THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

When it comes to intangibles, looking at individual statistics seems like it would not be enough to isolate these skills.  I don’t know why it would correlate with aging in any way (though, perhaps it does, I don’t know).

I think--as far as measuring things goes--the best way to evaluate these things is teammate impact.  Does having David Eckstein push the innately talented player to work harder and be better than he has in the past?  That is the question to be answered.

As far as intangibles are reflected in a players’ own skill set, it will simply be reflected in the numbers they put up (assuming those are measured correctly).  If David Eckstein is slightly above replacement, then maybe he’s only there because he works his ass off and gives 100%.  If Sheffield is 100% above replacement in his innate skill set (or whatever), and gives 90% then we have no way of knowing this unless he tells you “I don’t give 100% when I’m on the field”.  Again, the difference in their contribution will be easily measured.

But, if you put Eckstein together with Sheffield, and Sheff’s performance improves, this seems like the only place to be able to measure the ‘intangibles’: team-level performance.  I suspect that there are certainly instances where this happens, but it may happen inconsistently (and perhaps everyone in MLB is just plain motivated enough...I mean we ARE talking about the best of the best...in which case intangibles only matter from a development perspective).

Summary: if intangibles help one’s own performance, then that is part of their *insert statistic measuring performance here*.  If they affect the rest of the team in some non-linear fashion, then we have an interesting difference-in-differences study.

From my understand, part of intangibles includes the ability a player has to make those around them play better - to make a team “gel”, so to speak. This would presumably be measurable via some sort of WOWY analysis for the team, but wouldn’t be necessarily reflected in the magical players’ numbers.
It’s not clear to me that it exists in baseball, as opposed to other, more team-oriented, sports, but it is nevertheless something important to consider as part of intangibles analysis.

Is work ethic an intangible?  I am reading this thread and thinking it is being described as one, but I’m not sure it is.

Manny Ramirez was occasionally described as coming to games soon before they started, at least in his last few Red Sox years, IIRC.  (To be fair, it was also said that he cared deeply about hitting, and really put in the time on that aspect of his game).

Conversely, guys like Eckstein and Bloomquist are always described as having incredible work ethic, although perhaps that’s tinged with a demographic element as well ("the little white guy who could, just like us sportswriters!” they think). 

I’m using them as examples because in this thread it is posited that Bloomquist aged well and Manny fell off suddenly, and that it might correlate with work ethic. 

If guys with incredible work ethic age better than guys with mediocre or poor work ethic, that’s not really an intangible, is it?  I mean, we can measure things like body fat %, when guys get to the ball park, how many hours they put in at the office, etc.  I don’t think of those as intangibles.

I think of intangibles as being more your personality, i.e., are you a d---- to your teammates.  That is truly an intangible, can’t measure it.

But, assuming you have reasonable measures of productivity on the field, you can measure “being a dick” as it pertains to performance of other players using a difference-in-differences approach (or, used more here, WOWY).  It is a difficult task--assuming it exists--as talents and abilities are ever changing from year to year when teammates change.  But some estimate seems possible.

You could even see if you can get a measure of “douchebaggery” from interviewing teammates and see if this correlates with your WOWY estimates (assuming someone has access to these things).

Mettle/2: that’s what I said in my #2:

“and more wins by your team”

***

In my Jeter/Manny example, all the various tangible and intangible characteristics led to two players who were essentially equivalent.  So, for the purposes of what they did and what their teams did, it was irrelevant HOW they got there.  They just happened to take two different roads, and they ended up at the same spot.

So, why even talk about the roads taken?  Because, I believe, the people talk about this in terms of future roads taken.  That Jeter’s contributions to wins will be more of a sure thing than Manny, because intangibles live longer and degrade less (or even improve more).

Otherwise, what’s the point of talking about it in retrospective sense?  You still get the same final answer: Jeter and Manny were equals.

Here is what Branch Rickey said:

“But somehow baseball’s intangibles balance out. They reflect themselves in other ways. Over an entire season, or many seasons, individuals and teams build an accumulation of mathematical constants. A man can work with them. He can measure results and establish values. He can then construct a formula which expresses something tangible...”

I know that doesn’t settle the issue.

I understand (we all do) that intangibles can affect future performance and career trajectories as well as other players and even a team’s w/l record over and above their 2nd or third order w/l record, but the issue is a little like this, which always amused me:

Player A has a poor or mediocre OPS or wOBA (and defense, baserunning, etc.).  You accuse him of not being very valuable, which he isn’t, and someone, usually a baseball insider, says something like, “Yeah, but he busts his ass, always gives 100%, plays the game the right way, etc.

Now, again, not withstanding any affects those attributes may have on other players and the player’s future performance, my comeback is always this, and gets a blank stare in response:

“Isn’t it better to have a player with the same on-field performance, but who does not work hard or give 100% and doesn’t play the game the right way?”

That player can always with the right influence or an epiphany, get better if he decides to give 100% or play the game the right way.  The other player is already maxed out. Plus, player A may be more likely to get injured or tired…

That’s basically the Curt Schilling scenario.

Schilling noted that in his early 20s, Clemens would tear into Schilling that he’s not working hard enough, that he should be a great pitcher.  (Schilling started the first few years of his career as an average pitcher.)

So, yes, if you have two guys that are overall getting the same production, the guy you want is the lazy guy, because there’s more ceiling to work with.

Then again, the lazy guy might be so lazy as to just have no more desire to be good.

It’s not clear to me which of the two guys you’d really want.

So, yes, if you have two guys that are overall getting the same production, the guy you want is the lazy guy, because there’s more ceiling to work with.

Except by the time a guy gets to the pros, can you really change his work ethic?

It’s easier to see that in basketball, I think. Remember Chris Washburn? Widely considered a hugely talented player, drafted third overall, he lasted all of two seasons and made no impact during that time.

[Totally unrelated to above] Does Alex Rodriguez have negative intangibles? Despite his enormous ability and great performances, teams got better immediately after he left, and his new teams showed no immediate improvement (Texas gained two games his first year there and New York lost two games).

I think I’d go with the guy who busted his ass. Yes, he’s maxed out, and you wouldn’t want 25 of them, but his ethic and enthusiasm might rub off on some of the borderline cases. I’d much rather have that than for them to take their cues from the lazier, more apathetic player.