Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Last night I watched most of the MLB Network telecast of the Orioles/Pirates game and the Pirate commentators said something that made me wonder. They said that while winning a ST game is essentially meaningless there is one aspect that is important and that is building confidence in a team (especially a young team) that they can win games on a regular basis. As such, they said it would be a help in that regard for the Orioles to win their 2nd game of the Grapefruit season.

I think they are probably right on this and it makes me wonder how a young team like the Orioles can be confident of winning when they haven't done so? In fact, they haven't had a winning season in over a dozen years and how do they over come this confidence factor barrier that would seem inherent to losing teams?

Maybe I missed it but I don't recall this being discusssed much here as a topic or even a concern.

Whenever anyone brings up things like "hustle, chemistry, confidence" or any other "intangible" it usually gets shut down fast because its not patently quantifiable.

Even though there are managers like Joe Maddon who believe in the concept of chemistry and team confidence and have applied these ideas into his managerial philosophy, to some, it simply doesn't matter because it can't be converted into a WHIP, RBI, RISB, OBP, etc. percentage.

Winning is very important to any team regardless of age, but winning for young guys changes the situation from, "I belong here (in the MLB?)" into "I belong here!"

Simple difference that means everything in the long run.

MSK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Even though there are managers like Joe Maddon who believe in the concept of chemistry and team confidence and have applied these ideas into his managerial philosophy, to some, it simply doesn't matter because it can't be converted into a WHIP, RBI, RISB, OBP, etc. percentage.

There are tons of people like that living in their parents' basement. In Stereotype World.

Most of us believe that intangibles exist and impact wins and losses, but that they're usually exaggerated by those who are desperately trying to prove that statistical analysis is fatally flawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are tons of people like that living in their parents' basement. In Stereotype World.

Most of us believe that intangibles exist and impact wins and losses, but that they're usually exaggerated by those who are desperately trying to prove that statistical analysis is fatally flawed.

That's because statistical analysis is so unreliable as to be useless as a predictor of anything meaningful. One of the biggest reasons for this is it cannot take into account the human factor that there are intangibles that will alter the performance of a player. Nick Markakis adjusting to his marriage and a child was one that no statistical analysis took into account for example. Of course if we has said that to you last season you would probably have laughed it off as not having any real impact, yet Markakis has now publicly said it did. So there you go. Sort of proves the human factor may have a bigger impact than you wish to acknowledge. The problem is you cannot quantify it statistically can you?:eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because statistical analysis is so unreliable as to be useless as a predictor of anything meaningful. One of the biggest reasons for this is it cannot take into account the human factor that there are intangibles that will alter the performance of a player. Nick Markakis adjusting to his marriage and a child was one that no statistical analysis took into account for example. Of course if we has said that to you last season you would probably have laughed it off as not having any real impact, yet Markakis has now publicly said it did. So there you go. Sort of proves the human factor may have a bigger impact than you wish to acknowledge. The problem is you cannot quantify it statistically can you?:eek:

There is always a flaw with dealing with humans, and logical people take that into account. When people use stats to make predictions they are looking at historical trends and extrapolating.

Something unforeseen can always happen. We all understand that.

But that does not invalidate statistical analysis. The fact that you were wrong once does not mean the entire study of statistics is invalid - it just means you were wrong.

Once again, no one is denying the human factor, no one. Humans are humans. Robert Andino could have a monster year and hit 40 home runs, he could - anything can happen. Kevin Millwood could sink into the depths of a increasingly chronic depression - he could. But when looking at a team you can only plan for that so much.

The human factor does not invalidate stats, nor do stats invalidate the human factor but you seem to think that we are saying they do. That is not the case, one is science the other is guessing.

To use an analogy: We are measuring blood pressure and using patient histories - you're concentrating on an imbalance of the "bodily humors".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because statistical analysis is so unreliable as to be useless as a predictor of anything meaningful. One of the biggest reasons for this is it cannot take into account the human factor that there are intangibles that will alter the performance of a player. Nick Markakis adjusting to his marriage and a child was one that no statistical analysis took into account for example. Of course if we has said that to you last season you would probably have laughed it off as not having any real impact, yet Markakis has now publicly said it did. So there you go. Sort of proves the human factor may have a bigger impact than you wish to acknowledge. The problem is you cannot quantify it statistically can you?:eek:

So unreliable as to be useless? Um...no. The problem is people don't know how to interpret statistics properly. I don't have last years predictions handy, but I'm sure Nick's numbers were within 1 to 1.5 std deviations of what they predicted. If you use just a normal bell curve that means he has about 66 - 80% chance of falling in that range. Also these predictions are over the course of the entire population - MLB. There is definitely some tail risk (actual results falling well outside the prediction). Now I don't know the exact statistical model used but that's the basic gist of it. So what does that say? Yes intangibles definitely exist but statistics account for and acknowledge the outliers. And that's when the human mind comes into play - what causes these outliers? No they don't tell the whole story but statistics certainly give an excellent starting point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So unreliable as to be useless? Um...no. The problem is people don't know how to interpret statistics properly. I don't have last years predictions handy, but I'm sure Nick's numbers were within 1 to 1.5 std deviations of what they predicted. If you use just a normal bell curve that means he has about 66 - 80% chance of falling in that range. Also these predictions are over the course of the entire population - MLB. There is definitely some tail risk (actual results falling well outside the prediction). Now I don't know the exact statistical model used but that's the basic gist of it. So what does that say? Yes intangibles definitely exist but statistics account for and acknowledge the outliers. And that's when the human mind comes into play - what causes these outliers? No they don't tell the whole story but statistics certainly give an excellent starting point.

You lost him at "So...."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because statistical analysis is so unreliable as to be useless as a predictor of anything meaningful. One of the biggest reasons for this is it cannot take into account the human factor that there are intangibles that will alter the performance of a player. Nick Markakis adjusting to his marriage and a child was one that no statistical analysis took into account for example. Of course if we has said that to you last season you would probably have laughed it off as not having any real impact, yet Markakis has now publicly said it did. So there you go. Sort of proves the human factor may have a bigger impact than you wish to acknowledge. The problem is you cannot quantify it statistically can you?:eek:

2008 season Nick Markakis has OPS of .897

March 2009 Nick Markakis has a son (happy belated Bday to the little guy)

2009 season Nick Markakis has OPS of .801

Ergo, one statistical quantification of the effect of having a baby is a decrease of OPS by .096.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2008 season Nick Markakis has OPS of .897

March 2009 Nick Markakis has a son (happy belated Bday to the little guy)

2009 season Nick Markakis has OPS of .801

Ergo, one statistical quantification of the effect of having a baby is a decrease of OPS by .096.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to KAZ97 again.

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because statistical analysis is so unreliable as to be useless as a predictor of anything meaningful. One of the biggest reasons for this is it cannot take into account the human factor that there are intangibles that will alter the performance of a player. Nick Markakis adjusting to his marriage and a child was one that no statistical analysis took into account for example. Of course if we has said that to you last season you would probably have laughed it off as not having any real impact, yet Markakis has now publicly said it did. So there you go. Sort of proves the human factor may have a bigger impact than you wish to acknowledge. The problem is you cannot quantify it statistically can you?:eek:

So then why is it that you bring up his close and late stats from last year...if they were meaningless?

Why is it that you would bash Nick before he had the kid and wife, despite him being recognized, league wide, as one of the best RFers in baseball, if not the best?

See, the real problem here is that you want to argue what suits your argument at the time...In reality, you really don't have a clue as to what you are talking about and instead go to the old school baseball cliche handbook.

Do these guys need to learn to win? Of course...Does this organization have to get rid of that "losing culture"? Of course...This isn't brain surgery...This is obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2008 season Nick Markakis has OPS of .897

March 2009 Nick Markakis has a son (happy belated Bday to the little guy)

2009 season Nick Markakis has OPS of .801

Ergo, one statistical quantification of the effect of having a baby is a decrease of OPS by .096.

I get that but NOBODY PREDICTED THAT DID THEY? I am certainly not dissing statistics in general. They are superb at measuring what HAPPENED but basically worthless in PREDICTING ANYTHING MEANINFUL! Please read and re-read this last sentence! THANK YOU!!!:eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get that but NOBODY PREDICTED THAT DID THEY? I am certainly not dissing statistics in general. They are superb at measuring what HAPPENED but basically worthless in PREDICTING ANYTHING MEANINFUL! Please read and re-read this last sentence! THANK YOU!!!:eek:

This has to be one of the dumbest things ever said on this board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So then why is it that you bring up his close and late stats from last year...if they were meaningless?

Why is it that you would bash Nick before he had the kid and wife, despite him being recognized, league wide, as one of the best RFers in baseball, if not the best?

See, the real problem here is that you want to argue what suits your argument at the time...In reality, you really don't have a clue as to what you are talking about and instead go to the old school baseball cliche handbook.

Do these guys need to learn to win? Of course...Does this organization have to get rid of that "losing culture"? Of course...This isn't brain surgery...This is obvious.

Yeah, but the topic was whether it was important in SPRING TRAINING!!!:eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...