Big Papi  DH??

i think that might be true in some cases (about being nicer). but in others i disagree. as long as people are trying to learn, willing to change their view if presented with strong evidence for the supporting side, and just generally talking/acting rationally, then i totally agree.

but as soon as it crosses into just trying to find a way to hold on to your side becasue you don’t want to “lose” an argument, then i don’t think being nice is important, because the other guy really is being an “idiot”. or, what really bugs me, is continuing to use an argument that has been shown to be false. for example, we have a lot of evidence that streaks are in no way predictive. so if someone uses a streak to justify something, i think it’s a totally appropriate response to say something like “we know streaks aren’t predictive, it’s in chapter 2 of The Book”. if they then ignore that, or say they disagree without presenting a good argument for why the studies are wrong, then i see no reason at that point to “be nice”.

at the end of the day, this forum is an opportunity to learn. i love it when i’m having a debate with someone, and i realize that something i thought was right is wrong. it’s a chance to learn something new and to understand baseball better.

i think these two posts summarize my view pretty well:

http://sabermetricresearch.blogspot.com/2011/10/in-defense-of-online-rudeness.html
http://sabermetricresearch.blogspot.com/2011/10/being-proven-wrong-is-like-winning.html

i have a number of related things to say about this, but i’m not quite sure how to organize them as a coherent post so bare with me here.

first, and most importantly, remember that we’re talking about MLB players here. these are the best of the best of the best baseball players in the world, and as such, a lot of things that apply to lower levels (minors, college, etc) do not apply to MLB players. the best example i have is clutch: nobody thinks that there is no clutch skill among baseball players. but, it has been shown that there is very little variation among MLB players in their clutch ability. this is most likely because you don’t make it to MLB unless you already are very, very clutch. so to touch on a couple of your points, you don’t make it to MLB if you don’t have a proper routine, you don’t make it to MLB if you can’t get through rough spots, etc.

that said, obviously these “intangible” things exist. i fully agree that some players make others better, and some players make others worse. but the question is – can we identify those players, either after-the-fact, or, more importantly for predictive purposes, before-the-fact.

you say that bautista helps EE and Yunel play better – how on earth do you know that? i see no evidence that that’s true. yunel is basically the exact same player he was when he was with atlanta, and EE is basically the same player he was with the reds (if not worse now). it might very well be true. or the opposite might be true. people say things like this a lot, but most of the time they’re just after-the-fact rationalizations that may or may not have anything to do with reality.

finally, regarding a veteran pitcher to help the young guys develop: when halladay was here, everyone said that his work ethic really helped our young pitchers because it wore off on them. then when he left, everyone said that there was a looser feel in the clubhouse which really helped the team. so which one is it? the answer is probably that there’s a kernel of truth in both, but that both are just made up stories that sound good but don’t really match reality.