SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 23, 2015 0:40:31 GMT -5
They're human beings, not robots. And there's a fairly extensive body of psychology studies on workplace performance that would disagree with you. I'm sure some are more sanguine than others, but the tantrums, brawls, and broken hands from punching dugout walls are proof positive that these guys aren't superhuman, and aren't impervious to frustration. You should reread what I wrote. I never claimed they were robots not claimed they were never emotional. I indicated that they each reacted differently to the same stressful situations at different times. That their face expressions did not mean anything in terms of performance. Whats happens in the dugout has nothing to do with how they perform on the field. The studies you refer are for typical work places not competitive sports and not at the major league level. Part of what makes the MLB stand above is not merely talent but the ability to focus when 60,000 fans are screaming at you. You nor I could handle that stress and these guy can. Fans often try to put there emotions onto the players because they think they can read face expressions etc, this is called transference coined by Frued over a 100 years ago. *Freud*. And some of those studies are done involve systems analysis, including FAA air traffic control and OR systems analysis. In that case, you're talking about human lives being at stake. Furthermore, you're talking about a game, whether people are screaming or not. Try transfusing 70 units of blood (thats 25 liters) while a patient is lying on an OR table bleeding so fast blood is spilling over the edges like a water fountain. Or, worrying about tracking 10 planes with varying flight paths all landing within minutes of eachother and each carrying 200 passengers. You have absolutely no idea of who I am or what my work history is, yet here you are proclaiming to. Also, FWIW, transference refers to attributing emotions/motivations to others as derived from important, early-life personalities (eg parents, siblings, etc.). The more appropriate term is "empathy"...an observer feeling the emotion that they perceive in another. I won't get into it, either, but human expressions have certain archetypes that people generally understand cross-culturally. Anger, sadness, frustration, pain, elation...yes, the accuracy of the viewer in identifying them depends on subtlety of the response in the viewed and the emotional IQ of the viewer (an intrinsic ability to read emotion, which is well-studied), among other things. But the vast majority of people don't break into a huge smile when they're pissed off, nor do they glower when overjoyed. It's true that one can't read the mind--the actual thoughts--of a player when seeing their expressions and body language, but unless they're very socially inept and terrible at reading people, most individuals *can* read a person's emotional state. Regardless, I'm not entirely sure that I agree fully with Eric's assertion re: bad plays. I also *do* agree with you to some extent that at the MLB level, players have learned to moderate their "catastrophe" response, through practice. It's the same theory behind using simulation centers for medical students and resident physicians...the best predictor for success in a high-stress emergency (like a code situation, bioterror attack, etc.) is experience. BUT, to say that people are unaffected or don't show emotion when things go wrong is, IMO, naive. People may learn to hide it (which is often advantageous), but if anything, the lack of demonstrative emotion *underreports,* because people can hide expression of emotion more readily than suppress the emotion itself. So, yes, while the gauntlet leading to MLB probably weeds out the less emotionally adaptive players, they're not immune to getting upset or showing it.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 23, 2015 0:59:34 GMT -5
Face expressions, behavior do not mean anything. Many athletes react the same way to situations and their results are different. Also these same players don't always react the same way to the same situation. I'm sure most here played sports at some level and you very likely "chocked" at some time or you played worse after a teammate made a big error but did you do that every time, you better not have or you do not play very long and or you sucked.[/quote]
The first line there is what prompted my "robots" reference. And I disagree with it wholeheartedly. As for the second part, I agree that, through practice, players learn to become more sanguine when things don't go their way. Some are more naturally talented at that than others, but I think you're right that the requirements to reach and succeed in MLB means that players learn to accept disaster. Blown saves, bad pitches, errors, cheapie hits, having liners caught when a player is on a rough streak...there are plenty of examples. And sure, players have "off" days just like anyone else...one day, a pitcher might get shelled after a couple of mistakes because he gets in his own head, whereas most other days he'd bounce back. Maybe he's trying to impress on a new team, or his wife just got pregnant, or his dad's sick in the hospital...who knows? But the reality is that everyone has those days (the best just have fewer of them), and a crucial misplay at a bad time can send a guy off the rails. It might be just that day, or it may spiral. But to say it doesn't happen because players perform in front of stadium crowds...I just think that's grossly oversimplifying things, and patently incorrect.
I will say that I think Bogaerts *does* seem to be the type of player who learns from his mistakes and is likely to become more reliable with time. His demeanor is very even-keeled, and he doesn't play with a lot of flash, meaning he's more invested in doing the job than getting attention or accolades for it in the moment. He strikes me as very adaptable, and probably calmly confident without being brash or arrogant, which is actually the ideal personality type in a crisis situation. I don't think it's any surprise that he did so well in the WS, and rebounded so well after and atrocious three months in 2014.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,667
|
Post by gerry on Sept 23, 2015 2:14:51 GMT -5
Telson, in support of your excellent posts, Sports Medicine is now standard fare at any medical schools, even at med-tech training centers. This field has gone from non-existent to almost universally available in just a few decades.
Most medical schools also teach the psychiatric, psychological, social work and counseling elements of every aspect of medicine; including sports medicine, the various rehabs, etc. I am certain you already know this, but to underscore your assertion that emotions ?even response to pain), can be read by trained practioners, and also empathetic humans, which most are. This is true despite the efforts of most athletes to remain deadpan facing pain, pressure, insecurities, etc. It has been well studied and well documented for years.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 23, 2015 7:49:26 GMT -5
I mean, just to be clear, we're all in agreement that this is just a fun fact and a nice thing for Xander to be able to say and he doesn't actually belong in the same sentence as these guys, right? That's not to say that he couldn't be a Hall of Famer, or that he isn't going to become a much better hitter than he is right now, but let's not get carried away here...
|
|
|
Post by threeifbaerga on Sept 23, 2015 8:04:15 GMT -5
Seems like they've told him to cut loose for the final month of the season, anecdotally he seems to be lifting the ball much more the last week or so. The play he was thrown out at second looked like a sure fire home run anywhere else.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Sept 23, 2015 8:20:38 GMT -5
I mean, just to be clear, we're all in agreement that this is just a fun fact and a nice thing for Xander to be able to say and he doesn't actually belong in the same sentence as these guys, right? If he retired right now he would be in the Hall in 5 years. Is that the misperception you're trying to preempt?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 23, 2015 8:22:48 GMT -5
I just can't even imagine what Xander and Mookie will be like in 2-3 years.
|
|
|
Post by justinp123 on Sept 23, 2015 8:32:11 GMT -5
It's exciting to think about. I just hope they're not part of some deal to bring in a pitcher etc.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Sept 23, 2015 8:43:38 GMT -5
I mean, just to be clear, we're all in agreement that this is just a fun fact and a nice thing for Xander to be able to say and he doesn't actually belong in the same sentence as these guys, right? That's not to say that he couldn't be a Hall of Famer, or that he isn't going to become a much better hitter than he is right now, but let's not get carried away here... Well, like a lot of stuff Speier puts out, it's easy to misconstrue and take it too far, but it's meaningful as far as it goes. The point being that it's really rare for someone to put up this kind of BA at this age, and of the thousands of 22 year-old players in the past, the only ones to do it were great players. That's good to know to put Xander's season in context, but it's not some kind of proof of what his career will be. It's somewhere between "fun fact" and "proof positive he'll be in the Hall of Fame."
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 23, 2015 8:46:17 GMT -5
I just can't even imagine what Xander and Mookie will be like in 2-3 years. There's a meaningful non-zero chance that this is as good as they're ever going to be. That's unlikely, but possible. For instance, Jason Heyward had his best offensive season at age 21.
|
|
|
Post by dominicansoxfan on Sept 23, 2015 8:46:52 GMT -5
" I mean, just to be clear, we're all in agreement that this is just a fun fact and a nice thing for Xander to be able to say and he doesn't actually belong in the same sentence as these guys, right?
That's not to say that he couldn't be a Hall of Famer, or that he isn't going to become a much better hitter than he is right now, but let's not get carried away here..."
I don't think people are getting carried away, perhaps slightly premature but he has unbelievable talent and is said to have similar drive. He is 22 years old and is now controlling the strike zone and will soon tap into his power as he can selectively put a charge into the ball. Since the All-Star break his line is .351/.377/.450, and makes adjustments within an at bat rather than from at bat to at bat. His status is no longer about projection, but arc projection!
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Sept 23, 2015 8:48:43 GMT -5
It's exciting to think about. I just hope they're not part of some deal to bring in a pitcher etc. They won't be. They're the only two guys I'm 100% sure won't be dealt. I highly doubt Rodriguez will be, very much doubt Swihart will be, either. And, on the farm, I'm pretty sure Espinoza and Moncada are going nowhere. Anyone else in the organization could go, although some would shock me. But Betts and Bogaerts will be here another 5-6 years at a minimum and at least one of them probably longer.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 23, 2015 8:50:46 GMT -5
I mean, just to be clear, we're all in agreement that this is just a fun fact and a nice thing for Xander to be able to say and he doesn't actually belong in the same sentence as these guys, right? That's not to say that he couldn't be a Hall of Famer, or that he isn't going to become a much better hitter than he is right now, but let's not get carried away here... Well, like a lot of stuff Speier puts out, it's easy to misconstrue and take it too far, but it's meaningful as far as it goes. The point being that it's really rare for someone to put up this kind of BA at this age, and of the thousands of 22 year-old players in the past, the only ones to do it were great players. That's good to know to put Xander's season in context, but it's not some kind of proof of what his career will be. It's somewhere between "fun fact" and "proof positive he'll be in the Hall of Fame." Sure, but it's a lot closer to meaningless trivia than it is to meaningful analysis of Bogaerts' projected career. As mentioned in a past episode of Effectively Wild (and alluded to in this Sam Miller tweet), all fun facts are lies.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 23, 2015 8:51:42 GMT -5
I just can't even imagine what Xander and Mookie will be like in 2-3 years. There's a meaningful non-zero chance that this is as good as they're ever going to be. That's unlikely, but possible. For instance, Jason Heyward had his best offensive season at age 21. I know, but just looking at how much they have improved just this season indicates they're probably not done improving yet. They both have a lot of room to start walking like they used to. And I think Mookie will continue to improve in the outfield.
|
|
|
Post by dominicansoxfan on Sept 23, 2015 8:52:30 GMT -5
By the way since the All-Star break:
Betts .314/.357/.480
And in fewer at bats, Swihart .305/.355/.414 and Shaw .302/.372/.562
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 23, 2015 9:10:12 GMT -5
There's a meaningful non-zero chance that this is as good as they're ever going to be. That's unlikely, but possible. For instance, Jason Heyward had his best offensive season at age 21. I know, but just looking at how much they have improved just this season indicates they're probably not done improving yet. They both have a lot of room to start walking like they used to. And I think Mookie will continue to improve in the outfield. Yeah, that's the most likely scenario, but it's no guarantee that they improve at all or that they improve enough to jump into the tier of true superstardom. If you set the over/under at five wins for both of them next year, I probably take the under in both cases (ADD: actually, upon second thought, maybe I'd take the over for Betts, but yeah, I'd take the under for Bogaerts).
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Sept 23, 2015 9:10:33 GMT -5
Well, like a lot of stuff Speier puts out, it's easy to misconstrue and take it too far, but it's meaningful as far as it goes. The point being that it's really rare for someone to put up this kind of BA at this age, and of the thousands of 22 year-old players in the past, the only ones to do it were great players. That's good to know to put Xander's season in context, but it's not some kind of proof of what his career will be. It's somewhere between "fun fact" and "proof positive he'll be in the Hall of Fame." Sure, but it's a lot closer to meaningless trivia than it is to meaningful analysis of Bogaerts' projected career. As mentioned in a past episode of Effectively Wild (and alluded to in this Sam Miller tweet), all fun facts are lies. I guess, but that's not the question I think of when I see this fact. To me, this fact answers the question, "Just how good is a .322 BA as a 22 year-old?" Which this little comparison answers nicely with a resounding "really good!" If someone wants to put more meaning into it, that's not the fact's problem. #standupforfunfacts
|
|
|
Post by terriblehondo on Sept 23, 2015 9:27:32 GMT -5
I know, but just looking at how much they have improved just this season indicates they're probably not done improving yet. They both have a lot of room to start walking like they used to. And I think Mookie will continue to improve in the outfield. Yeah, that's the most likely scenario, but it's no guarantee that they improve at all or that they improve enough to jump into the tier of true superstardom. If you set the over/under at five wins for both of them next year, I probably take the under in both cases (ADD: actually, upon second thought, maybe I'd take the over for Betts, but yeah, I'd take the under for Bogaerts). I would not bet against Xander. I never thought he would stick at short but he has improved his 1st step a ton and also improved his feeding and turning two. He also has adjusted to a great 2 strike approach. The strides he made this year are astounding. The only way to get that much better is he must work his butt off.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 23, 2015 9:36:05 GMT -5
Sure, but it's a lot closer to meaningless trivia than it is to meaningful analysis of Bogaerts' projected career. As mentioned in a past episode of Effectively Wild (and alluded to in this Sam Miller tweet), all fun facts are lies. I guess, but that's not the question I think of when I see this fact. To me, this fact answers the question, "Just how good is a .322 BA as a 22 year-old?" Which this little comparison answers nicely with a resounding "really good!" If someone wants to put more meaning into it, that's not the fact's problem. #standupforfunfacts I don't know that it even answers that question, though. For instance, for some reason, Speier only includes AL players. The fact that that filter is added suggests to me that there are some NL names that fit that criteria and are less lofty (which turns out to be the case-- see, e.g., Pablo Sandoval's .345/.357/.490 age-22 season (or his .330/.387/.556 age-23 season) or Gary Templeton's .322/.336/.449 age-21 season or Brian McCann's .333/.388/.572 age-22 season (the best offensive season of his career)). More importantly, that question is not that meaningful in terms of projecting Bogaerts' career. If you use a holistic offensive value stat like wRC+, Bogaerts' 112 doesn't hold a candle to the other names on that list and introduces a bunch of less-favorable comps (e.g., Starlin Castro). You're right that there's nothing intrinsically misleading about that fun fact, but you already see folks in this thread citing it it to suggest that Bogaerts is going to be a stud, which is why I'm pushing back on it some.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Sept 23, 2015 10:04:22 GMT -5
I guess, but that's not the question I think of when I see this fact. To me, this fact answers the question, "Just how good is a .322 BA as a 22 year-old?" Which this little comparison answers nicely with a resounding "really good!" If someone wants to put more meaning into it, that's not the fact's problem. #standupforfunfacts I don't know that it even answers that question, though. For instance, for some reason, Speier only includes AL players. The fact that that filter is added suggests to me that there are some NL names that fit that criteria and are less lofty (which turns out to be the case-- see, e.g., Pablo Sandoval's .345/.357/.490 age-22 season (or his .330/.387/.556 age-23 season) or Gary Templeton's .322/.336/.449 age-21 season or Brian McCann's .333/.388/.572 age-22 season (the best offensive season of his career)). More importantly, that question is not that meaningful in terms of projecting Bogaerts' career. If you use a holistic offensive value stat like wRC+, Bogaerts' 112 doesn't hold a candle to the other names on that list and introduces a bunch of less-favorable comps (e.g., Starlin Castro). You're right that there's nothing intrinsically misleading about that fun fact, but you already see folks in this thread citing it it to suggest that Bogaerts is going to be a stud, which is why I'm pushing back on it some. I had thought of the wRC+ ... it's actually something I've thought about before with Xander. His season this year would've been seen as a far more consequential offensive performance in a previous era, when BA was seen as king. But that doesn't change my view of this particular factoid. However, the NL thing is a good point; I hadn't even noticed it was just AL, actually (which i guess indicates the relative lack of importance I put on it). There's nothing about the AL that makes it meaningful to have done it in the AL instead of the NL. But, on your general point, I"m agreeing with you, just from a different angle. I think Xander's having a wonderful season, and it's nice to see how his BA stacks up historically. However, it's not particularly predictive. But then, I'm usually a lot more cautious in predictions than most around here, anyway, so a stat like that doesn't mean anything to me more than it says and doesn't strike me as misleading (except for that AL/NL thing). You know, the stats that probably make me the most excited for Bogaerts are the defensive stats, not because I think they are predictive per se but because of what they mean about his ability to improve his athletic performance over time.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Sept 23, 2015 10:29:33 GMT -5
So what do we make of Xander's BABIP?
First 274 PA: .383 Next 268 PA: .199 (June through August, or the great slump of Summer 2014) Last 700 PA: .368
Where is his "true talent level"?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 23, 2015 12:25:44 GMT -5
I mean, just to be clear, we're all in agreement that this is just a fun fact and a nice thing for Xander to be able to say and he doesn't actually belong in the same sentence as these guys, right? That's not to say that he couldn't be a Hall of Famer, or that he isn't going to become a much better hitter than he is right now, but let's not get carried away here... How about we just say that he's just begun to walk along the right path? Let's hope he never veers off that path.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 23, 2015 14:39:20 GMT -5
Sure, but it's a lot closer to meaningless trivia than it is to meaningful analysis of Bogaerts' projected career. As mentioned in a past episode of Effectively Wild (and alluded to in this Sam Miller tweet), all fun facts are lies. I guess, but that's not the question I think of when I see this fact. To me, this fact answers the question, "Just how good is a .322 BA as a 22 year-old?" Which this little comparison answers nicely with a resounding "really good!" If someone wants to put more meaning into it, that's not the fact's problem. #standupforfunfacts But don't you also have to take into account how meaningful batting average is as an offensive measure? Bogaerts actual production this year isn't in the same stratosphere as the five other guys on that list in their age 22 seasons, which was sort of my main point. In fact it probably wouldn't even come close to the top 50 age 22 seasons ever. That's just hitting, mind you. A 5 WAR season at age 22 is indeed a great accomplishment and bodes very well for his future.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Sept 23, 2015 14:49:35 GMT -5
*Freud*. And some of those studies are done involve systems analysis, including FAA air traffic control and OR systems analysis. In that case, you're talking about human lives being at stake. Furthermore, you're talking about a game, whether people are screaming or not. Try transfusing 70 units of blood (thats 25 liters) while a patient is lying on an OR table bleeding so fast blood is spilling over the edges like a water fountain. Or, worrying about tracking 10 planes with varying flight paths all landing within minutes of eachother and each carrying 200 passengers. You have absolutely no idea of who I am or what my work history is, yet here you are proclaiming to. Also, FWIW, transference refers to attributing emotions/motivations to others as derived from important, early-life personalities (eg parents, siblings, etc.). The more appropriate term is "empathy"...an observer feeling the emotion that they perceive in another. I won't get into it, either, but human expressions have certain archetypes that people generally understand cross-culturally. Anger, sadness, frustration, pain, elation...yes, the accuracy of the viewer in identifying them depends on subtlety of the response in the viewed and the emotional IQ of the viewer (an intrinsic ability to read emotion, which is well-studied), among other things. But the vast majority of people don't break into a huge smile when they're pissed off, nor do they glower when overjoyed. It's true that one can't read the mind--the actual thoughts--of a player when seeing their expressions and body language, but unless they're very socially inept and terrible at reading people, most individuals *can* read a person's emotional state. Regardless, I'm not entirely sure that I agree fully with Eric's assertion re: bad plays. I also *do* agree with you to some extent that at the MLB level, players have learned to moderate their "catastrophe" response, through practice. It's the same theory behind using simulation centers for medical students and resident physicians...the best predictor for success in a high-stress emergency (like a code situation, bioterror attack, etc.) is experience. BUT, to say that people are unaffected or don't show emotion when things go wrong is, IMO, naive. People may learn to hide it (which is often advantageous), but if anything, the lack of demonstrative emotion *underreports,* because people can hide expression of emotion more readily than suppress the emotion itself. So, yes, while the gauntlet leading to MLB probably weeds out the less emotionally adaptive players, they're not immune to getting upset or showing it. Telson I never claimed I knew what you do nor does it matter for this discussion. Please learn to critically read. Face expressions whether or not you can read them is irrelevant to performance on the field. I've made the point before and I'll make it again. I, you, most people don't even react to the same situation the same way every time so this is all BS to begin with. Also read deeper than the first definition of transference. You nor I have likely met the equivalent of a MLB player in whatever field we've chosen, that is how elite they are at their profession. I'll let you decide for yourself the ramifications that implies. Have you ever cursed playing sports and buckled down and performed better? Have you ever been super focused and failed? Again whether they show it or not is moot. It does not tell you anything on how they will perform after.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Sept 23, 2015 15:31:37 GMT -5
More importantly, that question is not that meaningful in terms of projecting Bogaerts' career. If you use a holistic offensive value stat like wRC+, Bogaerts' 112 doesn't hold a candle to the other names on that list and introduces a bunch of less-favorable comps (e.g., Starlin Castro). I am going to take a crack at this and, as many may already know around here, I am not really a saber guy. But you want to use wRC+ as a comparative analysis tool here, and it helps you make a point you have been making more than once this year, Bogaerts power may not line up and his ceiling may be lower than a lot us (including you, I am sure) hope. I am going to go out on a limb and guess that his lack of power and walks has hurt his wRC+. If that is is the case, your are not being fair to his projection, because, IMHO, he clearly changed his approach this year to become a "better" hitter in his or the teams definition of what that is. Now he may never put that together, but if I am right about the wRC+ stuff, then that measurement for this year's evaluation is far to punitive to him because of a change of approach. I'll also add that he was happier this year playing SS and the move to 3B last years was as dumb a move as BC ever made.
|
|
|