Albert Pujols

[ColdCaller]

[ QUOTE ]
"Wow, that Albert sure is a nice guy, I really like having him in the clubhouse, I think I'll go 3-for-3 today!"

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

Basically sums up my feelings on this "intangible" [censored].

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Wow, that Albert sure is a nice guy, I really like having him in the clubhouse, I think I'll go 3-for-3 today!"

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

Basically sums up my feelings on this "intangible" [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

people that 100% deny the existence of clubhouse chemistry and it's affect on winning are just as silly as those who might claim that Pujols clubhouse chemistry is as valuable as his on field contributions.

I hate to keep saying this, but the game isn't played by frickin robots. human emotion plays into this.

almost to a man the Red Sox from 2 years ago will say that their chemistry as a team helped them come back from 0-3. was it as important as Keith Foulke thwoing lights out or David Ortiz crushing the ball? No, but it's a factor...and contributed at some level to those performances.

you can either believe the guys who are actually playing and there, or choose to ignore this primary evidence.

the stats guys don't like intangibles b/c they are hard (or impossible) to quantify and are therefore extremely difficult to use in predicting future performance. but that doesn't mean they don't exist and aren't affecting curent performance.

[THAY3R]

So when you are up to plate, having to make a split-second decision, whether or not your teammate is a good guy will effect the outcome of your at bat?

[THAY3R]

(A 100 MPH fastball flying right across the plate)
Player A : "That Derek Jeter sure is a nice guy, I'm going to hit a Homer!"(BAM!!!)

Player B : "That Barry Bonds sure is a douchebag!"(whifffff)

[Spy Dog]

[ QUOTE ]
(A 100 MPH fastball flying right across the plate)
Player A : "That Derek Jeter sure is a nice guy, I'm going to hit a Homer!"(BAM!!!)

Player B : "That Barry Bonds sure is a douchebag!"(whifffff)

[/ QUOTE ]

Imagine the 1st day of spring training. You see Albert busting his balls. Work ethic impeccable. Helps others with his knowledge. Does this add to the team? What if he was a slouch? Late for practice. Lazy. Not willing to help others. Who makes his teammates better?

People in everyday jobs are more productive when they get along with their co-workers. Baseball is no different.

[Jack of Arcades]

Actually, the Giants players have a history of playing over their heads. It must be all Barry Bonds.

[Jack of Arcades]

It is true that "intangibles" or whatever are hard to quantify in future performance, but the reason that "stats guys don't like intangibles" is because just about the only time you ever hear anyone talk about intangibles is on the defensive.

"Stat Guy": Derek Jeter's defense sucks
Tim McCarver: But he's got intangibles wtfffffff!

"Stat Guy": Barry Bonds has been a better hitter than Albert Pujols.
Joe Buck: But he's got intangibles wtffffffff!

"Stat Guy": Tony Bautista is pretty much the worst player ever.
Terry Ryan: OMG Vetran Presence you n00b.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
It is true that "intangibles" or whatever are hard to quantify in future performance, but the reason that "stats guys don't like intangibles" is because just about the only time you ever hear anyone talk about intangibles is on the defensive.

"Stat Guy": Derek Jeter's defense sucks
Tim McCarver: But he's got intangibles wtfffffff!

"Stat Guy": Barry Bonds has been a better hitter than Albert Pujols.
Joe Buck: But he's got intangibles wtffffffff!

"Stat Guy": Tony Bautista is pretty much the worst player ever.
Terry Ryan: OMG Vetran Presence you n00b.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear you, and these pov's are just as bad as the ones who say "omg intantibles don't matter". as is generally the case, the truth lies somewhere between the 2 extremist camps.
take 2 statistically identical players. player a is an angry loner who everyone hates. player b is liked by everyone, always encourages his teammates, helps young guys out, shares his knowledge of opposing pitchers, etc etc. unless you can tell me that you honestly would not prefer player b over player a, then you've just told me that intangibles matter and therefore have a value.
now, is that worth as much as 40 points in ops? that's the real question.

[Dudd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Wow, that Albert sure is a nice guy, I really like having him in the clubhouse, I think I'll go 3-for-3 today!"

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

Basically sums up my feelings on this "intangible" [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

people that 100% deny the existence of clubhouse chemistry and it's affect on winning are just as silly as those who might claim that Pujols clubhouse chemistry is as valuable as his on field contributions.

I hate to keep saying this, but the game isn't played by frickin robots. human emotion plays into this.

almost to a man the Red Sox from 2 years ago will say that their chemistry as a team helped them come back from 0-3. was it as important as Keith Foulke thwoing lights out or David Ortiz crushing the ball? No, but it's a factor...and contributed at some level to those performances.

you can either believe the guys who are actually playing and there, or choose to ignore this primary evidence.

the stats guys don't like intangibles b/c they are hard (or impossible) to quantify and are therefore extremely difficult to use in predicting future performance. but that doesn't mean they don't exist and aren't affecting curent performance.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, the thing I don't buy about intangibles is that everyone always talks about them after the fact. If Dave Roberts stumbles halfway to second, we're not talking about intangibles, we're talking about a bunch of losers who can't handle the pressure of playing the Yankees. Winning teams always talk about intangibles because they're winning. I mean, no one ever talks about the Pirates or the Devil Rays having good intangibles.

[THAY3R]

Amen Brotha!