skmsw wrote:
There have actually been some pretty good attempts at research to measure some of these kinds of things. To the extent that it can be done, it suggests tiny or no impact on outcomes.
How is that done? I don't disagree with the results but I don't see how you'd go about quantifying that sort of thing.
skmsw wrote:
There have actually been some pretty good attempts at research to measure some of these kinds of things. To the extent that it can be done, it suggests tiny or no impact on outcomes.
How is that done? I don't disagree with the results but I don't see how you'd go about quantifying that sort of thing.
They take every box score ever recorded, put them in a blender and reach a mundane conclusion.They ignore the 2006 World Series in which a team that had been to the post season before beat a talented young(ish) team with jittery fielders.
skmsw wrote:
There have actually been some pretty good attempts at research to measure some of these kinds of things. To the extent that it can be done, it suggests tiny or no impact on outcomes.
How is that done? I don't disagree with the results but I don't see how you'd go about quantifying that sort of thing.
They take every box score ever recorded, put them in a blender and reach a mundane conclusion.They ignore the 2006 World Series in which a team that had been to the post season before beat a talented young(ish) team with jittery fielders.
Or better yet, take a group of people that you have never met in your life, watch them get their heads handed to them, and chalk it up to not wanting it bad enough.
skmsw wrote:
There have actually been some pretty good attempts at research to measure some of these kinds of things. To the extent that it can be done, it suggests tiny or no impact on outcomes.
How is that done? I don't disagree with the results but I don't see how you'd go about quantifying that sort of thing.
They take every box score ever recorded, put them in a blender and reach a mundane conclusion.They ignore the 2006 World Series in which a team that had been to the post season before beat a talented young(ish) team with jittery fielders.
Or better yet, take a group of people that you have never met in your life, watch them get their heads handed to them, and chalk it up to not wanting it bad enough.
skmsw wrote:
There have actually been some pretty good attempts at research to measure some of these kinds of things. To the extent that it can be done, it suggests tiny or no impact on outcomes.
How is that done? I don't disagree with the results but I don't see how you'd go about quantifying that sort of thing.
They take every box score ever recorded, put them in a blender and reach a mundane conclusion.They ignore the 2006 World Series in which a team that had been to the post season before beat a talented young(ish) team with jittery fielders.
Or better yet, take a group of people that you have never met in your life, watch them get their heads handed to them, and chalk it up to not wanting it bad enough.
Maybe the truth is somewhere in between?
I think it's a mix between a "head down" component and a "shoulder shrug" metric. The closer the chin gets to a players chest, the higher his LHRP (lack of heart over replacement player). Why do you think Greenies were so rampant in baseball? It was all to avoid high LHRP. Griffey's recent problems have nothing to do with his injuries, it all comes down to his SF (smile factor). He's taken quite a dive in that category.
skmsw wrote:
There have actually been some pretty good attempts at research to measure some of these kinds of things. To the extent that it can be done, it suggests tiny or no impact on outcomes.
How is that done? I don't disagree with the results but I don't see how you'd go about quantifying that sort of thing.
They take every box score ever recorded, put them in a blender and reach a mundane conclusion.They ignore the 2006 World Series in which a team that had been to the post season before beat a talented young(ish) team with jittery fielders.
Or better yet, take a group of people that you have never met in your life, watch them get their heads handed to them, and chalk it up to not wanting it bad enough.
skmsw wrote:
There have actually been some pretty good attempts at research to measure some of these kinds of things. To the extent that it can be done, it suggests tiny or no impact on outcomes.
How is that done? I don't disagree with the results but I don't see how you'd go about quantifying that sort of thing.
They take every box score ever recorded, put them in a blender and reach a mundane conclusion.They ignore the 2006 World Series in which a team that had been to the post season before beat a talented young(ish) team with jittery fielders.
Or better yet, take a group of people that you have never met in your life, watch them get their heads handed to them, and chalk it up to not wanting it bad enough.
Or just ignore human emotion entirely.
Not at all. I saw two of the three games, and I saw what I wanted to see in terms of effort and hustle. Just saying that 10-0 losses tend to make you look like you don't have the fire, but just how would you have reacted if Izzy came off after pitching the 9th pumping his fist and yelling? Just how are you supposed to act down 10-0?
I'm not sure about "fire", but the Mets looked like the more "confident" team out there in that series. They knew they would make the plays, get the hits, make the pitches, win the games. The Cards on the other hand generally looked skittish in the field, the pitchers looked flustered on the mound, and the hitters sometimes weren't taking confident swings.
