Sabremetrics vs. Intangibles: Which do you value more?

[chuckywang]

Suppose you're the GM of a young baseball team in the middle of a playoff chase (think Diamondbacks last year). It is near the trade deadline and you have your choice of two players with the same salary.

 

Player 1: He is a veteran and has been to the playoffs many times before. He will give credible advice to your younger players, and he acts like a winner around them. He carries himself well and handles the media well. After his playing career, he has coaching written all over him.

 

Player 2: He has slightly better stats than Player 1. He will have a slightly better SLG% and OBP%. He also has a slightly better fielding percentage. However, he is younger and has not been to the playoffs at all in his career, though he is certainly not a clubhouse cancer.

 

So, in essence, Player 1 has better intangibles and Player 2 has better all around stats. Which player do you choose?

[javy knows my name]

Is this a joke? You're thinking I might pick Trachsel over Marshall or something?

BTW, OBP and SLG aren't sabermetrics.

[chuckywang]

Is this a joke? You're thinking I might pick Trachsel over Marshall or something?

BTW, OBP and SLG aren't sabermetrics.

 

Then replace it with VORP and OPS+.

[17 Seconds]

Well I want to win, so player 2.

[Bote McBoteface]

We're trading for one of these guys? Are we assuming that the same package of players will be able to net either guy? Because the older guy would probably be much easier to trade for than the younger one.

 

I'll just assume that I'd be giving up the same players for either guy, and I'd definitely go with the better (the younger one, in this case) player.

[davell]

The better question may be this actually: What if the older player is the slightly better player in this scenario? Do you trade for him, in going for it this year or do you trade for the younger player who still has some upside he hasn't tapped yet?

[bhogg]

player 2 is Rick Wilkens

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I'd always trade for the better player.

[jmajew]

Lets say the choice was between Nick Swisher and Hideki Matsui, who would you choose?

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I would trade for the younger, better player and say that he has intangibles such as being younger and better

[UMFan83]

I think this was the wrong message board to ask this question if you wanted debate from both sides.

[Abe Frohman]

I'd always trade for the better player.

 

You get Barry Bonds, I'll take Carlos Beltran.

[BigbadB]

I'd always trade for the better player.

 

Further proof that this organization needs to learn how to develop talent on the farm. Everyone is "trading" for this younger and better player rather than promoting him from the minors.

 

In a perfect world, the hypothetical question would ask if you would trade for the veteran or promote the more talented, younger player from your own farm system.

 

Cubs fans have gone so long without decent position prospects that it isn't even thought of in a hypothetical question.

 

To answer the question, I promote Geovany Soto rather than trade for Jason Kendall.

 

What do I win?

[chuckywang]

What if both players were the same age? Who would you take?

[Clem Fandango]

What if both players were the same age? Who would you take?

 

Guy with better stats. The players shouldn't need a veteran who's been there to guide them through the season, that's what the coaches are for. The players are there to play ball and win, not play big brother to anyone younger than them. Give them advice, sure. But advice only goes as far as one is willing to take it, and chances are the better player can probably give pretty good advice since he's, you know, better. But that's just me

[inari]

What if both players were the same age? Who would you take?

 

You're trying really hard to get anyone who posts here to admit that they'd take intangibles over statistics in any circumstances. I don't think it'll work.

[Post Count Padder]

What if both players were the same age? Who would you take?

Man, you are trying really hard. You are gonna be hard pressed to find someone who goes the other way. Might wanna try finding some real old school baseball guys and they'll give you the answer you want, such as Dusty Baker.

[Tracer Bullet]

I think the issue is saying one is better. If the hypo is "better player v. experience" you have to take the better player. But if the difference in the 2 is statistically immaterial (saying a few more points of OBP and SLG) so it's not clear 1 is better, then the experience might tip the scales if there's a longer history of solid performance that could suggest that the experienced player is more likely to maintain his performance.

 

But if you're really looking for someone to say they'd prefer intangibles - like experience and perceived leadership - to talent or on-the-field performance (I'm picturing circa 2000 Cap'n Jetes v. ARod or something), you'll probably have a couple people say that, but not many b/c they'd be wrong.

[CubinNY]

How does one value something that by definition, one knows so little about?

[chuckywang]

What if both players were the same age? Who would you take?

 

You're trying really hard to get anyone who posts here to admit that they'd take intangibles over statistics in any circumstances. I don't think it'll work.

 

I'm just trying to find some sort of gauge as to how much more intangibles a player must have in order to cancel out a deficiency in stats. Posts above were deciding based on age, which is not the discussion I had in mind (yes, kinda shortsighted of me in my original post). I, myself, would also choose the guy with the better stats. However, a friend of mine last night convinced me that, given a deficiency in stats small enough that can be explained away by "randomness", then you should go with the player with the intangibles. I just wanted to find out what everybody else thought.

[SouthSideRyan]

How do you have much more intangibles?

[inari]

What if both players were the same age? Who would you take?

 

You're trying really hard to get anyone who posts here to admit that they'd take intangibles over statistics in any circumstances. I don't think it'll work.

 

I'm just trying to find some sort of gauge as to how much more intangibles a player must have in order to cancel out a deficiency in stats. Posts above were deciding based on age, which is not the discussion I had in mind (yes, kinda shortsighted of me in my original post). I, myself, would also choose the guy with the better stats. However, a friend of mine last night convinced me that, given a deficiency in stats small enough that can be explained away by "randomness", then you should go with the player with the intangibles. I just wanted to find out what everybody else thought.

 

If it can be explained by randomness, like a .850 OPS instead of an .848 OPS, then I'd probably take the player with "intangibles," even if he had the .848 OPS (all other things being equal).

[imb]

How do you have much more intangibles?

 

duh, you measure them

[chuckywang]

How do you have much more intangibles?

 

At the simplest level, just a gut feeling. Take Julio Franco for example. Bobby Cox always brings him back at the end of every year. If a manager who has taken his team to the playoffs 14 straight years feels that he is a valuable addition to the clubhouse, then I'd have to believe him.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

How do you have much more intangibles?

 

At the simplest level, just a gut feeling. Take Julio Franco for example. Bobby Cox always brings him back at the end of every year. If a manager who has taken his team to the playoffs 14 straight years feels that he is a valuable addition to the clubhouse, then I'd have to believe him.

he was there because he wasn't making a lot of money and putting up respectable numbers