Thursday, August 27, 2015
Is Chemistry Bullsh!t?
?No. It's real. But since it manifests itself in the output, it's already accounted for. For example, say that a team has a 90-72 record, and has chemistry coming out their ears. We can say something like:
72-72: Talent
18-0: Chemistry
So, we can split that 90-72 record into Talent and Chemistry. If the team had "average" chemistry (9-9), they'd be a .500 team (81-81). No one is saying that chemistry doesn't exist. What we are saying is that the EFFECT OF CHEMISTRY IS ALREADY ACCOUNTED FOR.
If you want to further split that 18-0 chemistry to the individual players, and suggest that say Dustin Pedroia leads to good chemistry, that all by himself, you can say that he's worth a 6-0 record in chemistry, that's fine. Add that to his say 9-2 record from his talent, and he's now a 15-2 player in talent+chemistry. Making him Willie Mays. So, why don't you pay him like Willie Mays?
Indeed, why doesn't anyone get paid extra for his chemistry? It's all fine and dandy to say that it exists (it does). But when it comes time to actually pay for it, it doesn't command more than a 5%, maybe 10% premium. Basically, the GMs, and the players themselves by agreeing to these contracts, don't consider chemistry to be worth more than 0.5 wins.
Related article: from Poz.
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 1 of 151 pages 1 2 3 > Last ›Complete Archive – By Category
Complete Archive – By Date
FORUM TOPICS
Jul 12 15:22 MarcelsApr 16 14:31 Pitch Count Estimators
Mar 12 16:30 Appendix to THE BOOK - THE GORY DETAILS
Jan 29 09:41 NFL Overtime Idea
Jan 22 14:48 Weighting Years for NFL Player Projections
Jan 21 09:18 positional runs in pythagenpat
Oct 20 15:57 DRS: FG vs. BB-Ref
Apr 12 09:43 What if baseball was like survivor? You are eliminated ...
Nov 24 09:57 Win Attribution to offense, pitching, and fielding at the game level (prototype method)
Jul 13 10:20 How to watch great past games without spoilers