I Agree!

[steve B]

Moneyball - the book- struck me as being more about having a team that was consistently competitive on a small budget than about winning. That also assumes that a team that always has some chance will be more profitable than one that's hopeless.


Some of the new stats do seem to matter, but there's a lot of things in the game that aren't easily measured. The last three years of his career Don Baylor went to the world series with three different teams. Boston was 5th the year before and after (Although he was with them most of 87.
Minnesota, was 6th the year before, and 2nd the year after (he only played 20 games for them, but they only won by 2 ) The As were a good team, being 3rd in 87, and first again in 89.

How much influence did he have on those teams down the stretch? That's hard to put numbers to, but I think it's likely he had some.

Also hard to put numbers to is the group of players who are really pretty good, come to Boston and just don't do well at all, but are fine after they leave. Management? difficult fans? A wall that makes righthanders especially change their swing? difficult press? I've seen all that blamed. But there isn't really a stat for it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by steve B

Moneyball - the book- struck me as being more about having a team that was consistently competitive on a small budget than about winning. That also assumes that a team that always has some chance will be more profitable than one that's hopeless.


Some of the new stats do seem to matter, but there's a lot of things in the game that aren't easily measured. The last three years of his career Don Baylor went to the world series with three different teams. Boston was 5th the year before and after (Although he was with them most of 87.
Minnesota, was 6th the year before, and 2nd the year after (he only played 20 games for them, but they only won by 2 ) The As were a good team, being 3rd in 87, and first again in 89.

How much influence did he have on those teams down the stretch? That's hard to put numbers to, but I think it's likely he had some.

Also hard to put numbers to is the group of players who are really pretty good, come to Boston and just don't do well at all, but are fine after they leave. Management? difficult fans? A wall that makes righthanders especially change their swing? difficult press? I've seen all that blamed. But there isn't really a stat for it.

Baylor didn't do much of anything in those 20 games either. I think it's a huge stretch to think he had any real role in the Twins pennant drive. The year before with the Sox, totally different matter, he was a key player.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Baylor didn't do much of anything in those 20 games either. I think it's a huge stretch to think he had any real role in the Twins pennant drive. The year before with the Sox, totally different matter, he was a key player.

I was thinking more along the lines of being a good influence on the team overall, having an attitude of "I've been here before, just relax and enjoy it" is probably pretty big, but will never translate to any sort of stats.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by steve B

I was thinking more along the lines of being a good influence on the team overall, having an attitude of "I've been here before, just relax and enjoy it" is probably pretty big, but will never translate to any sort of stats.

I guess. The old trope of he's good in the locker room, I don't know, I'm skeptical but I really don't know.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I guess. The old trope of he's good in the locker room, I don't know, I'm skeptical but I really don't know.

Yeah, it's always hard to tell, and maybe impossible to put any sort of number to.

All I really have is my own experience. I played on a Co-ed softball team my wifes company had one year. We had one player who thankfully left about halfway through. Good enough infielder, and about as good a hitter as most in slow pitch. Except he was constantly complaining about the women on the team. "She should have caught that throw! We should put someone else at first!" (He overthrew so badly Wilt Chamberlin wouldn't have had any chance at catching it. ) He left for a more competitive league .

Another player was an Olympic athlete. For real, even won gold in a team sport. She was pretty amazing, made anyone around her better - Like I could try a diving catch in the outfield because I knew for sure she was going to be backing me up. And the only time I heard any complaint was after she made a line drive type throw to the plate and said her shoulder hurt but it would be ok in a few minutes. Apparently she had a bad rotator cuff that she never got fixed. The throw was amazing too, only one other person on the team could have made it. The shoulder complaint was only after someone asked her if she was ok because she was rubbing her shoulder.

So which was better in the "locker room?" If I was putting a team together, I know who I'd choose first, even if the raw talent wasn't there.