And you’re (sic) high school teacher sounds like a great guy, ask him how teams he played on or played against performed when everyone hated each other and played for themselves?

Then tell me team chemistry doesn’t matter.

I think this is the exact logical fallacy that leads people to conclude that chemistry matters in major league baseball. In low levels like rec leagues, high school, and maybe low minors chemistry probably matters. Teams full of players that don’t want to be there and can’t wait to get the season over obviously aren’t playing their best ball. And when baseball is a hobby not really a job, it’s easy to not care. In my rec softball league we always see tons of upsets in the playoffs — the lower seeded teams having fun and being loose take advantage of higher seeded teams that are pressing (that’s not quite chemistry but it’s close).

But that chemistry/togetherness matters for amateur players, if we assume it does, doesn’t prove or even imply that it matters for the professionals at the highest level. Is Chone Figgins tanking intentionally because he doesn’t like Ichiro or Wak? Did Jose Lopez take extra BP and infield last year when he “loved” his teammates?

As important, there’s good history of bad chemistry teams winning. The Yankees of the 70s seemed to always be fighting. The Red Sox were known for “25 guys, 25 cabs”.

Lastly this “chemistry” thing doesn’t seem to be something you can import or even carry over. Last year Sweeney and Griffey were lauded for the chemistry they built in the clubhouse. In fact that was a key reason to bring them back. Same guys, same clubhouse, no chemistry.

Back to ‘The Fight’ and my non-statistically based opinion… I still believe a character of a person is determined on how they respond to difficult situations. As a fan, Figgins comes off as self loathing and spoiled. No, we in Seattle don’t want to talk about what Figgins did with the Angels. We want to talk about the here and now, and we pay our hard worked money to watch these guys play for millions, so if they’re going to be losers, at least please be lovable losers.

And you’re high school teacher sounds like a great guy, ask him how teams he played on or played against performed when everyone hated each other and played for themselves?

Then tell me team chemistry doesn’t matter.

Bob Fontaine is one of the nicest, classiest guys in baseball, and you’re an enormous jerk for taking a cheap shot at him.

For a single example I can think of: A-rod in his career with the bases loaded vs his career w/o bases loaded. Certainly not a piddly difference as your .003 diff would suggest.

Okay, using fangraphs, we look at A-Rods wOBA splits for low, medium, and high leverage situations. Now this isn’t the same as bases loaded, but it’s a better split for “clutch” since leverage indicates how important the PA is to the outcome of the game. After all, hitting a Grand Slam in the top of the ninth when you’re already up by 5 with Mariano Rivera coming in is hardly “clutch.”

Low-leverage: .421
High-leverage: .418

So the difference between High and Low leverage over A-Rod’s career shows this consumate “choker” takes a -.003 wOBA hit in clutch situations. (What was that number I mentioned in my first post?)

But wait! If you look at his career wOBA, you may notice something odd. It’s .410. How can his career wOBA be lower than both the high and low-leverage wOBA?

Because I left out medium-leverage PAs. The full set is:

Low-leverage: .421
Medium-leverage: .406
high-leverage: .418

Dude just goes to sleep in situations where the game sort-of matters, but lights it up in both blow outs and close games?

He’s had a little over 500 high-leverage PAs since 2002, when Fangraphs starts the reporting on this stuff. The difference bewteen .410 and .418 wOBA over 500 PAs is well within the margin of random fluctuation.

And if you want to use your original stat, bases loaded, it’s worse. In his entire career, A-Rod has had 250 PAs with the bases loaded.

The basic problem with “clutch” is that the true number of clutch situtaions is small compared to everything else and you’re basically doomed to small sample size obstacles. A-Rod (dont’ forget to wish him a happy birthday tomorrow, BTW) is in his 17th season, 15 of them as an every-day starter. Only after that many games has he accumulated enough PAs in clutch situations to start edging out of the SSS problem, and – guess what? His clutch and non-clutch stats are within spitting distance of one another.

you can Wak this year when the team is in a rebuilding mode (and they are), who do you bring in at this point that isn’t going to look at the job as “I have two years to make a heap of dung smell like roses or I’m out?”

Well, I think what you (meaning the GM) ought to do is sit the manager down and say, basically:

“Filling the roster with good talent is my job. Making the absolute best use of that talent on a day-to-day basis is your job. It’s my fault if you don’t have great hitters. It’s your fault if the worst hitter in the lineup is batting cleanup every night. I inherited a busted roster and it may take me months to fix the problems, and that’s not your fault. But you start with a clean slate and get a chance to correct your mistakes every single night. It is your fault if you don’t do that.”

That’s my beef with Wak. I know he doesn’t have much to work with, but it also doesn’t seem like he does much to optimize what he has.