Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Classic TA Workplace -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Freep who wrote (50497)	8/16/2002 6:38:25 PM
From: reaper	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 209892

here we go again... <<You think the Red Sox don't play better when Pedro is pitching? Of course they do. >> Freep, I don't mean to be an arsehole, but do you have any objective statistical evidence to prove this? I'll save you the difficulty and effort of looking, 'cause you won't find any. Do you remember last year and the year before, when the Red Sox had such trouble scoring whenever Pedro pitched? I thought maybe they played WORSE when he was on the mound. I've also had people postulate that maybe guys played BETTER when their ace was on the hill 'cause they knew they only had to get a run or two. Anyway, I did pretty exhaustive work (and so have the guys at Baseball Prospectus) that shows that its pretty much completely random how a team plays behind their ace on any given day (i.e. the batters are not likely to do any better or worse just 'cause their ace is on the mound). Trot Nixon is no more or less likely to hit a home run just 'cause Pedro's on the hill. Statisically, the reason the Sox win more of Pedro's games than they lose is because of what HE does; on average the batters perform exactly as you would expect if it had been Frank Castillo or little Freep on the mound. <<You think Soriano had an easier time by having Jeter at SS than had he been playing with an inexperienced no-name? >> I don't know what you mean by 'easier time'? Soriano is a terrible fielder, nearly as bad a second baseman as Jeter is a shortstop. The Yanks are on pace to turn 70 double plays this season, which would be the lowest total in the American League in 20 years. So I think the only thing I can say is that Soriano's defense has probably suffered being paired with such a stiff as Jeter. (so far this year, Soriano is 13 runs worse than average on defense at 2B after being -18 last year. Jeter is -20 this year, after being -17, -24, and -16 the last 3 years. btw, Jason Giambi, much maligned for being a bad defender, is an average first baseman; he's +4 this year and was +3 last year and -1 the year before). <<What about players like Darin Erstadt or Jim Edmonds who play all out and are constantly mentioned by teammates as people who raise the level of play of everyone around them? >> i think 'raise level of play of others around them' is bullshit. Erstad sucks, and has nothing to do with why the Angels are winning; its their pitching. and Edmonds is a stud; playing in a pitchers park he's had two straight almost-1.000 OPS seasons and this year he's #5 in the NL at 1.019. he doesn't make the players around him better; its HIM that's great (and hugely under-appreciated). <<What about "clubhouse leadership"? Who the hell knows what it is, but you only need to look at the Dodgers circa 2001 vs 2002 to know that it means something>> no. the Dodgers won 86 games last year. they are on pace to win 91 this year (so +5). the batters are doing almost EXACTLY what they did last year. but on the pitching staff they got rid of Chan ho Park and Terry Adams, and replaced them with Kaz Ishii and Odalis Perez. and they converted Gagne, a flame-thrower without the stamina for starting, into a closer. it has nothing to do with 'team chemistry'; they have the same hitters and better pitchers, and are therefore winning more. btw, wasn't it Gary Sheffield that was the supposed source of 'discontent' in the Dodgers clubhouse last year? where does Sheffield play now? in Atlanta, which has the best record in all of baseball. 'chemistry' is bull-shit. good teams have 'good chemistry' cause they're winning, not the other way around (and the same with bad teams and bad chemistry). <<Again with Jeter, that play he made in the Series last year was not only a great play, but it impacted the team/game far more than "Assist" in the box score implies>> you seem to be implying that the Yankees won the series because Jeter made a great play. by that argument the Red Sox should have won the 1975 Series 3 times, once for Bernie's homer, once for Fisk's homer, and once for Dewey's play in RF. correct me if i'm wrong, but the Red Sox lost that World Series, if memory serves. Jeter made a play. guys make plays all the time. btw, if it was anybody than the slowest man on earth Jeremy Giambi on the bases, or if he had even SLID, we wouldn't even be talking about this. anyway, i'll believe in supposed 'intangibles' when somebody can empirically demonstrate them to me. Cheers

To: The Freep who wrote (50497)	8/17/2002 10:06:25 AM
From: reaper	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 209892

let's try this one more time... <<What about players like Darin Erstadt or Jim Edmonds who play all out and are constantly mentioned by teammates as people who raise the level of play of everyone around them? >> well, let's check. Jim Edmonds last played for the Angels in 1998 (that was his last full year; he was hurt and only played about 55 games in 1999). regular Angels in 1998 Walbeck (C) .684 OPS Disarcina (SS) .706 OPS Erstad (LF) .839 OPS Anderson (RF) .780 OPS Salmon (DH) .943 OPS same regular Angels in 1999 (Edmonds hurt most of year) Walbeck (C) .614 OPS Disarcina (SS) .546 OPS Erstad (LF) .682 OPS Anderson (RF) .805 OPS Salmon (DH) .862 OPS regular Angels in 2000 (Edmonds traded to St Louis) Molina (C) .739 OPS Gil (SS) .669 OPS Erstad (LF) .950 OPS Anderson (RF) .826 OPS Salmon (DH) .944 OPS OK, so what I'm seeing here is basically random. The year Edmonds was hurt everybody on the Angels (except Garret Anderson) decided to have a crappy year (maybe they were sad that he was hurt). Then, when he was GONE, Erstad, Anderson and Salmon all had BETTER years, and the new C and SS did better than their prior counterparts. I fail to see convincing evidence that Edmonds made any of these guys 'better'. OK, let's try the Cardinals regular Cardinals in 1999 (before Edmonds arrived) McGwire (1B) 1.121 OPS Tatis (3B) .957 OPS Renteria (SS) .734 OPS Lankford (LF) .873 OPS Drew (CF) .764 OPS regular Cardinals in 2000 (after Edmonds arrived) McGwire (1B) 1.229 OPS Tatis (3B) .870 OPS Renteria (SS) .769 OPS Lankford (LF) .875 OPS Drew (CF) .880 OPS so Tatis and Lankford were largely unchanged; McGwire was a little better and Renteria and Drew were a lot better. However, Renteria and Drew were both only 24 the year before Edmonds arrived, so I could just as easily attribute their improvement to the natural progression good players make as they get older (and Drew and Renteria are both very good players) than to some 'intangible' that Jim Edmonds brought to the table. note that in 2001 Drew went to 1.027 but Renteria regressed to .685; so playing with Jim Edmonds a second year one young star got better but a second young star got worse. So does Edmonds influence this?? Note that during this whole time period Edmonds was putting up near 1000 OPSs. Edmonds doens't make players around him better, IMO; he makes them LOOK better because HE is AWESOME and is probably the single-most unappreciated player in baseball (just ahead of Garrett Anderson of the Angels). It is much tougher to do this analyis w/ Erstad, as he has not changed teams and the core of the Angels (Salmon, Molina, Anderson, Vaughn, Glaus, Adam Kennedy) has been largely unchanged for a long time. I don't think he 'makes the players around him better' but I can't prove or disprove it. What I can prove is that with the exception of his 2000 year (when he was crazy good) he has been a below-average hitter for a center fielder, and while he is an excellent fielder his is no Torii Hunter. one guy i know of who DOES raise the level of play (in at least one area of the game) of others around him is Rickey Henderson. Henderson has moved around a lot, and you can see that the teams that he goes to have a statistically significant increase in walks, and thus on-base-percentage and runs scored, the next year. Henderson of course is the all-time leader in walks and the best leadoff hitter ever, so it seems that maybe something is rubbing off on his team-mates. the funny thing about this is that Rickey Henderson is PERCEIVED to be a clubhouse cancer who only looks out for himself, while the STATISTICAL EVIDENCE points to him being a good team-mate who makes his teams better. go figure. Cheers