Assume 22 starts, 132 IP, 3.25 ERA from Gausman this year...

[Ohfan67]

What studies have been done on the impact of team chemistry and social proof?

I missed this. Was this a real question? There are studies of team chemistry in baseball. It is basically impossible to find any evidence that this is import ant in real data. For every anecdote that supports the importance of team chemistry you can find counter anecdotes for winning teams that hated each other, hated their managers, etc.

[mdbdotcom]

I was typing a response, but it's a waist of electrons. Obviously you are going to believe whatever you want to believe. But don't you think it's odd that there's very, very little evidence that it exists?

Frank Robinson made the O's better because he scared the crap out of opposing pitchers and his team mates. But seriously, ball players are full of baloney all the time. Didn't you ever listen to Joe Morgan broadcast a game?

There is plenty of evidence that social proof exists and the importance of team chemistry, but it's in psychology, human resources, and marketing books, not baseball statistics. New things are measured in baseball all the time. Maybe one day they will get around to measuring how players on a team affect each others' performance.

The Red Sox raved about the kind of guys they signed last year. Salty sucked, so they let him go. Pierzynski is a much better player, but everyone on the team hates him. Does any of that impact where they are in the standings? Probably not as much as losing Ellsbury and Victorino being out, but until there is a way of measuring it, you dismiss it at the risk of being shortsighted.

For every statistic you cling to, there was a time when no one thought it was worth measuring.

btw - You should get a belt for your electrons, so you don't "waist" them.

[mdbdotcom]

If you can't quantify something, especially if you can't even prove it exists, you can't use it to make decisions. If Gausman makes everyone a better pitcher, great, but that's gravy, that's a bonus. You absolutely do not ever count on something like that.

A secondary problem I have with the unmeasurables is that they are a BS dump (that's a Bill James phrase). Since you can't measure them they become the cause of and cure for all the great and terrible things in baseball, and the best part is you can't prove it right or wrong. Guy's in a slump? It's because the momentum created by his lineup protection's leadership is all off. Go ahead - prove that's not the case. Any version of reality you want can be explained by intangible qualities, and if you try to dispute that Buck's leadership is worth 20 games (good or bad)... well, you don't get it.

I agree with this, and do not believe that baseball decisions should be made on stuff that can't be measured. OTOH, since the role of social proof is accepted by psychologists, marketers, and HR professionals, maybe baseball people should figure out how to measure it.

[Flosman]

If you can't quantify something, especially if you can't even prove it exists, you can't use it to make decisions. If Gausman makes everyone a better pitcher, great, but that's gravy, that's a bonus. You absolutely do not ever count on something like that.

A secondary problem I have with the unmeasurables is that they are a BS dump (that's a Bill James phrase). Since you can't measure them they become the cause of and cure for all the great and terrible things in baseball, and the best part is you can't prove it right or wrong. Guy's in a slump? It's because the momentum created by his lineup protection's leadership is all off. Go ahead - prove that's not the case. Any version of reality you want can be explained by intangible qualities, and if you try to dispute that Buck's leadership is worth 20 games (good or bad)... well, you don't get it.

You know I agree with most of what you say here. I just don't think it ultimately means what you probably think it means. I think many of these un-measurable factors actually do have some effect. I also think some guys in baseball have either a feel or system to use this information to make decisions. I think it is a factor making some guys better at putting teams together than others. I agree with you it is voodoo and most can't do the calculus. I also think this voodoo is worthless with out great analysis of the measurable factors. I just think the voodoo exists in the baseball decision process of great baseball men.

[PA724_Oriole]

Why assume anything. Pedro Strop was traded and.is better than Tommy Hunter. Jake Arrieta was traded and is better than Tillman.

So let's assume we didn't trade those guys. Oh wait, that's pointless.

Btw, ill assume there is now way in hell Gausman has a ERA under 3.50 in his first 22 starts.

[UpstateNYfan]

Why assume anything. Pedro Strop was traded and.is better than Tommy Hunter. Jake Arrieta was traded and is better than Tillman.

So let's assume we didn't trade those guys. Oh wait, that's pointless.

Btw, ill assume there is now way in hell Gausman has a ERA under 3.50 in his first 22 starts.

Strop is quite a bit of a stretch here. Arrieta has shown good numbers this year and if he has his head together finally he may indeed be better than Tillman.

[PA724_Oriole]

Strop is quite a bit of a stretch here. Arrieta has shown good numbers this year and if he has his head together finally he may indeed be better than Tillman.

Strop might not be better but he definitely isn't worse. And as far as Arrieta goes, he could be our ace this year.

Maybe gave up a year to soon on him. Sucks when players play like he is after your team trades him.

[Ohfan67]

There is plenty of evidence that social proof exists and the importance of team chemistry, but it's in psychology, human resources, and marketing books, not baseball statistics. New things are measured in baseball all the time. Maybe one day they will get around to measuring how players on a team affect each others' performance.

The Red Sox raved about the kind of guys they signed last year. Salty sucked, so they let him go. Pierzynski is a much better player, but everyone on the team hates him. Does any of that impact where they are in the standings? Probably not as much as losing Ellsbury and Victorino being out, but until there is a way of measuring it, you dismiss it at the risk of being shortsighted.

For every statistic you cling to, there was a time when no one thought it was worth measuring.

btw - You should get a belt for your electrons, so you don't "waist" them.

There ARE multiple studies on the effects of "chemistry" on the performance of baseball players and teams and they all have found that if it exists, it has a tiny effect. But just keep ignoring data and relying on anecdotes.

[Ohfan67]

I agree with this, and do not believe that baseball decisions should be made on stuff that can't be measured. OTOH, since the role of social proof is accepted by psychologists, marketers, and HR professionals, maybe baseball people should figure out how to measure it.

Once again, there are studies of "chemistry" in baseball, but they just haven't found what you want.

Maybe turning on a 95 MPH fastball is different than writing better emails or being more courteous to customers? It is certainly different than cheerleading others to purchase a certain brand of consumables.

[DrungoHazewood]

You know I agree with most of what you say here. I just don't think it ultimately means what you probably think it means. I think many of these un-measurable factors actually do have some effect. I also think some guys in baseball have either a feel or system to use this information to make decisions. I think it is a factor making some guys better at putting teams together than others. I agree with you it is voodoo and most can't do the calculus. I also think this voodoo is worthless with out great analysis of the measurable factors. I just think the voodoo exists in the baseball decision process of great baseball men.

I think that some teams work better together than others, but trying to figure out the why is mostly a losing effort. Some people may think they have it figured out, but they don't. At least not in any repeatable way... they may stumble into it, but it doesn't mean that's an advantage they can use in another situation.

[DrungoHazewood]

Strop might not be better but he definitely isn't worse. And as far as Arrieta goes, he could be our ace this year.

Maybe gave up a year to soon on him. Sucks when players play like he is after your team trades him.

The Orioles gave Arrieta as many chances as any organization could be expected to give a player. It didn't work. I wish him the best, but have no illusions that he'd have figured things out here. And I'm in no way indicting the Orioles organization or plans or coaches.

Kind of like Jayson Werth. He was a light-hitting catcher with plenty of question marks for the Bowie Baysox. Took being traded for a random LOOGY and bouncing around a while to convince him to do things differently. He was probably never going to be an asset for the Orioles.

[mdbdotcom]

Once again, there are studies of "chemistry" in baseball, but they just haven't found what you want.

Maybe turning on a 95 MPH fastball is different than writing better emails or being more courteous to customers? It is certainly different than cheerleading others to purchase a certain brand of consumables.

Here's an interesting article from Baseball Prospectus on whether or not "team chemistry" exists.

As for the phenomenon of social proof in baseball, I'm not sure if there have been any studies of how the success or failure of a perceived team leader can effect the performance of others on the team.

Given that you don't accept that these things apply in a meaningful way, let me ask you this: do you believe that Buck Showalter changed the culture of losing in Baltimore? If he did, how did he do it? Are the things he did measurable? If it's not measurable, does it exist?

[Mizerooskie]

There ARE multiple studies on the effects of "chemistry" on the performance of baseball players and teams and they all have found that if it exists, it has a tiny effect. But just keep ignoring data and relying on anecdotes.

If it's something you cant' quantify, how on Earth could you have any sort of conclusive study on it?

[Mizerooskie]

Ask any professional athlete if un-quantifiable things like chemistry, momentum, confidence, and leadership have any effect on his level of play, and I guarantee he says says yes.

You can't correlate them directly to results in any meaningful mathematical construct because they're impossible to measure. That doesn't mean they should be dismissed or looked down upon.

[DrungoHazewood]

Given that you don't accept that these things apply in a meaningful way, let me ask you this: do you believe that Buck Showalter changed the culture of losing in Baltimore? If he did, how did he do it? Are the things he did measurable? If it's not measurable, does it exist?

I think he changed things, but you can't stick a "+9 wins" tag on it. It's not like 40 homers, you can't assign a run or a win value to it. Buck changed the culture, but he still had a 69-win season in 2011. He's still mostly the same guy who did a lot of the same things and got fired by the Yankees and Rangers and D'backs.

(Soccer alert, turn the channel if you can't handle this) It really is more like analyzing soccer. Sure, you can point out goal chances and expected goals and various metrics, but it really comes down to putting 11 guys on the field in a formation and a philosophy where they can interact and complement each other in a way that's creates chances and keeps the other team from doing the same. You can't just pick an All Star team and expect them to immediately mesh and dominate, they have to cohesively interact, and you can't always predict how that works.