Blue Jays Discussion: It's a bird, it's a plane, it's Kevin Pillar!

[Discoverer]

If my calculations are correct that's 6.76ip per start for Price, while the potential alternates (Hutch/Norris/Doubront/Copeland/Redmond/Boyd) averaged 4.52....so that's 24.2ip more from the worst relievers on the team down the stretch.

And, once again, we're not talking purely about replacing Price with the in-house alternatives. We're talking about replacing him with a mediocre alternate addition with a significantly lower acquisition cost. Specifically, someone who can just go in and pitch 6 mediocre innings every fifth day (although 6 crappy innings would have been good enough, too).

 

[Kurtz]

To suggest that intangible factors like confidence, morale, leadership, etc do not play a factor in a team's performance is completely illogical.

We've yet to quantify their exact impact, but that in itself is not evidence of absence of said impact - rather it is yet another deficiency with modern analytics.

 

[The Nemesis]

To suggest that intangible factors like confidence, morale, leadership, etc do not play a factor in a team's performance is completely illogical.

We've yet to quantify their exact impact, but that in itself is not evidence of absence of said impact - rather it is yet another deficiency with modern analytics.

Analytics not being able to quantify "intangibles" says more about the nature of intangibles as vague, nebulous, anecdotally-related folksy truisms than it says about the nature of statistical analysis itself. Your comment by its very nature says that you're starting with the presumption that intangibles are true and then working backwards into ruling on the evidence based on that preconception. That's about as scientifically backwards as you can possibly get. It also flies in the face of the use of the term "illogical" given that logic relies on substantially supported deductive reasoning using available evidence to reach a researched and validated conclusion. As opposed to going "intangibles are true and if the evidence says otherwise then the evidence sucks."


The loch ness monster exists. If all evidence out there says otherwise it's only because the evidence is crap and not to be trusted.

By the way, I want to make it clear that I'm not even making a hard opposition case that intangibles are entirely bunk and hokum (though I do believe that a lot of the things attributed to them and the scope of their impact are grossly misstated and overwrought). I'm simply pointing out that your argument as about as many holes as a quality block of swiss cheese.

 

[hoglund]

That is what the metrics say. If you feel that you are smarter than the metrics, then knock yourself out. They are obviously super small sample sizes (just like Pillar's so called newfound hitting ability), but its something that no one has really bothered to bring up because they've seemingly been preoccupied with Pillar's hitting.


This isn't even that new. Vernon Wells went from elite defender to literally crap defender in the span of one year at age 29. Michael Bourn was the same case: once he hit 30, his defense went to ****...and he went from a 4-6 WAR player to a scrub because his offensive output couldn't make up for the defensive decline.

Well you just proved that I am smarter than the metrics say about Pillar, thanks.

 

[Kurtz]

Analytics not being able to quantify "intangibles" says more about the nature of intangibles as vague, nebulous, anecdotally-related folksy truisms than it says about the nature of statistical analysis itself. Your comment by its very nature says that you're starting with the presumption that intangibles are true and then working backwards into ruling on the evidence based on that preconception. That's about as scientifically backwards as you can possibly get. It also flies in the face of the use of the term "illogical" given that logic relies on substantially supported deductive reasoning using available evidence to reach a researched and validated conclusion. As opposed to going "intangibles are true and if the evidence says otherwise then the evidence sucks."


The loch ness monster exists. If all evidence out there says otherwise it's only because the evidence is crap and not to be trusted.

By the way, I want to make it clear that I'm not even making a hard opposition case that intangibles are entirely bunk and hokum (though I do believe that a lot of the things attributed to them and the scope of their impact are grossly misstated and overwrought). I'm simply pointing out that your argument as about as many holes as a quality block of swiss cheese.

Sorry, but you're confused. You're conflating statistics with psychology.

If what you stated were true, psychoanalysis would not exist. The very concept of human psychology would be a fraud. Everything would either be statistically supported or it would not exist.

What you're basically saying is that confidence and the right mental state have no effect on job performance. That is utter folly.


If you've ever played a competitive sport in your life, you would be acquainted with the effects that confidence/morale has on your performance. The fact that you're unable to describe that effect with a formula is not evidence of its absence.

Ps: Oh, and I don't need to prove that the Loch Ness monster exists. I'm suggesting that the belief in the Loch Ness monster forces some folks to visit River Ness. That's the difference.

 

[Bad News Benning]

TJ Zeuch is pitching well in Dunedin so far this year. He generates lots of weak contact and ground balls much like stro and sanchez. Definitely more excited about his potential than Jon Harris or some of the other college pitchers the jays have drafted over the years. Love the downward action he gets on his fastball and how much weak contact he generates. I watched him pitch in Vancouver last year and you could tell he has some reallly nice potential. Stroman-Sanchez and Zeuch will give future infields plenty of action.

 

[Discoverer]

To suggest that intangible factors like confidence, morale, leadership, etc do not play a factor in a team's performance is completely illogical.

We've yet to quantify their exact impact, but that in itself is not evidence of absence of said impact - rather it is yet another deficiency with modern analytics.

I can't even remember the last time an analytics guy claimed intangibles don't exist, and an inability to calculate them isn't a deficiency of analytics any more than failure to put a man on Mars is a deficiency of science.

 

[Radiohead]

TJ Zeuch is pitching well in Dunedin so far this year. He generates lots of weak contact and ground balls much like stro and sanchez. Definitely more excited about his potential than Jon Harris or some of the other college pitchers the jays have drafted over the years. Love the downward action he gets on his fastball and how much weak contact he generates. I watched him pitch in Vancouver last year and you could tell he has some reallly nice potential. Stroman-Sanchez and Zeuch will give future infields plenty of action.

Fransisco Rios also pitching well right now. 7 strong innings tonight, 0 ER.

Where does he rank among our pitching prospects? Same age as Zeuch, Greene and SRF.

 

[Kurtz]

I can't even remember the last time an analytics guy claimed intangibles don't exist, and an inability to calculate them isn't a deficiency of analytics any more than failure to put a man on Mars is a deficiency of science.

In this very thread people have referred to intangibles as "magic" and defined their impact as non-existent unless it can be quantified.

If that's not the case, then how can Zeke's comment about Price's impact being considerably more than his WAR be so ardently disputed?


...also, I'm afraid I don't follow your Mars analogy.

 

[Bad News Benning]

Fransisco Rios also pitching well right now. 7 strong innings tonight, 0 ER.

Where does he rank among our pitching prospects? Same age as Zeuch, Greene and SRF.

Zeuch and SRF are clearly the top 2 by a good margin.

Zeuch/SRF

(Big gap)


Greene
Harris
Rios.

Rios has the potential to be a back end starter who eats innings.

 

[Bad News Benning]

I'd also like to say that Danny Jansen is absolutely killing it right now in Dunedin.

Hopefully he doesn't suffer from the disease known as jayscatchingprospectitis and can replace Martin in a few years.

 

[Eyedea]

Zeuch and SRF are clearly the top 2 by a good margin.

Zeuch/SRF

(Big gap)


Greene
Harris
Rios.

Rios has the potential to be a back end starter who eats innings.

I wouldn't say there's a big gap between them and Greene. He's got the velocity to survive off a fastball/change combo a la Sanchez's FB/CB. Solid GB rate, suppresses hard contact, and pretty much always keeps the ball in the infield (high IFFB rate, elite HR/FB). Give this guy fringe command and he's a league average starter.

 

[Bad News Benning]

I wouldn't say there's a big gap between them and Greene. He's got the velocity to survive off a fastball/change combo a la Sanchez's FB/CB. Solid GB rate, suppresses hard contact, and pretty much always keeps the ball in the infield (high IFFB rate, elite HR/FB). Give this guy fringe command and he's a league average starter.

I'll admit I'm not a huge fan of Greene. I view him as likely being more of a bullpen arm (good set up man or closer). Not sure if his command will ever develop enough to be a starter long term.

 

[Eyedea]

I'll admit I'm not a huge fan of Greene. I view him as likely being more of a bullpen arm (good set up man or closer). Not sure if his command will ever develop enough to be a starter long term.

Even if that's the case, he could be an electric option in the pen. Could even provide multiple innings like Sanchez did while pumping 98-100.

 

[metafour]

In this very thread people have referred to intangibles as "magic" and defined their impact as non-existent unless it can be quantified.

If that's not the case, then how can Zeke's comment about Price's impact being considerably more than his WAR be so ardently disputed?

Intangibles are real, but out of all sports it is comical to suggest that they play as big a role in baseball as Zeke suggests. Baseball is a heavily luck-based sport, that out of all major team sports is the most individualistic. Price coming onto the team isn't going to make balls start falling in play that otherwise wouldn't have. Its not going to make our batters see the ball better. Its not going to make the other pitchers locate their pitches any better or throw any harder. Therefore to suggest that Price alone brought forth over 3 wins worth of "intangibles" (that is MORE WINS than his actual pitching itself was worth) is asinine. Zeke's entire statement is beyond ridiculous, he boldly claims we flat out wouldn't have made the playoffs without Price yet that team literally had 100 more points in run differential than the 2nd best team in the league. The 2nd place Yankees only won 87 games that year. 87, not 107.

By the way, what happened to Price's magic intangible touch on the team in the playoffs? Funny how as soon as we got into the postseason the supposed voodoo which made everyone play better completely evaporated.

 

[Discoverer]

In this very thread people have referred to intangibles as "magic" and defined their impact as non-existent unless it can be quantified.

If that's not the case, then how can Zeke's comment about Price's impact being considerably more than his WAR be so ardently disputed?

The argument against Zeke has been that the morale boost provided by the Price addition wasn't enough to add 3-5 wins over the course of two months above what they otherwise would have accomplished, not that it had no impact at all. If anyone argued that and I missed it, then I disagree with them.

I believe intangibles exist, and probably in a bigger way than a lot of us are willing to admit. But I don't feel it's fair AT ALL to make sweeping generalizations in either direction (i.e. Price causing the rest of the team to be amazing, not having Edwin making the rest of the team forget how to hit) specifically because the psychological issues and interpersonal relationships involved are so unbelievably complex and intertwined that different players will be impacted in vastly different ways by the same thing. For every player who gets a confidence boost and goes on a hot streak, there's someone who's disappointed to have lost a job and starts moping. For every play who suddenly shows more energy on the field and starts lining balls all over the place, there's someone who gets over-amped and sees his strikeout rate spike.

It's not that they don't exist. It's that their complexity is the exact reason they shouldn't be used to explain things away. They're always used retrospectively to explain things because they're convenient and easy. I mean... the way zeke's using them, to support what is clearly a previously-held opinion, is a perfect example of the way intangibles are used.

 

[Swervin81]

Analytics not being able to quantify "intangibles" says more about the nature of intangibles as vague, nebulous, anecdotally-related folksy truisms than it says about the nature of statistical analysis itself. Your comment by its very nature says that you're starting with the presumption that intangibles are true and then working backwards into ruling on the evidence based on that preconception. That's about as scientifically backwards as you can possibly get. It also flies in the face of the use of the term "illogical" given that logic relies on substantially supported deductive reasoning using available evidence to reach a researched and validated conclusion. As opposed to going "intangibles are true and if the evidence says otherwise then the evidence sucks."


The loch ness monster exists. If all evidence out there says otherwise it's only because the evidence is crap and not to be trusted.

By the way, I want to make it clear that I'm not even making a hard opposition case that intangibles are entirely bunk and hokum (though I do believe that a lot of the things attributed to them and the scope of their impact are grossly misstated and overwrought). I'm simply pointing out that your argument as about as many holes as a quality block of swiss cheese.

AKA the Alex Jones hypothesis.

 

[Kurtz]

AKA the Alex Jones hypothesis.

Introducing the Loch Ness monster to a debate on the value of intangibles is indeed a move worthy of Alex Jones.

 

[Kurtz]

Price coming onto the team isn't going to make balls start falling in play that otherwise wouldn't have. Its not going to make our batters see the ball better.

With respect to that, players always talk about seeing the ball well when they get hot and not seeing the ball well when they are cold.

Do you suggest that they are always mistaken, and what they are describing is pure luck, rather than a psychological effect of confidence/morale perhaps combined with an element of luck ?

In any case, it seems that you do support the contribution of intangibles to wins, but are unwilling to attribute to them a high enough value to match Zeke. It now becomes a negotiation rather than an ideological non-starter, which seems sensible.

 

[Discoverer]

With respect to that, players always talk about seeing the ball well when they get hot and not seeing the ball well when they are cold.

Do you suggest that they are always mistaken, and what they are describing is pure luck, rather than a psychological effect of confidence/morale perhaps combined with an element of luck ?

In any case, it seems that you do support the contribution of intangibles to wins, but are unwilling to attribute to them a high enough value to match Zeke. It now becomes a negotiation rather than an ideological non-starter, which seems sensible.

I would suggest it's a combination of those things, plus a heaping serving of post hoc evaluation and a healthy dose of standard baseball cliché.

For the record, the number Zeke is attributing to Price, between his pitching and the other stuff, is the equivalent to at least 18 wins over an entire season.

 

[The Nemesis]

Introducing the Loch Ness monster to a debate on the value of intangibles is indeed a move worthy of Alex Jones.

...that doesn't even make sense. I wasn't conflating intangibles to the loch ness monster, I was making a point about how starting from a pre-supposed conclusion and working backwards to use that conclusion in order to determine whether the evidence used for analyzing baseball is valid or true or worthy of acknowledgement is an incredibly faulty methodology. You can't go:

1) Intangibles are real. Fact.

2) If intangibles are real, then statistics should be able to meaningfully incorporate them into their analysis and data sets.

3) They can't.

4) Therefore this is a failing of statistical analysis which denigrates its usefulness.

When you end your post with "rather it is yet another deficiency with modern analytics." you clearly carry the implication that you started with a belief that analytics are faulty and deficient, and that intangibles are real and impactful and then interpreted the available facts so your hypothesis and conclusion could meet in the middle.

Whether I had used the Loch Ness Monster or something less fanciful it wouldn't have changed my point. And the fact that all you took from my comment was that the mere mention of a mythical creature in it somehow serves to devalue the statement I was making reflects more poorly on your ability to logically reason things (which is already questionable based on how you've gone about this intangibles argument) than it does the sensibility of my argument (Which, again, was never actually about whether or not intangibles are a thing. It was wholly about how awful and troublesome your post was from a rationality standpoint.)

FWIW, intangibles and the mental side of the game are a thing that I accept, but I believe that they are vastly overvalued and overrated by the media and casual fans that like them becomes they're a comfortable, malleable bit of narrative "spackle" that can be used to fill logical holes or lack of support in theories and storylines in lieu of being accepting of things like luck, random chance, or unquantifiably complex chains of variables.

One good player wins championships and another one doesn't? Intangibles.

A team's change in fortunes appears to coincide with the acquisition/promotion/insertion into the lineup of a player or players? Intangibles.

A player has an ill-timed poor stretch of play? Intangibles

A player gets hot at the right time or has a key or important play at a critical time? Intangibles.

A player without a lot of skill plays hard and well considering his talent level and is beloved for it? Intangibles.

It's an easy retrospective smoother that lets people make better stories out of things and gets overapplied because of that. Players/fans/media will say all sorts of things to explain what happens and sometimes have no real issue doing so even if the material is willfully divorced from reality. Again, you just keep coming back to anecdotes and folk baseball truisms. Baseball players have historically also believed in rising fastballs as a literal and true thing. Not just that the ball doesn't fall as far as expected in its 90 foot travel to the plate. No, it's that the ball quite literally experiences upward movement out of the hand of a pitcher who is throwing with some degree of overhanded motion. Baseball players should not be trusted to provide scientifically and rationally valid anecdotal evidence for things. Especially since they're already going to be preconditioned to believe things with zero critical thought put towards the issue.

 

[zeke]

TJ Zeuch is pitching well in Dunedin so far this year. He generates lots of weak contact and ground balls much like stro and sanchez. Definitely more excited about his potential than Jon Harris or some of the other college pitchers the jays have drafted over the years. Love the downward action he gets on his fastball and how much weak contact he generates. I watched him pitch in Vancouver last year and you could tell he has some reallly nice potential. Stroman-Sanchez and Zeuch will give future infields plenty of action.

jon harris is so bad.

him being ranked even in our top 15 seems to me good proof that the interweb scouts don't really watch jays prospects at all.

 

[Kurtz]

I would suggest it's a combination of those things, plus a heaping serving of post hoc evaluation and a healthy dose of standard baseball cliché.

For the record, the number Zeke is attributing to Price, between his pitching and the other stuff, is the equivalent to at least 18 wins over an entire season.

I can respect that. And yeah, 18 seems a tad high.

But I still don't follow your Mars analogy.

 

[zeke]

I would suggest it's a combination of those things, plus a heaping serving of post hoc evaluation and a healthy dose of standard baseball cliché.

For the record, the number Zeke is attributing to Price, between his pitching and the other stuff, is the equivalent to at least 18 wins over an entire season.

and who says it was sustainable for a whole year?

hell, even by pure individual WAR you're willing to attribute a 9war type full season contribution from him.

 

[zeke]

...that doesn't even make sense. I wasn't conflating intangibles to the loch ness monster, I was making a point about how starting from a pre-supposed conclusion and working backwards to use that conclusion in order to determine whether the evidence used for analyzing baseball is valid or true or worthy of acknowledgement is an incredibly faulty methodology. You can't go:

1) Intangibles are real. Fact.

2) If intangibles are real, then statistics should be able to meaningfully incorporate them into their analysis and data sets.

3) They can't.

4) Therefore this is a failing of statistical analysis which denigrates its usefulness.

When you end your post with "rather it is yet another deficiency with modern analytics." you clearly carry the implication that you started with a belief that analytics are faulty and deficient, and that intangibles are real and impactful and then interpreted the available facts so your hypothesis and conclusion could meet in the middle.

Whether I had used the Loch Ness Monster or something less fanciful it wouldn't have changed my point. And the fact that all you took from my comment was that the mere mention of a mythical creature in it somehow serves to devalue the statement I was making reflects more poorly on your ability to logically reason things (which is already questionable based on how you've gone about this intangibles argument) than it does the sensibility of my argument (Which, again, was never actually about whether or not intangibles are a thing. It was wholly about how awful and troublesome your post was from a rationality standpoint.)

FWIW, intangibles and the mental side of the game are a thing that I accept, but I believe that they are vastly overvalued and overrated by the media and casual fans that like them becomes they're a comfortable, malleable bit of narrative "spackle" that can be used to fill logical holes or lack of support in theories and storylines in lieu of being accepting of things like luck, random chance, or unquantifiably complex chains of variables.

One good player wins championships and another one doesn't? Intangibles.

A team's change in fortunes appears to coincide with the acquisition/promotion/insertion into the lineup of a player or players? Intangibles.

A player has an ill-timed poor stretch of play? Intangibles

A player gets hot at the right time or has a key or important play at a critical time? Intangibles.

A player without a lot of skill plays hard and well considering his talent level and is beloved for it? Intangibles.

It's an easy retrospective smoother that lets people make better stories out of things and gets overapplied because of that. Players/fans/media will say all sorts of things to explain what happens and sometimes have no real issue doing so even if the material is willfully divorced from reality. Again, you just keep coming back to anecdotes and folk baseball truisms. Baseball players have historically also believed in rising fastballs as a literal and true thing. Not just that the ball doesn't fall as far as expected in its 90 foot travel to the plate. No, it's that the ball quite literally experiences upward movement out of the hand of a pitcher who is throwing with some degree of overhanded motion. Baseball players should not be trusted to provide scientifically and rationally valid anecdotal evidence for things. Especially since they're already going to be preconditioned to believe things with zero critical thought put towards the issue.

all 100% true. every bit of it.

yet still isn't a good justification to ignore psychological aspects of athletic competition.