Attention Mauer Haters!

[snepp]

That's the usual response from someone who didn't.

No, it's the kind of response you get from someone calling out bull**** for what it is.

[jokin]

Then why defend the "lace 'em up" argument? If it's not a unique trait then the point is moot and more than a little condescending.

Sorry if that's what you inferred, it was not the intention. Having said that, if I am living in 50000 BC, I will probably consult the mammoth and sabre-tooth tiger hunters on successful techniques and strategies for staying alive before I will the tribal cook or storage clerk.

[jokin]

No, it's the kind of response you get from someone calling out bull**** for what it is.

 

Because you said so....OK then! Helpful response to the discussion...or not.....

[kydoty]

This thread needs more Dan.

[powrwrap]

The only way to overcome something with a lot of factors (such as this) is through raw data and lots of it. The thing is that baseball has that in spades.

 

Again, this isn't conjecture. This has been shown time and time again across the history of the sport by people who know a hell of a lot more about math than anyone on this board.

Players and coaches and managers all say that pressure exists in MLB and that players sometimes react to it, some altering their game for better results some altering it for worse results. This is not going to be shown via statistics.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Sorry if that's what you inferred, it was not the intention. Having said that, if I am living in 50000 BC, I will probably consult the mammoth and sabre-tooth tiger hunters on successful techniques and strategies for staying alive before I will the tribal cook or storage clerk.

If you want to kill a specific mammoth, yes. But what if you want to understand the migration patterns and behavior of mammoths as a species? Do you really want to rely solely on the information supplied by one hunter and his personal experiences?

[PseudoSABR]

"No one", just because you said so? I don't think so. Just because something is admittedly difficult to quantiy, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Since Steinbrenner awoke the Yankees from their slumber years with CBS, the year-to-year expectations are simple- winning the World Series. These are expectations that were built into the culture of the organization. Their actions, in turn awoke the Red Sox from their slumber. In terms of the psychology of the breeding of the expectations of this culture, ie, a "winning mindset", this is called operant conditioning (OC). OC works through a set of reinforcers- stimuli that increase and/or strengthen the likelihood of the desired response. There are 4 types of reinforcement, they are all used by the Yankees to get that desired response: Positive and Negative Reinforcement, Punishment and Extinction. For Mariano Rivera, Positive Reinforcement was all that was needed, for Kyle Farnsworth (who had all the tools that Rivera had), none of them worked, up to and including the possibility of Extinction- he was gone.

Look, in my prior post to the one responding to yours I state myself that being unable to quantify a factor doesn't forbid its existence. But this post is again glib and even patronizing. If you have no desire to be taken seriously, continue right ahead. But I'd recommend picking your battles. It's perfectly fair for people to scoff at "winning attitude" and "clutchiness" because really they are likely made out of baser attributes, like poise, as I've mentioned. Meet the postivistic posters half way by getting them to agree to some abstract attributes, rather than inventing ones like "capacity to find the silver lining in bad inning," or "ability to handle booing during an at bat."

[PseudoSABR]

We're talking about the top 1% of the top 1% of the top 1% here. Guys who have spent their entire lives in "pressure situations".

 

If pressure got to them in any real way, they probably wouldn't be there in the first place. Do a few guys wilt under pressure? Sure, I'd buy into that. But it's a small portion of MLB players. Most of the delicate flowers were weeded out long before they made it to a playoff game in MLB.

I think you're pigheadedness on this point is only saved by the unquantifiableness of abstract human characteristics. Because you really can't say what percentage of baseball players are actually affected by pressure or perform with excellence in spite of it; we have no one way of knowing, right? Jokin suggests lots of players are affected by pressure you say .001 percent, you're both just guessing. Look, I'm not arguing in favor of clutchiness but you're being awfully stubborn about admitting there might be something to pressure/poise/whatever, in spite of the fact we can't really measure it.

[TheLeviathan]

This is an excellent demonstration on the role of data really. I think everyone can acknowledge the human element of the game, the problem is that data is far less transferable, reliable, or comparable as a means of evaluation. The weaknesses and strengths are purely subjective in anecdotal and isolated data.

 

That doesn't mean statistics are the game or the only viable source of information, but they are a far more robust and reliable form of data. Resorting to "if you didn't lace em up you don't understand" arguments sounds like one step short of threatening the size of one's father. It's pretty friggin stupid.

[powrwrap]

This is an excellent demonstration on the role of data really. I think everyone can acknowledge the human element of the game, the problem is that data is far less transferable, reliable, or comparable as a means of evaluation. The weaknesses and strengths are purely subjective in anecdotal and isolated data.

 

That doesn't mean statistics are the game or the only viable source of information, but they are a far more robust and reliable form of data.

 

Good points.

 

Resorting to "if you didn't lace em up you don't understand" arguments sounds like one step short of threatening the size of one's father. It's pretty friggin stupid.

 

It's not stupid in this discussion. Someone that has never played competitive baseball, even as low as the high school level, simply does not personally know the effects that pressure situations can have on a player's performance. To say that there isn't any because statistics don't bear it out, is "friggin' stupid." [and I know you are not saying that.]

[DaveW]

No one remembers Puckets other at bats in game 6 of the 1991 world series, but every single person who watched that game remembers his final one. Does that make Puckett clutch? I don't think so...

 

 

I remember his other at bats that game because he ended up only a double short of the cycle. It was truly an amazing game, however the first five games of the series Puckett was pretty medicore hitting only 3 of 18 with 1 RBI and 5 k's. Nobody remembers that I imagine.

[jokin]

If you want to kill a specific mammoth, yes. But what if you want to understand the migration patterns and behavior of mammoths as a species? Do you really want to rely solely on the information supplied by one hunter and his personal experiences?

Absolutish and missing-the-point arguments.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I think you're pigheadedness on this point is only saved by the unquantifiableness of abstract human characteristics. Because you really can't say what percentage of baseball players are actually affected by pressure or perform with excellence in spite of it; we have no one way of knowing, right? Jokin suggests lots of players are affected by pressure you say .001 percent, you're both just guessing. Look, I'm not arguing in favor of clutchiness but you're being awfully stubborn about admitting there might be something to pressure/poise/whatever, in spite of the fact we can't really measure it.

I wasn't guessing. I was illustrating the levels of screening that these players go under before even reaching the majors. Is it 1%? .1%? I don't know and I really don't care. My only point is that it's a damned small percentage because just to make it to the MLB level and succeed for any amount of time, a player will have to be somewhat immune to the ups and downs of professional play (ie. "pressure"). Are rookies more susceptible to such a thing? Sure, I'd agree with that, just as stepping into any new role is a little unsettling for a person.

 

Anyway, this was never my point in the first place. My argument rests mainly in the belief that players can play above their normal level of play, not that they can play below it. Failing is easy. Succeeding is far more difficult.

[TheLeviathan]

It's not stupid in this discussion. Someone that has never played competitive baseball, even as low as the high school level, simply does not personally know the effects that pressure situations can have on a player's performance. To say that there isn't any because statistics don't bear it out, is "friggin' stupid." [and I know you are not saying that.]

It's a cop-out answer. It's like seeing someone abuse their child and saying "That's not ok" only for them to retort that you've never been a parent so who are you to tell them it's not ok. It's an automatic fail argument and it sounds really juvenile and stupid.

 

Even in the context of this argument there were far better ways to acknowledge the human element.

[DaveW]

Anyways back to Mauer...

 

Over his past 42 games Mauer has put up the following numbers:

.362/.446/.500

 

He obviously had a bit of a slow start to the season, but that can be expected since he more or less missed all of last season (and when he played he was clearly not healthy)

 

I don't care what position you play, or how many games you have to DH, give me a .946 OPS for ANY salary. There is no reason not to think Mauer can't/won't continue to keep this up. (Though the batting average will prob come down a bit)

[Brock Beauchamp]

Anyways back to Mauer...

 

Over his past 42 games Mauer has put up the following numbers:

.362/.446/.500

 

He obviously had a bit of a slow start to the season, but that can be expected since he more or less missed all of last season (and when he played he was clearly not healthy)

 

I don't care what position you play, or how many games you have to DH, give me a .946 OPS for ANY salary. There is no reason not to think Mauer can't/won't continue to keep this up. (Though the batting average will prob come down a bit)

I keep complaining about his groundball rate but it should be concerning.

 

But I'd be lying if those numbers didn't give me a lot of hope for the future.

[jokin]

Look, in my prior post to the one responding to yours I state myself that being unable to quantify a factor doesn't forbid its existence. But this post is again glib and even patronizing. If you have no desire to be taken seriously, continue right ahead. But I'd recommend picking your battles. It's perfectly fair for people to scoff at "winning attitude" and "clutchiness" because really they are likely made out of baser attributes, like poise, as I've mentioned. Meet the postivistic posters half way by getting them to agree to some abstract attributes, rather than inventing ones like "capacity to find the silver lining in bad inning," or "ability to handle booing during an at bat."

Wow. Using the true Father of Psychology(it certainly wasn't the non-scientific Sigmund Freud), BF Skinner, to outline how certain stimuli are used to build, strengthen and maintain a desired outcome (call it poise if you're more comfortable with that, the Yankess used "winning attitude") and still "patronizing" and not "taken seriously". Okay.....

 

I don't recall where I used either of the quotes you attribute to me, as neither of those quotes have anything to do with my point. Having said that in regards at meeting the other side half way, I am fully in favor of using statistical analysis, it is a tool but it just shouldn't be a bible. Human behavior can never likely be fully quantified.

[jokin]

Anyways back to Mauer...

 

Over his past 42 games Mauer has put up the following numbers:

.362/.446/.500

 

He obviously had a bit of a slow start to the season, but that can be expected since he more or less missed all of last season (and when he played he was clearly not healthy)

 

I don't care what position you play, or how many games you have to DH, give me a .946 OPS for ANY salary. There is no reason not to think Mauer can't/won't continue to keep this up. (Though the batting average will prob come down a bit)

Why does the BA have to come down? If he increases his LD% closer to career norms I think his average can go higher. But there are 2 reasons why he couldn't keep it up- his health and a possible reconfiguration of the roster (ie, trading of Span and/or someone else, Mauer failing to adjust when moved to the 2 hole where he historically hasn't hit as well, Revere falling into a slump like last year, prolonged slumps or injuries by whoever else bats in front of, or behind him in the order). That's the glass half empty perspective anyway.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Why does the BA have to come down? If he increases his LD% closer to career norms I think his average can go higher. But there are 2 reasons why he couldn't keep it up- his health and a possible reconfiguration of the roster (ie, trading of Span and/or someone else, Mauer failing to adjust when moved to the 2 hole where he historically hasn't hit as well, Revere falling into a slump like last year, prolonged slumps or injuries by whoever else bats in front of, or behind him in the order). That's the glass half empty perspective anyway.

Mauer has the identical OPS in the two spot that he does hitting third.

 

But I see no reason for his BA to fall. His BABIP is a little high but not really that high for Joe Mauer.

[Riverbrian]

Again, I don't get this whole "elevate" thing. If the fastest a person can run is a 4.4 40 and then they suddenly turn in a 3.9 in the clutch, you may have a point, but they are naturally limited to what their skill level can provide. Jeter is a great player, but Mr. November is a joke, because while Jeter can come through in the clutch, he fails too, we just don't remember the failures. No one remembers Puckets other at bats in game 6 of the 1991 world series, but every single person who watched that game remembers his final one. Does that make Puckett clutch? I don't think so...

 

What I do think, however, is that while people cannot play beyond their skill level, they can certainly play below it. Francisco Liriano is a perfect example of that. He's got the skill level to be a perennial cy young contender, but you never know from start to start whether or not he needs his head screwed on tigher or not. He chokes. I'd bet that a lot of players do this from time to time...

Think of the Movie Swordfish... Take the scene where the computer hacker meets the Travolta character for the first time.

 

Now Remove the Gun and the Girl but Leave the Pressure. OK... Leave the girl if it makes you feel good.

 

I know it's the movies but that's an example of someone elevating his game.

 

Also consider that the same computer hacker could be hitting some golf balls off his roof and decide to go back in his trailer and make a routine hack job for small stakes and screw it up because it was just another routine day.

[PseudoSABR]

Wow. Using the true Father of Psychology(it certainly wasn't the non-scientific Sigmund Freud), BF Skinner, to outline how certain stimuli are used to build, strengthen and maintain a desired outcome (call it poise if you're more comfortable with that, the Yankess used "winning attitude") and still "patronizing" and not "taken seriously". Okay.....

This whole paragraph is patronizing (The "true Father," for example). You're not the only one whose taken a handful of psychology classes or read a book. BF Skinner and his behaviorists are looked at with total suspicion these days, but I'm sure you know that. BF Skinner is about as 'scientific' as aromatherapy, in any case there's nothing in your post that evidences your points about baseball, you're merely educating us on points most of us are pretty familiar with.

 

I don't recall where I used either of the quotes you attribute to me, as neither of those quotes have anything to do with my point. Having said that in regards at meeting the other side half way, I am fully in favor of using statistical analysis, it is a tool but it just shouldn't be a bible. Human behavior can never likely be fully quantified.

You didn't use those quotes, I'm making fun of you to show the ridiculous slippery slope you've created. And it's obvious to so many here (again, hence why you are patronizing) that human behavior can't be quantified.

 

Look, you'll get a lot further in discussions if you stop assuming that the other posters here aren't as well-read and smart as you. Heck, I'm probably on your side in this argument (at least in spirit), but you're posts are so sloppy and disingenuous that it makes my skin curdle.

[jokin]

I keep complaining about his groundball rate but it should be concerning.

 

But I'd be lying if those numbers didn't give me a lot of hope for the future.

 

The GB% number really stands out like a potential sore thumb. It is so far off his career norm, it's surprising more teams aren't putting on the Blue Jays-style shift for him. If more teams would do it, that might force Mauer to address this situation more readily. His current BABIP is 373 versus a career BABIP of 344. How many of Mauer's seeing-eye 5 bounce singles will begin to be fielded when more teams study Mauer's batting chart? His lucky BABIP should begin to regress back. Time for more line drives....the very recent eye test suggests that the LD rate is going up, or at least his swing is at a slightly higher trajectory. His strikeout rate is also going up even as his BA and OPS continue to climb, which hopefully indicates a more agressive approach than earlier in the season. I hope these are indicators for a glass half full scenario.

[PseudoSABR]

I wasn't guessing. I was illustrating the levels of screening that these players go under before even reaching the majors. Is it 1%? .1%? I don't know and I really don't care. My only point is that it's a damned small percentage because just to make it to the MLB level and succeed for any amount of time, a player will have to be somewhat immune to the ups and downs of professional play (ie. "pressure"). Are rookies more susceptible to such a thing? Sure, I'd agree with that, just as stepping into any new role is a little unsettling for a person.

Well, the attribute's value would be relative to the rest of population of baseball players, so whatever minimal percentage you want to assign, it should still have a tangible affect in even an elite population. Pardon the glib example: If everyone has 99 Poise, the guy with 98 Poise is the ****ty non clutchy guy, right?

 

Anyway, this was never my point in the first place. My argument rests mainly in the belief that players can play above their normal level of play, not that they can play below it. Failing is easy. Succeeding is far more difficult.

I totally agree, hence my evoking (or failing to) the word 'poise' into the conversation. No one's going to get better under pressure, they will simply maintain their poise. I think we're on the same page, mostly.

[jokin]

This whole paragraph is patronizing (The "true Father," for example). You're not the only one whose taken a handful of psychology classes or read a book. BF Skinner and his behaviorists are looked at with total suspicion these days, but I'm sure you know that. BF Skinner is about as 'scientific' as aromatherapy, in any case there's nothing in your post that evidences your points about baseball, you're merely educating us on points most of us are pretty familiar with.

 

You didn't use those quotes, I'm making fun of you to show the ridiculous slippery slope you've created. And it's obvious to so many here (again, hence why you are patronizing) that human behavior can't be quantified.

 

Look, you'll get a lot further in discussions if you stop assuming that the other posters here aren't as well-read and smart as you. Heck, I'm probably on your side in this argument (at least in spirit), but you're posts are so sloppy and disingenuous that it makes my skin curdle.

Sorry for the skin-curdling. I have a strong feeling that you get "patronized" easily and enjoy back-patronization immensely.

 

That BF Skinner did not revolutionize how the "science" of psychology is regarded, that today's psychologists haven't built the discipline on some of the foundations he established, to deny that many of those foundations are still the central focus of the discipline in college textbooks and to somehow suggest that Skinner is merely an aromatherapist is pure poppycock, and I think you know it ( probably more of your "making fun of me" by concocting ridiculous quotes that had no relevance to what I had said- yeah, solid evidence there, too). I guess it's official now, you've officially stated that the basic tenets of learning theory must all be thrown out because the discipline has evolved. And calling prose "sloppy and disingenuous" without evidence is, what would you call it, again? Disingenuous and sloppy.

[TheLeviathan]

I think I heard Pseudo's head explode reading that.....

[PseudoSABR]

Sorry for the skin-curdling. I have a strong feeling that you get "patronized" easily and enjoy back-patronization immensely.

 

That BF Skinner did not revolutionize how the "science" of psychology is regarded, that today's psychologists haven't built the discipline on some of the foundations he established, to deny that many of those foundations are still the central focus of the discipline in college textbooks and to somehow suggest that Skinner is merely an aromatherapist is pure poppycock, and I think you know it ( probably more of your "making fun of me" by concocting ridiculous quotes that had no relevance to what I had said- yeah, solid evidence there, too). I guess it's official now, you've officially stated that the basic tenets of learning theory must all be thrown out because the discipline has evolved. And calling prose "sloppy and disingenuous" without evidence is, what would you call it, again? Disingenuous and sloppy.

I'm not denying Skinner's influence on psychology; I'm denying his applicability to the argument and that behaviorism is something new to anyone here. I wonder what Lacan or Irigaray would say about the yips (or rather, who cares).

 

I'll stop now. Apologies to the non-snark crowd.

[Riverbrian]

Probably, but I doubt that says anything about how good of a player he is. I'm sure there are a lot of players of the Albert Pujols ilk who would be happy with a walk and players like Jeff Francoeur who would be pissed.

Agreed... It has nothing to do with Talent level in my opinion and it could be Pujols and Francoeur as examples. But this is the starting point in my opinion of determining the make up of a player.

 

After that... you factor in the "When does a player feel that pressure and it's different for everyone and it can't be quantified.

 

Then Factor in: Even if Francouer wants that job... Will he be confident and put a good swing on the ball or will he get over aggressive and wave at 3 pitchers around his eyeballs.

 

 

I think the only way to overcome this pressure thing is to put yourself under it all the time. Treat every game during the season and every at bat like it's the 7th game of the World Series. Think of it as training yourself for the moment.

 

It's easy to say and nearly impossible to implement. 162 games in a year... Complacent Play, Self Doubt, Over Confidence and dealing with failure more often then success is a major part of the game.

[Paul]

...I'll stop now. Apologies to the non-snark crowd.

The non-snark crowd? Where do they hang out?

[DaveW]

Mauer has the identical OPS in the two spot that he does hitting third.

 

But I see no reason for his BA to fall. His BABIP is a little high but not really that high for Joe Mauer.

I'm talking about his .363 BA over the past 42 games, it's pretty hard to maintain an average that high for that long of a period, and his BABIP in June and July have been rather high thus far.

 

The thought that Mauer's numbers would somehow worsen if he was moved to the 2 hole is laughable. If anything he may see more walks if everyone else suddenly starts to suck.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I'm talking about his .363 BA over the past 42 games, it's pretty hard to maintain an average that high for that long of a period, and his BABIP in June and July have been rather high thus far.

 

The thought that Mauer's numbers would somehow worsen if he was moved to the 2 hole is laughable. If anything he may see more walks if everyone else suddenly starts to suck.

Ah, yes. That .363 BA will probably drop.