THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

If you’re going to see one of her movies, no.  If you’re going to marry her, absolutely.

I’m with Dave here. In the office environment, anyway, a very attractive person who won’t help with the work gets ugly pretty fast. In a clubhouse, I suppose a bad personality is just one more element in the evaluation. I’m trying to think of good teams led by bad personalities. Are they common?

You really don’t want your best player to be a bad person. The Giants basically walled off Barry Bonds in an attempt to get the production without all the other joy that comes with having Barry Bonds in the clubhouse.

I also think there’s a pretty big difference between how much you value make-up in a amateur versus a big league guy.  Sure, there are major league players who are just bad dudes, and you live with it because they produce. 

But an amateur guy, you don’t know that he’s going to work hard enough to make the necessary improvements to become a big leaguer.  With the major league guy, he’s already proven that he can put in enough effort to become a valuable player.  The 18-year-old kid, you have no idea. 

The minors are littered with immature kids not living up to their raw talent.  I’m not saying the scouts are right, and that Harper will be one of those kids, but you can’t just ignore the fact that the things that make scouts not like him might also be things that would manifest themselves in a lack of work ethic, which could keep him from ever reaching the big leagues.

If a player is arrogant and full of himself, a club might be wary of picking him, not because of clubhouse issues or anything of that sort, but because he might not be coachable and willing to put in the kind of work that is necessary to become a major-leaguer.

I think that it only becomes an issue if there’s someone equally as good available. Halle Berry’s awesome, unless Heidi Klum’s over there. I haven’t heard who the #1 would be if it’s not Harper. If there’s a Heidi Klum, then Harper’s makeup is an issue. If not, no one’s going to pick Fat Ass Linda from the bar instead. Unless they’re Dave Littlefield.

"One scout called him among the worst amateur players he’s ever seen from a makeup standpoint, with top-of-the-scale arrogance, a disturbingly large sense of entitlement, and on-field behavior that includes taunting opponents.”

I wonder if he’s simply a product of his environment.  The media’s hailed his talent as legendary, he’s practically being stalked by scouts...heck, he was on the cover of SI as well.  When you take an emotionally immature teenager and proclaim him to be a Future HOFer and one of the greatest talents to enter the draft in recent memory, yeah, you’re most likely going to see something like this happen.

This does not, of course, excuse his behavior.  I just wanted to point out that the scouts themselves might have played a role in turning him into a “monster.”

I want to know more about Harper’s makeup.  He might be an arrogant jerk, but how does he react towards his teammates?  Does he look down on them, does he treat them poorly?  Or does he offer advice and encouragement when it’s needed?

How much of an effect is this?  How would is him having bad makeup going to cost him?  Are we talking about 3MM$?  300,000$?  3$?  Give me ballpark number.

And for you NHL fans: Ron Hextall.  I don’t think there is a more despicable player from my generation, the teams were well aware of his act, and the Flyers *loved* him, precisely because he was a bad a$$.

One man’s a$$hole is another man’s dream.

I think makeup is important in terms of how it will affect his production - will he work hard?  Will he get into trouble?  Does he have the desire to be the very best, the competitive drive that seperates him from his peers?  Value those things in how much you estimate they affect his future performance - if you think he’ll give you, on average, 1 extra WAR a year because he makes the most of his ability, and each additional WAR costs $1M/year in signing bonus money, maybe factor in the chances of him not producing at all (I’ll set that to 50% for this example), and limit it to just his first 3 years as a pro since then he starts getting paid for his extra production in arbitration (and I’m simplifying things so I’m leaving it out), and the result is you pay him $1.5M extra in bonus money (1 extra WAR over 3 years = 3 WAR * $1M * .50 = $1.5M).

If you start trying to put a value on a few scouts subjective opinion of his attitude/personality and how an 18 year old will get along with his adult teammates later on when he’s also matured and become an adult....well, I don’t think that’s a very smart thing to start doing.  Baseball games are won by on field production.

But the Hextall comparison still depends on Harper having the work ethic to reach the majors.

#6. I’ve played with and/or against some very highly touted amateurs. Some of them have been extremely professional (Doolittle, Alvarez) and others have been complete buttheads (Rowell). That comment doesn’t really have a point, but it’s interesting that Rowell is the one that flopped.

I want to know what “makeup” is exactly.

I thought it was more “work ethic” than “nice guy”. If the guy is lazy and isn’t going to put the time and work into developing his baseball skills then all the talent in the world isn’t going to help. That matters a lot.

If he’s an a-hole and hard to be around well, A. J. Pierzynski still has a career as a middling catcher and Milton Bradley will keep getting chances as long as he can hit. Ty Cobb was one of the most miserable POS’s ever. It seems being nice only matters on the margins.

Right - no one should question whether work ethic is important.  That is self evident. 

The question is whether being a jerk effects a player’s potential work ethic.  You could make a pretty strong case that the things that Delmon Young a bad dude are very similar to the things that have made Delmon Young a flop in the big leagues.  There are hundreds of examples just like this. 

I don’t think its a question of how much you discount your offer to Harper, because there’s a number below which he won’t sign.  So, the question is more “Harper and his issues at $10-ish million or Prospect B for $5 million”.  If my scouting staff was concerned enough about Harper’s make-up that they thought it would affect his work ethic, I’d go for Prospect B and spend the extra money elsewhere.

If it “all depends”, and “we don’t know”, then what value is there to bring it up in terms of deciding whether to draft him and how much to pay him?

We’re trying to infer his work ethic, production growth, and eventual performance level for ages 21-27.  This is the point, right?  For the 6 or 7 years that they will control him at below-market prices, what will he do for you.

So, we all turn into amateurs pyschologists and try to infer what this thing we observe, that he is a jerk, will translate into those things that impact his eventual true talent level.

And, I presume, we all have no idea.  One guy who I worked with a few years ago told me that he used to be the Secret Service guard for Hillary Clinton back when she was First Lady.  What did he think of her?  “She’s a c-nt.” (*) Well, yeah, but so what?  What does it mean?

(*) Reminds me of a joke.  Probably not the best place to post it.

What if Bryce Harper turns into the sweetest guy in the whole world… and then loses his edge? Isn’t that what the Kent Hrbek / Gary Gaetti thing was about, how one of them found Jesus, and the other guy said he lost his edge?

This is just like people telling Vladimir Guerrero he should change his batting approach.  Trying to reign in Ron Hextall.  Trying to get Harper to change his attitude.  Trying to get Martin Brodeur to a marriage counselor (and then he wins the Stanley Cup instead).

We have no idea how a specific human being will respond, and trying to put in a “general regression” to that player will have a huge uncertainty level, so large that we are POSSIBLY better off not being amateur psychologist.

Until we actually study the issue properly, everyhing we say on the issue is nothing more than summary opinions without evidence.  And we know what that’s called.

So, the question is more “Harper and his issues at $10-ish million or Prospect B for $5 million”.  If my scouting staff was concerned enough about Harper’s make-up that they thought it would affect his work ethic, I’d go for Prospect B and spend the extra money elsewhere.

There’s no way any scout is going to go out on a limb and say that Prospect B at 5MM$ is a better value than Harper at 10MM$.  He just won’t do that.  He’s going to say “dude is so awesome, that we’ll spend all our time ‘fixing’ his attitude”.  It has to be someone who is at 9MM$ to pass on Harper.  I don’t see how any attitude (good or bad) is going to get valued at anything more than 1MM$.

Player A is a jerk to opposing players and to people outside the game, but is a very hard worker , is coachable, and is an otherwise decent teammate. (Michael Jordan model)

Player B is a jerk to everyone and a poor clubhouse presence, but is a very hard worker and is coachable. (Patrick Roy model)

Player C is so full of himself that his work ethic is questionable and he is considered uncoachable. (Ryan Leaf model)

All 3 players would be considered to have ‘makeup issues.’ But you should probably only discount Player C. Who knows where Bryce Harper falls?

Work ethic is not all that hard to judge for those who are around a person enough.  Yuniesky Betancourt was regularly out drinking until 2 or 3 am on the road, even when the team had an afternoon start the next day.  He never took early batting practice, ever. 

The guy just didn’t work hard enough to maintain the skills he was born with.  Everyone in the Seattle organization saw this on a daily basis. 

That “make up” issue directly caused a huge decline in his skills.  That matters.  There’s no way you can argue that doesn’t matter. 

The question is whether we can predict that kind of behavior in an amateur.  I don’t know.  But there’s no way I’m going to claim for certain that a scout who spends a decent amount of time observing Harper can’t pick up on things that would suggest that a player may be more likely to follow the Betancourt path.

Right, and the “things he can pick up on” won’t get valued at anything more than 1MM$.  It’s going to be considered a little nick.

Jordan fit that model in basketball, but was he that way in baseball? I’m remembering not. Danny Ainge was a complete jerk on the basketball court but it’s harder to be a jerk when you’re hitting .220 with no power or walks. Even so, there are different levels of jerkdom, some that affect the team and others that don’t. Clearly we need MGL to construct a character-talent matrix.

Brian/14: right.

Do elite baseball players really need to be “coachable”? NBA and NFL players do, absolutely - the players out on the playing field need to play in harmony with one another, and coaches are the ones who orchestrate that.

I’m not sure MLB players really need to be that “coachable”. I would weigh coachability and “jerk” issues a hell of a lot more heavily in NFL and NBA prospects for these reasons. 

It’s not like these guys need to be taught how to execute a hook slide or a hit-and-run.  Elite MLB talents don’t need coaching.  It’s 95% independent work - whether they are willing to constantly watch the film, hit in the cage, weight train.

(In fact, many of them solicit their own independent opinions regarding hitting, rather than those of their actual, paid coaches).

This relates to BK #14’s point above:  I think player-type B and C are problems in the NBA and NFL - problems that should take MILLIONS off a player’s valuation.

In baseball, the only major character concern is work ethic (you could argue that excessive partying should be added, but if the work ethic is there, that curtails the partying).  In a draft with that much inherent uncertainty, and no salary cap restrictions in my sport, being a jerk doesn’t stop me from taking the best player available and paying market value.

One last thought:  he’s a 17 year-old boy, and he’s been the best player on the field in every game he’s played in, his whole life.  Plenty of normal 17-year-old boys are jerks and eventually outgrow it. 

I would imagine that minor league life and growing up will help humble him a little bit in a way that his JuCo colleagues haven’t.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/bryce-harpers-makeup/

Kyle Drabek had some serious ‘makeup’ concerns entering the draft.  underage drinking, wrecking cars into tree’s.  that let him slip into the Phillies laps.

he ended up getting TJ surgery after his first pro year and now he’s one of the best prospects in baseball. 

when you’re 17 and 18 you’re on top of the world, especially when you’re so highly regarded.  Harper will most likely grow out of the primadonna stage he’s in.

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/newsstand/discussion/oc_register_bryce_harper_is_a_bad_bad_guy/

At 17, there were no stories about those players outside of anyone covering their local high school team.

You should follow the NHL (or I presume soccer).  Some kids are tracked nationally by the time they hit 14 or 15.  The two polar opposites are Eric Lindros and Wayne Gretzky.  Lindros was the knucklehead, and Gretzky gave the most thoughtful interviews as a teenager that belied his age.  Gretzky knew he was going to be one of the greatest, and yet, you wouldn’t know it hearing him speak, then, or at any point in his career, to the very end.

It’s all fine to talk about makeup, but the reality is that teams will look the other way if the talent is that high.