from Amazon
Monday, October 24, 2011
Intangible diamonds
Brian argues:
I’m in favor of good character and the will to win as much as the next guy. But to the extent these qualities influence play on the field, the numbers will capture their effect. So the next time your buddy says stats don’t measure the intangibles, you can say, ‘Sure they do. And besides, where have these magical qualities been hiding all season? And why haven’t they shown up on the field until now anyway?’
I think there are two points here:
1. There’s no question that if you have some great intangible quality (you work at the children’s hospital in your off days), but that quality has no direct or indirect effect on your performance or your teammates’ performance, then it’s not relevant.
2. You have your great “work with kids” intangible quality, and it DOES have a direct or indirect effect, then we WILL see the result in a better performance by you and more wins by your team. You have a great work ethic, you keep your teammates loose, you have whatever other intangible quality that is highly prized: the impact will be felt, eventually, on the scoreboard.
***
What I think is really being discussed though is that the player with the great intangibles will go on to have an even better career than the guy with not, if they both have the same stats to that point.
For example, Derek Jeter and Manny Ramirez, through the 20s, might be considered to have around the same win impact to their teams. Jeter may have had less innate skill, but more intangibles, while Manny may have had more innate skill, but less intangibles (or even “negative” intangibles). The question then becomes: who will have more win impact in the future?
Now, it’s possible that the intangible-heavy player will age better, and that the intangible-light player will age terribly. This is, basically, what the “anti-spreadsheet” crowd is really arguing.
And, to a certain extent, I am with that crowd. Take for example, everyone’s favorite replacement-level player: Willie Bloomquist. A player who is barely able to make the 25-man roster of any team he’s been on is a prime candidate for being out of MLB the next year. Once a player hits the age of 30, he loses about 0.5 wins of value each year. A player is, after all, human, and not a machine. His body just can’t handle the rigors of time.
Wille Ballgame will turn 34 years old next month. His career hitting is at 80% of the league average. He’s held steady at 80% of the league average over the last 2 years, last 5 years, and his career. It’s as if he’s not aging. His hitting does not get better, nor does it get worse. His fielding may be similarly unaffected. Willie Ballgame’s intangibles may simply be offsetting father time.
Maybe there’s other guys like him. Craig Counsell maybe? Counsell has the same offensive non-deterioration as Willie Ballgame (though perhaps even his intangibles can’t counteract father time after age 40). Counsell was a far better fielder than Willie, and has survived in MLB on basically his fielding counteracting father time.
It’s possible that I’m just cherry picking players, building a narrative. Gary Sheffield for example would probably be a prime candidate for being intangible-light, but he was probably as good in his early to mid 30s as he was at any point in his 20s.
In any case, I think this is really want people are talking about separating the intangibles from the physical: the physical will deteriorate at a very fast clip, while intangibles are like diamonds.