Team Chemistry - BIG impact

[Ted]

Ron, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop comparing things like park effects that we have numerical data to model upon with personality and baseball team chemistry that we do not have any hard data for.

Doing so is at worst intellectually dishonest and at best shows a shocking lack of understanding on your part on what a good model is.

Either way it cheapens this discussion with distractions.

You have made a lot of good points, but the way you choose to hold on to completely invalid comparisons makes it hard to wade through your argument and overall makes it difficult tot take seriously.

There are literally thousands of research papers that attempt to quantify various elements of team dynamics. As I recall, Bill James has done some half-handed attempts at quantifying them as to how they apply to wins and losses without really finding anything.

I have literally spent a large part of my professional career working in this field. I also have both academic and professional experience in the act of building models of complex systems. I have literally created models of cultures. I understand what I'm talking about. Or at least I have enough of an understanding to discuss the things you're bringing up with a analytical frame of reference that is valid.

I'm sorry that you feel I'm being intellectually dishonest, but I can't help that I suppose.

If one wants to model the baseball environment on the field, that model will be enhanced by modeling park effects--even if that model is "wrong." If one wants to model the baseball environment off the field, that model will be enhanced by modeling personalities--even if that model is "wrong." There is an equation there that is valid.

Research does not equal data driven results. If that was the case, we wouldn't be having this argument and there would be some quantitative effect of a "disruptive player" or "good clubhouse chemistry" that you could point to in terms of wins and losses. You seem to think that I'm making the assertion that personality and team dynamics don't matter. I am not. I am only making the assertion that no one had managed to prove anything specific with baseball (or really most pro sports) and that as such OOTP's model does not seem to have any basis on reality, is entirely made up, and is woefully inadequate to address factors that might actually matter.

I think most of us would be fine with a model that made any kind of sense, or had some sort of hard data driven foundation. This one simply doesn't seem to. The labels it puts on players more or less demonstrates that it doesn't.

The game would not be enhanced by an entirely incorrect modeling of park factors. That is incorrect. It would be better off not having them than having ones that made no sense and had no basis in reality, unless you just want complexity for the sake of complexity.

There is, of course, some subjectivity in "What is better", but I think me coming from the standpoint that most people want a model to be based on something real and represent it fairly is a rather defensible one.

[RonCo]

I will note that the engineering environments I worked in—especially my first ten years—were ones in which engineering errors got people killed. Sometimes a lot of people. And that we were all aware of it—though our failure was not as intimate. There are cases of people leaving the field (or at least that industry) for that purpose. I’m willing to bet there are doctors who eventually leave the field (or at least their practice…he says, using the term woefully wrong) because of that stress, too, but I fully admit I don’t know.

High-stress, high risk/reward jobs have intensity to dealing with success and failure that is not as prevalent in other roles. A street cop’s job, for example, is very, very hard. A soldier’s is, too. Still people deal with success and failure differently, and the camaraderie of team of cops and soldiers is not some vanilla thing where you plug in new guys and things don’t change.

So, there is that.

Anyway…

An issue here is that equation with a disruptive environment as “bad chemistry.”

I posit the point that “good chemistry” does not have to mean a peaceful environment. A team can have high conflict, and if the personalities are right be a huge success. In a team of different personalities that conflict can lead to horrendous problems. There are, in baseball, examples of clubhouses that have high conflict, but were able to channel that conflict into results. Dennis Rodman’s case is a good one. He, Jordan, and Pippen (among others) understood each other and despite argumentative aspects of their relationships, kept the team winning.

In Chicago and Phoenix we see two cases of “ecstatic” clubhouses even though none have won a division in, well, a long time. This makes sense to me because I’ve seen lots of teams where the guys seem to be having fun even when they are not standing at the top of their table. I’d be interested if there were any winning teams that had a crappy chemistry in their clubhouse. OOTP should be able to model that. Can OOTP model the Oakland Athletics of the early 70s? The Gashouse Gang? The Yankees under Billy Martin? The Giants with Bonds and Kemp and …

I don’t know, but would be interested to see it if so.

Regardless, I’m agreeing that any model of the impact of personalities will be imprecise. I understand why that imprecision will make certain people unhappy. I just disagree that the concepts are just flat-out wrong.

[RonCo]

And, for what it’s worth, I’ve played basketball for much of my life—including against and with a few guys who made it to the NBA. My view is that they made it because of a combination of intense athletic skill and a love of the game that allowed them to spend their energy on it. None of that discounts the impact of personality on either their success or their team’s successes.

[RonCo]

Research does not equal data driven results. If that was the case, we wouldn't be having this argument and there would be some quantitative effect of a "disruptive player" or "good clubhouse chemistry" that you could point to in terms of wins and losses. You seem to think that I'm making the assertion that personality and team dynamics don't matter. I am not. I am only making the assertion that no one had managed to prove anything specific with baseball (or really most pro sports) and that as such OOTP's model does not seem to have any basis on reality, is entirely made up, and is woefully inadequate to address factors that might actually matter.

Research allows one to develop models, which is what an algorithm is.

Generalizing, a gazillion research efforts would suggest that a person's performance is likely a factor of their core skills augmented to some--probably limited--degree by their personality, their view of the team/mission, and the culture of the environment around them. Not to mention short-term issues about things going on around them in the moment.

From what I see, OOTP's model has some aspect of this kind of dynamic involved.

Generalizing, a gazillion research efforts would suggest that a person's satisfaction and engagement (hence their mood) is deeply related to their success and the culture/environment they have to live in, and that (removing financial survival from the equation) people will decide to stay with an organization or team only if they find that environment fun to be in or helpful in achieving their goal.

From what I see, I think OOTP's model has a lot of this in it (though the term "a lot" is subject to interpretation).

I think most of us would be fine with a model that made any kind of sense, or had some sort of hard data driven foundation. This one simply doesn't seem to. The labels it puts on players more or less demonstrates that it doesn't.

The game would not be enhanced by an entirely incorrect modeling of park factors. That is incorrect. It would be better off not having them than having ones that made no sense and had no basis in reality, unless you just want complexity for the sake of complexity.

There is, of course, some subjectivity in "What is better", but I think me coming from the standpoint that most people want a model to be based on something real and represent it fairly is a rather defensible one.

I think what OOTP's model does is take a rough, but defensible model (the algorithm of decision drivers), and fiddles with the parameters to get results that feel like things humans kind of do.

I agree there are times where it does something weird, but I also agree that the development model makes players that have not existed yet.

You use the term "most of us" above, but I don't think that's a definitive thing. I think (and therefor could be wrong) that "most" people who play OOTP are fine with things as long as they feel right. Like I've said before, I can point to hundreds of places where I'm quite sure the game is making things up but makes things feel right. I've focused on park factors because they are the most obviously simplified thing I can come up with. But, really, at it's core, OOTP is really just making up its entire defensive scheme. It's just completely made up the Gap rating...I mean, no one actually can say what causes a single to become a double.

I agree that there are numerical values we can use to say the game feels right there, but I _know_ it's wrong. So it's up to me to be able to ignore that.

I literally quit the game and the beta team for a couple years due to my dissatisfaction with several parts of its algorithms (don't get me started on pitch types and repertoires and its artificial constraints on SP/RP), so I understand angst when it comes to modelling. But I have a hard time getting spun up on team chemistry, which I'm fairly sure has barely an impact on the field, which kind of works, which has been actually getting better, and which I (and I think most OOTPers) find kind of fun.

[jiminyhopkins]

I'll donate 2 PPT to anyone who can predict how many times Ted mentiones that he is a doctor during the course of this thread.

"I went to med school" counts as well.

Have fun!

[Ted]

I'll donate 2 PPT to anyone who can predict how many times Ted mentiones that he is a doctor during the course of this thread.

"I went to med school" counts as well.

Have fun!

I only did it to be able to be able to describe a really rigid, inflexible environment that produces a specific result by design.

If I came across as "being a doctor makes me smarter than you" I didn't mean to. I'm sorry if it felt that way.

I'm a little irritated right now, but this is kind of cheap shot isn't it?

[Ted]

I started to post this, then I didn't, then I decided to.

Ron, I give up.

I jokingly poked fun at myself over this topic.

Then I decided to harmlessly rant about what I believe to be a silly system, non-representative of reality, that only adds frustration to the game.

I think I am not alone in that opinion.

You, Ron, as you have done multiple times in the past, have attacked that opinion. As I foolishly tried to defend it, you continue to deconstruct my arguments, point after point, going broader and broader. In an even more foolish attempt to defend my opinion that I should have given up on, I kept getting farther and farther afield, trying to define what I believe to be the way things work, only to have each point methodically countered.

It is very aggravating when you do this. Why can't I just hate an aspect of the game, man? Why can't I have perfectly reasonable opinions about the way people work and interact?

I don't know if you are under the opinion that I enjoy this debate. I do not. Because it is not debate. It feels like you are trying to win. Like you see something you feel to be an incorrect interpretation of things and cannot allow it. That isn't fun, man.

If I'm wrong, fuck it. Let me be wrong. I doubt anyone takes me that seriously.

[jiminyhopkins]

I'll donate 2 PPT to anyone who can predict how many times Ted mentiones that he is a doctor during the course of this thread.

"I went to med school" counts as well.

Have fun!

I only did it to be able to be able to describe a really rigid, inflexible environment that produces a specific result by design.

If I came across as "being a doctor makes me smarter than you" I didn't mean to. I'm sorry if it felt that way.

I'm a little irritated right now, but this is kind of cheap shot isn't it?

Nah its not a cheap shot, nor a shot of any kind. Just trying to lighten up the proceedings a bit haha.

Oh by the way I am a licensed Stationary Steam Engineer.

[Ted]

I'll donate 2 PPT to anyone who can predict how many times Ted mentiones that he is a doctor during the course of this thread.

"I went to med school" counts as well.

Have fun!

I only did it to be able to be able to describe a really rigid, inflexible environment that produces a specific result by design.

If I came across as "being a doctor makes me smarter than you" I didn't mean to. I'm sorry if it felt that way.

I'm a little irritated right now, but this is kind of cheap shot isn't it?

Nah its not a cheap shot, nor a shot of any kind. Just trying to lighten up the proceedings a bit haha.

Oh by the way I am a licensed Stationary Steam Engineer.

Cool man. I'm just pissy. Sometimes I miss levity in text when I'm that way. (And by sometimes I mean all the time when I'm pissy). Sorry. Working on getting back to not pissy.

[Ted]

I started to post this, then I didn't, then I decided to.

Ron, I give up.

I jokingly poked fun at myself over this topic.

Then I decided to harmlessly rant about what I believe to be a silly system, non-representative of reality, that only adds frustration to the game.

I think I am not alone in that opinion.

You, Ron, as you have done multiple times in the past, have attacked that opinion. As I foolishly tried to defend it, you continue to deconstruct my arguments, point after point, going broader and broader. In an even more foolish attempt to defend my opinion that I should have given up on, I kept getting farther and farther afield, trying to define what I believe to be the way things work, only to have each point methodically countered.

It is very aggravating when you do this. Why can't I just hate an aspect of the game, man? Why can't I have perfectly reasonable opinions about the way people work and interact?

I don't know if you are under the opinion that I enjoy this debate. I do not. Because it is not debate. It feels like you are trying to win. Like you see something you feel to be an incorrect interpretation of things and cannot allow it. That isn't fun, man.

If I'm wrong, fuck it. Let me be wrong. I doubt anyone takes me that seriously.

And maybe I should have sent this privately, rather than publicly, but screw it, we're here now. Having a person counter all of my opinions publicly and repeatedly makes me mad. Not immediately, but eventually. I don't think I'm some sort of angry nutjob for reacting that way. And when I get mad, I don't always do the diplomatic thing (almost never). So sorry for that.

[RonCo]

No problems, Ted.

I mean ... we talking Algorithms. Not a game. Not a game.

I love ya man.

[Jwalk100]

I still think chemistry/personality trait is a pain in the ass.