Scott Freaking Rolen

[kaldaniels]

Originally Posted by Quatitos

I think I remember in 2008 that the same stats for Jerry Hairston jr was just as staggering. Now that said, I believe that was much more from luck than the effect Rolen has on this team. You can't only point to something like a teams record when a player is in the lineup or not, but with the other evidence towards Rolens leadership it can be used to show that the effect is real.

I don't think for a moment that luck is not involved with the numbers vis a vis Rolen. However, is it possible, that Rolen is more valuable than his 5 WAR shows? (I know, a dangerous question)

To my initial question, lets say it is luck that the Reds record is what it is when Rolen plays. I ask, what are the odds that there would "luckily" be such a difference.

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

Hey stat experts...is there anything to the gaudy difference of the Reds W-L percentage with and without Rolen in the lineup. I don't have it in front of me but FSN displayed it tonight. I gotta think the sample size is getting pretty big at this point.

In short, no there's not - not in so far as we can/should assume that the difference is attributable to his absence (above and beyond the talent different between him and his replacement).

[kaldaniels]

I tivo'd the game...I forgot!

With Rolen 107-71
Without 37-45

[Quatitos]

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

I don't think for a moment that luck is not involved with the numbers vis a vis Rolen. However, is it possible, that Rolen is more valuable than his 5 WAR shows? (I know, a dangerous question)

To my initial question, lets say it is luck that the Reds record is what it is when Rolen plays. I ask, what are the odds that there would "luckily" be such a difference.

I was trying to say that it could be from luck by referencing JHJ in 2008, but that I don't believe that the effect Rolen has had is from luck but actually from his overall impact on the team.

[757690]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

In short, no there's not - not in so far as we can/should assume that the difference is attributable to his absence (above and beyond the talent different between him and his replacement).

If the difference is significantly bigger than what his talent would dictate, I don't see how one cannot at least look to see if there is something else going on.

But what I get most out of that is that there are enough games on both sides for it to be important. We can't make the same judgement on say Votto or Phillips, because they aren't missing from the lineup enough.

[kaldaniels]

Originally Posted by 757690

If the difference is significantly bigger than what his talent would dictate, I don't see how one cannot at least look to see if there is something else going on.

But what I get most out of that is that there are enough games on both sides for it to be important. We can't make the same judgement on say Votto or Phillips, because they aren't missing from the lineup enough.

Exactly. I wasn't even looking for a baseball explanation. I was looking for a statistical explantion. (i.e., from someone who knows about confidence intervals and the like)

[Patrick Bateman]

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

I tivo'd the game...I forgot!

With Rolen 107-71
Without 37-45

The truth is likely somewhere between you and Cedric.

The Reds are better with Rolen no doubt, but the Reds have been lucky too when in the line-up. It's counter intuitive to think that Rolen can change the skill level of the team to that degree by simply being on the field rather than in the dugout. It's just not logical. Otherwise, even more skilled teams, like the Cardinals of the past would have won 115+ games annually. They didn't because a large sample will weasel out clearly ridiculpus stats with no merit like those shown in this thread.

[WVRedsFan]

I'm learning these new fangled stats, but a lot of sports is not measureable with stats. The value of a player is one of those. Rolen is a leader in a quiet way. There is a reason why OCab and Renteria and Rolen always end up making a team better and looking at at least two of the three seems to indicate that stats are not the only measurement. Why do these players seem to promote winning while on the field even if they don't have superior stats? It has a lot to do with what many call "chemistry." No one can really define it. It's not luck and in some cases, it's impossible to call it skill, but it's there. Walt Jocketty is a master of finding these players, which is one f the reasons why I'm very happy he is our GM.

[757690]

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

The truth is likely somewhere between you and Cedric.

The Reds are better with Rolen no doubt, but the Reds have been lucky too when in the line-up. It's counter intuitive to think that Rolen can change the skill level of the team to that degree by simply being on the field rather than in the dugout. It's just not logical. Otherwise, even more skilled teams, like the Cardinals of the past would have won 115+ games annually. They didn't because a large sample will weasel out clearly ridiculpus stats with no merit like those shown in this thread.

How do you know that the Cardinals during Rolen's weren't really 80 win teams without him?

This is pure speculation, but one factor may be that having Rolen in the lineup changes the way that pitchers approach the other players? I don't think we have to dismiss this effect as magic or luck just because we can't find a specific stat to tie it to.

[757690]

Originally Posted by WVRedsFan

I'm learning these new fangled stats, but a lot of sports is not measureable with stats. The value of a player is one of those. Rolen is a leader in a quiet way. There is a reason why OCab and Renteria and Rolen always end up making a team better and looking at at least two of the three seems to indicate that stats are not the only measurement. Why do these players seem to promote winning while on the field even if they don't have superior stats? It has a lot to do with what many call "chemistry." No one can really define it. It's not luck and in some cases, it's impossible to call it skill, but it's there. Walt Jocketty is a master of finding these players, which is one f the reasons why I'm very happy he is our GM.

Well written post.

He might be the best I've ever seen at finding that "Q" factor. And I have always thought that the key to being an exceptional GM is finding those players. Identifying those players that project to have the best production is easy. Consistently finding those that out produce their projections is the tricky part.

[kaldaniels]

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

The truth is likely somewhere between you and Cedric.

The Reds are better with Rolen no doubt, but the Reds have been lucky too when in the line-up. It's counter intuitive to think that Rolen can change the skill level of the team to that degree by simply being on the field rather than in the dugout. It's just not logical. Otherwise, even more skilled teams, like the Cardinals of the past would have won 115+ games annually. They didn't because a large sample will weasel out clearly ridiculpus stats with no merit like those shown in this thread.

What stats are ridiculous and without merit? I agree with the points you have made.

[WVRedsFan]

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

What stats are ridiculous and without merit? I agree with the points you have made.

Probably none of them to a person who lives on stats. And Kal, I'm learning, but I will always believe that some things cannot be measured in all sports, not just baseball. It's a flaw.

[kaldaniels]

Originally Posted by WVRedsFan

Probably none of them to a person who lives on stats. And Kal, I'm learning, but I will always believe that some things cannot be measured in all sports, not just baseball. It's a flaw.

Absolutely. There are always immearsurables.

[traderumor]

Scott Rolen in the lineup and at 3b is better than Francisco/Cairo/Janish/Valiaka? It is a difference like Rose/Foster was better than Vukovich/Rose. I don't think that needs much research and documentation if you follow the sport.

[kaldaniels]

Originally Posted by traderumor

Scott Rolen in the lineup and at 3b is better than Francisco/Cairo/Janish/Valiaka? It is a difference like Rose/Foster was better than Vukovich/Rose. I don't think that needs much research and documentation if you follow the sport.

But traderumor, the question is not, does Rolen make the Reds better when he is in the lineup, that is a simple question.

The question is based on the fact that we have a 5.0 WAR player, but based on W-L, he is more like a 20+ (or more) WAR player. Of course that is absurd and there is luck involved, but is there more than meets the eye to it?