Arizona Diamondbacks 2007

[Arlie Rahn]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

Man, I dunno how the DBacks could possibly have competed in the playoffs without Eric Byrnes. Without his bold leadership and .204/.258/.407, they'd never have been able to so completely outplay the Rockies in the NLCS.

You're right, though, they would have beaten Colorado had they benched Byrnes and played Carlos Quentin and his .647 OPS this season.

Byrnes stunk out load against Colorado, but do you really think Arizona wins the NL West without Byrnes? For the season, Byrnes was first in SB (50), 2nd in HR (21), 1st in RBI (83), 1st in runs (103), 1st in total bases (288) and 3rd in OBP (.353). Plus, Byrnes played pretty well against the Cubs in round 1 (.974 OPS).

Helton stunk against the DBacks, but you think Colorado makes it into the playoffs without Helton? You need a stabilizing force on a young team to make the postseason. And, while their numbers weren't phenominal, both Helton and Byrnes provided that this season.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Arlie Rahn

You're right, though, they would have beaten Colorado had they benched Byrnes and played Carlos Quentin and his .647 OPS this season.

Byrnes production or lack of was probably irrelevent. Even from the bench, they'd never be able to stifle his incredible leadership skills. The DBacks dominance of the Rockies would never have been possible, or even noticed by any other human being, without the imcomparable Byrnes insight and outspokenness.

[Arlie Rahn]

darkhouse,

Maybe one day a GM will go with your "every player is a numerical stratego piece" for assigning a lineup. But, until then, you can just curse them all as Joe Morgan worshippers for not understanding that player interpersonal skills have no impact on wins and losses.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Arlie Rahn

Maybe one day a GM will go with your "every player is a numerical stratego piece" for assigning a lineup. But, until then, you can just curse them all as Joe Morgan worshippers for not understanding that player interpersonal skills have no impact on wins and losses.

If it really means much, you'd see players being paid differently according to their leadership skills or veteran presences. Since that's not the case, I don't think the real baseball insiders really care about these that much, other than paying lip services.

[Skipaway]

Signing Byrnes is more or less a blah. The contract is about right and not risky.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

If it really means much, you'd see players being paid differently according to their leadership skills or veteran presences. Since that's not the case, I don't think the real baseball insiders really care about these that much, other than paying lip services.

I disagree. AR may be overstating the effect a little, but there is an effect. I tend to think it comes more from the team's superstars instead of average vets. I guess you could make the case that Byrnes is probably both on the D'backs. You're playing 162 games. You have to have some leadership and it can't all come from the coaching staff. It just wouldn't work. But a positive attitude will wear off on other players. If you want to see a lazy, negative attitude wear off, watch some Orioles games from this year.

When I go to work at the ungodly hour of 6 AM every morning, there is an atmosphere there. If the boss or one of the guys I work with is pissed off or causing a commotion or tense about something, I can definitely sense it. And really, it effects everyone that works there and their performance.

These guys spend every day from the end of February to the beginning of October (if you're an Oriole) together.

There are some things you will talk to your big brother about that you won't talk to your dad about. When you're 21 or 25 years old even, making millions of dollars and a ton of pressure on your head, I would imagine you would need those kinds of things that a veteran brings to the clubhouse.

If you ignore this, you're ignoring human nature.

[darkenigma510]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

If it really means much, you'd see players being paid differently according to their leadership skills or veteran presences. Since that's not the case, I don't think the real baseball insiders really care about these that much, other than paying lip services.

How do you know they don't factor that into the contract value? Just because they don't spell it out that $X is related to "leadership values" doesn't mean its not factored in at all.

[Skipaway]

What you said didn't challenge the assumption that the effect might be small enough to be ignored.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

What you said didn't challenge the assumption that the effect might be small enough to be ignored.

How do you quantify that?

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by darkenigma510

How do you know they don't factor that into the contract value? Just because they don't spell it out that $X is related to "leadership values" doesn't mean its not factored in at all.

Because contracts are still pretty much in line with the expected performance of players. GMs don't even use leadership values as excuses for overpaying players.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Russ

How do you quantify that?

By saying that contracts are pretty much in line with expected player on the field performances.


Maybe you can quantify your idea in some way to prove how relevant leadership skills really are.

[Russ]

I mean I know that it's "common knowledge" in the new way of thinking to pretty much ignore intangibles, but they're not non-existent.

I hate hearing about that midget who plays SS in St. Louis as anyone, but can anyone really say that his hustle and grit mean nothing?

I just made myself laugh.

[Skipaway]

We've seen players with very limited skills occupying roster spots for very limited use. For example, LOOGYs.

If leadership skill is something important, wouldn't you see teams carry a leadership specialist as the 25th man once in awhile?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

By saying that contracts are pretty much in line with expected player on the field performances.


Maybe you can quantify your idea in some way to prove how relevant leadership skills really are.

I guess we could go in circles all day. I wasn't challenging you to give it a value. I meant that it's probably pretty difficult to put a value on something like that or to say that a team would've won X more or X less games with this player's leadership on the team.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Russ

I mean I know that it's "common knowledge" in the new way of thinking to pretty much ignore intangibles, but they're not non-existent.

I hate hearing about that midget who plays SS in St. Louis as anyone, but can anyone really say that his hustle and grit mean nothing?

I just made myself laugh.

I don't think non-existence is the right term. Neglectable is the better term.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

We've seen players with very limited skills occupying roster spots for very limited use. For example, LOOGYs.

If leadership skill is something important, wouldn't you see teams carry a leadership specialist as the 25th man once in awhile?

Well, it's there in other areas. You wouldn't carry a player for that sole purpose.

For the record, I'm not arguing your contract argument.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Neglectable is the better term.

Yeah, I still don't think it's neglectable either.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Russ

I guess we could go in circles all day. I wasn't challenging you to give it a value. I meant that it's probably pretty difficult to put a value on something like that or to say that a team would've won X more or X less games with this player's leadership on the team.

It's indeed hard to put a value on that, considering it's a very vague idea.

Its value could be hidden in places like boosting 5 teammates' performance by 1% each. Nobody can really detect that considering 1% is much smaller than the random fluctuation one can expect out of any player. It'd be even harder to detect if we don't know what 5 teammates would have this boost.


However, if the total magnitude of this contribution is really significant, we should have been able to detect it.

[Arlie Rahn]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Signing Byrnes is more or less a blah. The contract is about right and not risky.

I agree with this. And, my original point was if you can sign Byrnes for fair value on a shorter deal (ie, 3 years), it makes a lot of sense. You get a positive vet presence while the kids get some experience and it's not a Soriano-type commitment where he's seriously overpaid the final few seasons.

[darkenigma510]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

What you said didn't challenge the assumption that the effect might be small enough to be ignored.

I never stated otherwise. I was addressing a specific point. Also, not much evidence presented here that leadership qualities are not valuable, either.