psycholofical effects), doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

Luck can't be measured either, but it's alluded to, in explaining why someone's stats vary significantly from normalized stats, like BABIP.

 

The point is, if the psychological effect of losing Lee was an overall negative, it would show up in the production of those players that were affected. So it would be measurable. The players on this team are relatively close to what should have been expected of them. You can't really point at any one player and say he's doing much worse than he should have, and then blame that on Lee. So if the players aren't doing any worse, you can't justify the claim that the loss of Lee caused them to play worse due to the psychological blow.

[snoodmonger]

Anyone who's ever played sports knows psychologically, you play differently when your best player goes down. At the beginning, there might even be an upwards spike in intensity, but overall, a lot of teams play with less hope and less confidence. Is that measurable? No. But do confidence and hope, for lack of a better word, play a role in sports performance? Without a doubt.

 

If it did, then it should be measurable through the production with and without Lee.

 

And just because someone hasn't derived the mathematical formula for it (the psycholofical effects), doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

Luck can't be measured either, but it's alluded to, in explaining why someone's stats vary significantly from normalized stats, like BABIP.

 

The point is, if the psychological effect of losing Lee was an overall negative, it would show up in the production of those players that were affected. So it would be measurable. The players on this team are relatively close to what should have been expected of them. You can't really point at any one player and say he's doing much worse than he should have, and then blame that on Lee. So if the players aren't doing any worse, you can't justify the claim that the loss of Lee caused them to play worse due to the psychological blow.

 

The problem is, we've played so many young guys, it's impossible to say what we should have expected from them versus what we received. I know we had preseason projections for guys like Murton and Cedeno, and those are probably decent baselines to start from, but we still can't say for sure how much they've deviated from thier career norms (at MLB level) because they don't have career norms.

 

Same goes for the pitchers, too.

[CubsInNC]

Anyone who's ever played sports knows psychologically, you play differently when your best player goes down. At the beginning, there might even be an upwards spike in intensity, but overall, a lot of teams play with less hope and less confidence. Is that measurable? No. But do confidence and hope, for lack of a better word, play a role in sports performance? Without a doubt.

 

If it did, then it should be measurable through the production with and without Lee.

 

And just because someone hasn't derived the mathematical formula for it (the psycholofical effects), doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

Luck can't be measured either, but it's alluded to, in explaining why someone's stats vary significantly from normalized stats, like BABIP.

 

The point is, if the psychological effect of losing Lee was an overall negative, it would show up in the production of those players that were affected. So it would be measurable. The players on this team are relatively close to what should have been expected of them. You can't really point at any one player and say he's doing much worse than he should have, and then blame that on Lee. So if the players aren't doing any worse, you can't justify the claim that the loss of Lee caused them to play worse due to the psychological blow.

 

I'm not saying it does or doesn't exist but because the mathematical formula that quantifies it doesn't exist (yet) it can't be dismissed as a non-factor, an immeasurable one and debateable to it's influence, but not a non-factor.

 

Why isn't BA the best stat? Because there are lots of aspects of the offensive game that it fails to include and calculate the significance of. Was it at one time considered one of the top stats? Probably. There were some who pushed on and developed mathematical models that superceded BA as more telling signs of offensive contribution.

 

VORP isn't the perfect stat, yet. It's one of the best we have at our discretion to show the basic difference between a player and his replacement.

 

it would show up in the production of those players that were affected.

 

Maybe it does. Does randomness and statistical analysis tell you that all 25 members of the Cubs roster should perform at their "statistical norm" all at the same time? I'm not attacking, asking, because I don't know. I don't think so, but I'm open to proof that it's valid to assume that. It tells me that they should all average the statistical norms, but there's always variance. Humans aren't entirely random, and neither is baseball. Outside of random chance there might be other measurable things that do contribute to when a player performs at a higher or lower than normal, or even at normal levels. Could everyone on the team just have not eaten carrots during that span and it affected their eyesight, and it's not mental? Sure. But there are quantifiable reasons to explain why a person performs at the level they do, whether that's with or against the "odds" (I hate that term). We just don't understand the math yet.

 

Ex. Marcus Giles says he hates batting leadoff. And for some reason, when he does, he does not perform where statistics say he should be? Do we toss the stats out? No. But it is valid to assume that there is a measurable quantity there of how much his "hatred" plays into that.

[dalgreen]

I don't get why Baker's comments still rile people up. I knew it was nonsense when he suggested how many more games we could've won with Lee. I think this is just another attempt of him trying to give props to a vet. I guess at this point I no longer wish to exert so much energy in this team as to dissect every ridiculous Baker comment.

 

So you'd rather exert energy dissecting comments of those who get riled up by Baker comments?

 

Baker is using injuries as an excuse, and he's implying that if everyone were healthy, he'd be managing this team to a .500 record.

 

He's been full of excuses for four years now. No surprise. It looks as if he won't be back, so what's the point still talking about ridiculous Baker quotes. All you and the media are doing is giving him the attention he seems to desire. At this point, I think he should be treated as a non-issue. I'm already looking ahead to 2007 and he shouldn't have any effect on that season, so my attention is diverted to players and Hendry who will have an effect on 2007. Stupid Hendry. I'm still not happy that he will have an effect on the 2007 season.

[Backtobanks]

I happen to think that the loss of Lee cost the Cubs closer to 10 games than 4 games, but the bottom line is the Cubs would be a 5th place team with or without Lee. The one intangible in all of this is that with Lee in the lineup, there's less of a chance that Dusty can mess with the lineup.

[goonys evil twin]

He's been full of excuses for four years now. No surprise. It looks as if he won't be back, so what's the point still talking about ridiculous Baker quotes. All you and the media are doing is giving him the attention he seems to desire.

 

He's not a 6 year old acting up. He is an authority with enormous influence over a team people care a lot about. His words and actions should not be ignored.

[goonys evil twin]

I happen to think that the loss of Lee cost the Cubs closer to 10 games than 4 games, but the bottom line is the Cubs would be a 5th place team with or without Lee. The one intangible in all of this is that with Lee in the lineup, there's less of a chance that Dusty can mess with the lineup.

 

Lee has been there everyday for 2 years and Dusty didn't have a problem messing around, and messing up the lineup.

[snoodmonger]

I happen to think that the loss of Lee cost the Cubs closer to 10 games than 4 games, but the bottom line is the Cubs would be a 5th place team with or without Lee. The one intangible in all of this is that with Lee in the lineup, there's less of a chance that Dusty can mess with the lineup.

 

Exactly. With 10 more wins we MIGHT be in the wild card race. Who cares? A good GM aims higher than that.

[Careless]

Mabry was as bad as anybody on the team in April and May. There's no justification for wanting him to have played more.

 

I could see wanting to have Walker and 2nd and Mabry at 1st over Neifi/Hairston at 2nd and Walker and 1st.

 

Even though Neifi actually outproduced Mabry in May, when this whole thing went down? Mabry has been crap. Pretending he needed more time is just reshuffling deck chairs.

But there was no reason to expect mabry to be worse than Neifi at the time. If Hendry had thought that Mabry couldn't outhit niefi, he never would have been signed.

Whether or not it would have made the team actually perform better, it would have been the smart move

[mul21]

 

How does that work? How is it measured? I'm guessing

that with Lee Ramirez doesn't crap the bed in April in May. Granted

he is a slow starter..but my guess he puts up at least respectable #'s.

 

Of course I could be wrong..I just don't see how this could be measured.

 

First, it's probably best to start by distinguishing between weak protection and strong protection:

 

http://www.baseball1.com/faqs/protection-faq.html

 

I totally believe that weak protection exists, but I'm not sure what difference it would have made for Aramis, who normally hits behind Lee, anyway. If anything, having Aramis in the lineup makes pitchers less likely to walk Lee, but not vice versa.

 

I don't believe in "strong protection" - at least, not on the big league level - and there's a good but long article on that here:

 

http://www.baseball1.com/bb-data/grabiner/protstudy.html

 

I think it relates to the fact that Lee being on base 38-40% of the time would result in Ramirez seeing better pitchesbecause the pitcher doesn't want to put another guy on base. No statistical backup, just something that makes sense to me.