Meaningless stat now but still interesting - 2006 season

[DTroppens]

Retrosheet has last year's season game logs and stats on their website now and I was just on it a few minutes ago trying to figure out what game I had on a tape. I figured that out but while doing that I saw something else that hit my eye.

Did anyone here realize we outscored our foes 66-36 in the first inning and 66-17 in the second inning during road games last year? That's 132-53 in the first two innings for a score differential. Well, no wonder why we were so effective on the road. The Tigers outscored opponents by 104 runs on the road last year and most of that came right there. Now when I think of the 1984 Tigers I think of quick starts all the time. I have to admit I had no clue this was true and even had an inclination that we dominated teams on the road during the first two innings of games. Did anyone else realize this?

I know it means little now, but it was something I noticed.

[DTroppens]

P.S. It's also nice to see a link for the Tigers for the division series, ALCS and World Series. I think I'll click on those just for the heck of it. :classic:

[209A12]

With 81 road games, at 2 innings per game, that's .815 runs per inning, in the first two innings. That's 7.33 runs per game, pure heck on the opponents pitching staff. Also, the 53 runs given up averages to a 2.94 ERA. Pretty good starting pitching.

[monkeytargets37]

didnt we have that streak of scoring 5 or more runs in the first inning on the road in oakland? that adds up quickly

[DaYooperASBDT]

The math part of my brain immediately springs to its feet, questioning whether it really matters when the runs are scored, as opposed to how many runs you have at out #27 ??

Looking at some splits on ESPN.com:

Tigers scored a whopping 600 runs in innings 1-6, good for fifth in the A.L.

But they did struggle more in innings 7-9, netting 222 runs (twelfth in the A.L.)

Adjusting for times they did not bat in the ninth inning, Tiger batters averaged approximately 80 runs per "late inning" compared to 100 runs per "early inning".

Perhaps this bears out that the Tiger batters do not match up well against RH relief pitchers. They can throw more hard sliders than a starting pitcher can, I would think?

[whitecapwendy]

It may be meaningless, but it does help explain our magical season. Jim Leyland preaches "play nine innings". In the minor leagues I keep hearing the message "win the first inning." There is a confidence that comes with scoring early in the game (and keeping the other team from doing so)

[DaYooperASBDT]

It may be meaningless, but it does help explain our magical season. Jim Leyland preaches "play nine innings". In the minor leagues I keep hearing the message "win the first inning." There is a confidence that comes with scoring early in the game (and keeping the other team from doing so)

The psychology of "getting the early lead" does have appeal, but I suspect the actual W/L statistics would show a weak correlation between which innings you score in, and how that affects your W/L record. To me it's still about scoring more runs than the other guys, and pro athletes should (theoretically) know that a lead can change hands in any inning. So anyone that preaches "nine innings", again in theory, should be telling their players something they already well understand.

But with today's heavy usage of relief pitchers, it does seem to make sense that you want the lead going into innings 7-9. But relievers can lose leads too, right?

[whitecapwendy]

The psychology of "getting the early lead" does have appeal, but I suspect the actual W/L statistics would show a weak correlation between which innings you score in, and how that affects your W/L record. To me it's still about scoring more runs than the other guys, and pro athletes should (theoretically) know that a lead can change hands in any inning. So anyone that preaches "nine innings", again in theory, should be telling their players something they already well understand.

But with today's heavy usage of relief pitchers, it does seem to make sense that you want the lead going into innings 7-9. But relievers can lose leads too, right?
I am actually not necessarily talking wins and losses, but rather confidence. I believe that good pitching, good defense, and good offense wins ball games, but confidence (not big-headedness, but the guys going into the game believing that they can win the game) is something I believe helps the pitching, offense and defense.

[estrepe1]

I am actually not necessarily talking wins and losses, but rather confidence. I believe that good pitching, good defense, and good offense wins ball games, but confidence (not big-headedness, but the guys going into the game believing that they can win the game) is something I believe helps the pitching, offense and defense.

Confidence is a tough thing to really measure. It seems that talented teams have more confidence than untalented teams....

[whitecapwendy]

Confidence is a tough thing to really measure. It seems that talented teams have more confidence than untalented teams....
another chicken/egg discussion? I remember Leyland telling the team he wanted them to walk with a swagger. The comment about when the Yankees take the field they go out there like they know they are good. Leyland wanted the Tigers to go out there with the same swagger. (I guess I call "swagger" confidence) I know it is something that cannot be measured, but sometimes you can sense when a team is playing with confidence. (another meaningless dialogue :cheeky: )

The only point I was making in my first post was that scoring early would give a team some confidence (as opposed to the other team getting an early lead)

[estrepe1]

Managers speak in those terms. I think their success had a lot more to do with talent and health than anything else.

How can a person sense a team is playing with confidence? Because they are winning?

[DaYooperASBDT]

Dmitri Young used to talk about swagger.
Need I supply the punch-line? :wink:

[estrepe1]

The only point I was making in my first post was that scoring early would give a team some confidence (as opposed to the other team getting an early lead)

I still think that has more to do with talent than confidence. Teams with more talent are going to outscore their opponents. I think this is another stat that points to the fact that the Tigers really dominated with their starting pitching staff.

[DaYooperASBDT]

You are surrounded by a pack of "sabers" here, Wendy. Not quite as bad as a pack of wolves, but I think the wolves might smell a little better ..... :cheeky:

[DTroppens]

Statistically it has to be better to score the first run than the second. There's a bulk of games that finish in a shutout. The first to score a run in those games wins them 100 percent of the time. So in that case when the runs scored matters a ton of times. I'm guessing the team to score first must win a good number of the games. Just a total guess - 60%.

I'm sure someone knows the exact percentages.

[whitecapwendy]

Managers speak in those terms. I think their success had a lot more to do with talent and health than anything else.

How can a person sense a team is playing with confidence? Because they are winning?
I don't know how to describe it. Win or lose, sometimes I get vibes from a team (sitting by the dugout probably helps). Sometimes they will go out there from the very beginning of the game and I sense a lot of energy--a go get em attitude. Sometimes it is the batters stance at the plate. I remember Jason Knoedler would stand at the plate and I would refer to it as "he bounced at the plate". It was like excess energy that came out in a slight bounce--like he was saying to the pitcher "come on throw me one I can knock over the wall." When he lost his bounce, I could tell he was getting discouraged. Sometimes batters will seem to just go through the motions--they're dead men walking. Does any of this make sense? When the team gets ahead early, the energy seems to spread through the team--they are all energized and can't wait to get back up to bat. The pitcher goes out to the mound with extra bounce in his step and often seems more agressive in his approach. (I guess I call that confidence--not necessarily measurable, but there nonetheless)
Yes, Yoop, I know I am surrounded by Sabers. I appreciate every one of them and have learned a lot from them. Once in a while there are things in baseball that cannot be measured by sabermetrics. Thats all right. Kenny Rogers pitched gems throughout the post season. That was talent. that was control. that was maturity as a player. No question whatsoever in my mind. Okay perhaps some of it was pine tar (just kidding). But I also wonder if maybe there was a small part of him that was feeding off the Detroit crowd (hence he did all his pitching at home--would he have done as well on the road?). I wonder if a little of that success came from confidence he drew from the crowd's confidence in him. Not something that can really be measured and maybe we will never know. By the way, for the record, I am also very much aware that professional pitchers are, most of the time, so focused that they are not even aware of the crowd.
I have a lot of respect for the measurability of a players talents by stats. I am learning how often OPS--batters ability to get on base and his ability to get extra base hits--can measure a player's offensive ability better than just his batting average. When I look at a pitchers stats, I not only look at his ERA, but I also look at strikeouts and walks as well as his WHiP. Yes, I definitely have respect for sabermetrics.

[chasfh]

In the third inning and after on the road, the Tigers outscored their opponents 298-273. Conclusion: it's good to outscore the opponent. :wink:

Happy coincidence though it may be, the consistent fast start in road games was very impressive, and I agree with Wendy -- it was one more magical element to a magical season. Hooray, us!

[tiger337]

Once in a while there are things in baseball that cannot be measured by sabermetrics. Thats all right. Kenny Rogers pitched gems throughout the post season. That was talent. that was control. that was maturity as a player. No question whatsoever in my mind. Okay perhaps some of it was pine tar (just kidding). But I also wonder if maybe there was a small part of him that was feeding off the Detroit crowd (hence he did all his pitching at home--would he have done as well on the road?). I wonder if a little of that success came from confidence he drew from the crowd's confidence in him. Not something that can really be measured and maybe we will never know. By the way, for the record, I am also very much aware that professional pitchers are, most of the time, so focused that they are not even aware of the crowd.


It's certainly possible that Rogers fed off the crowd. It appeared that way. However, Rogers also had 4 consecutive starts without allowing a run between April 27 - May 14, 2005. Two of those games were on the road and two were at home. So did Rogers pitch at a high level in post-season because he was confident or did he pitch that way because he pitches that way sometimes?

In the post-season last year, Rogers was clearly more animated than usual. Did this make him a better pitcher? Or was he behaving that way because he happened to be in a groove at the right time it got him excited?

[DTroppens]

That is what makes it tough to define. I think sometimes people make the situation fit what's happening - saying the team was confident because they were hitting - but I'm sure there are times it does occur.

I have seen times when a team appears intense and ready and they may fall behind early but maybe an inning or two later that initial impression carries through with a blowout. But even this is hard to suggest that the early game confidence (or whatever you want to call it) really is what made the eventual result.

I am sure there is some of this in games. People simply aren't robots and to suggest things are totally random based on talent doesn't make sense either. Someone would have to be blind to suggest these things don't happen. But to the degree it happens - it's hard to say. It probably plays more of a role than someone who thinks it doesn't does. It probably plays less of a role than the person that thinks games are totally decided by it does. But because there are so many other random events going on in a game, it's hard to suggest a way to study this. Even if a team is "on" or whatever it doesn't necessarily mean they are going to lead right away. Maybe it takes some innings. Or maybe the other team is even more confident. I don't know if we will ever be able to define this kind of stuff - but it certainly is fun to talk about.

[Yoda]

All I know is that so much is not explained by statistics alone that some of the "unmeasureables" must exist. It's one of those things that a lot of people either overrate or underrate more than they should.

[DTroppens]

Go back to Kenny Rogers. I think it's fair to suggest something was going through him in those games. I think the human element could've played a role. But it's interesting this point was brought up because last night I was watching a game against the White Sox during the regular season. And as good as Rogers was in the postseason, he was just as bit impressive in this game. In fact I thought to myself how the game could've been the postseason. However, he didn't have the fist-pumping as he did in the postseason and the crowd wasn't as behind him as they were in the playoffs (it was a home game though).

The Tigers ended up winning 4-0 and I think Rogers had a five-hitter. He showed that he had this ability to do just this during the regular season then. Does that mean we blow the whole playoff thing to chance and that emotion of the moment had nothing to do with it? I don't know. This game I was watching also must've come after Rogers was struggling during the season's midpoint because there were references to that as well during the game. Maybe that determination to prove others wrong was reflected here as well?

The thing is we really don't know and that's what makes baseball and sports so cool and wonderful. There is this other element to sports that I think most of us agree has an influence but it's hard to define that influence. Yet it exists. Ain't it wonderful?

[DTroppens]

That didn't take long. The game was an Aug. 22 game the Tigers won 4-0 with Rogers pitching seven innings of four-hit and one-walk ball. Now the Tigers also gave him an early lead and that can have an impact on the game as well.

If people recall this was the game where the White Sox were getting upset with the pitch calls and was one of the games where Ozzie Guillen got ejected. So there was one team with a negative mental state while possibly the pitcher (and the offense behind him) created a positive mental state.

[DTroppens]

Yoda,
You made the point I tried with three posts pretty well. :classic:

[DaYooperASBDT]

Although I'm not sold on the "momentum theory" yet, there are many examples of a player's need for a "mental edge" to complement their physical skills:

1. John Smoltz's visits to a sports psychologist. I can't prove that it "worked", but his numbers since then are certainly circumstantial evidence.

2. Pitchers who completely "lose" the strike zone, like Kevin Saucier, Mark Wohlers, and Rick Ankiel.

3. And the many hitting/fielding funks we have witnessed through the years. I remember well when Chuck Knoblach suddenly could not make the short throw from the second base hole, or when Mike Ivie had to give up catching due to his "throwing block".

And I'm sure there are countless more examples, but I will spare you any more! :cheeky:

[DaYooperASBDT]

All I know is that so much is not explained by statistics alone that some of the "unmeasureables" must exist. It's one of those things that a lot of people either overrate or underrate more than they should.

A statistic can not explain WHY a fellow is batting .200, or why he leads the league in strikeouts. The human body is a wonderful, complex, slightly insane creation. It can create that perfect moment of hitting the "sweet spot" on the baseball, sometimes by pure accident, sometimes by an educated guess about the next pitches' location.

It gives one pause to think about the entire process: the eye tracking the ball, the brain recognizing that the ball is "hittable", the instant message to various muscle groups to move in unison to bring the hands through the baseball's path, all under the requirement of perfect timing with the ball's arrival at the dish .....

I guess it's a good thing that donkeys don't play baseball.
:classic:

[estrepe1]

A statistic can not explain WHY a fellow is batting .200, or why he leads the league in strikeouts.

They don't need to tell us why. They just need to tell us the results of why.

[DaYooperASBDT]

They don't need to tell us why. They just need to tell us the results of why.

That is certainly why I look at stats, to evalute a player's performance under a set number of ballgames. But there are many who then take those numbers and try to make conclusions about that player's physical/mental abilities, or to try to project future performance.

Sometimes aren't the numbers simply that, the numbers? They may help in making decisions about who to play, and where to play them, or maybe even to help spot certain trends. But there are many uses of this data that just aren't very responsible, methinks?

[tiger337]

That is certainly why I look at stats, to evalute a player's performance under a set number of ballgames. But there are many who then take those numbers and try to make conclusions about that player's physical/mental abilities, or to try to project future performance.



Statistics do help to project future performances. A lazy player with a .900 OPS this year is probably going to do better next year than a gritty guy with a .650 OPS. And he'll help his team's offense more too. There are other things that help predict the future too like make up and physical skills. This is especially true for young players. Statistics are more predictive for older players. Now, statistics can't predict flukey spike years but scouts and fans can't do that either.

[tiger337]

A statistic can not explain WHY a fellow is batting .200, or why he leads the league in strikeouts.

They do explain why the guy is probably going to lose his job though.

[estrepe1]

Statistics do help to project future performances. A lazy player with a .900 OPS this year is probably going to do better next year than a gritty guy with a .650 OPS. And he'll help his team's offense more too. There are other things that help predict the future too like make up and physical skills. This is especially true for young players. Statistics are more predictive for older players. Now, statistics can't predict flukey spike years but scouts and fans can't do that either.

Exactly the point I was going to make. There are several good statistics out there for predicting future success.

[Yoda]

They don't need to tell us why. They just need to tell us the results of why.

My point was that they don't tell us the results though. Not entirely.

[tiger337]

All I know is that so much is not explained by statistics alone that some of the "unmeasureables" must exist. It's one of those things that a lot of people either overrate or underrate more than they should.

Most of the things that seemingly can't be explained by statistics could be easily explained by random variation. That doesn't mean everything is random variation but just because you can't explain a lot of things is not proof that measurables exist.

I've played a lot of sim games and every season there are a lot of things that happen that don't make sense. For example, I have Ty Cobb on my team and he was batting .279 through 40 games. In the last 40 games, he has batted .430. This is just a stupid game so it has to be random variation. Now, If this happened in real life, people would assume that there was some psychological reason for Cobb's turn around or maybe they would say he made an adjustment. They might be right or they might be wrong. It could just be random "luck".

[estrepe1]

My point was that they don't tell us the results though. Not entirely.

I wasn't responding to your post directly. But I still think they tell us the pertinent results. They tell us how well a player produces offensively, they are starting to be able to tell us how a player performs defensively, and they show us how a pitcher is performing.

The human element behind it is important for GMs and managers to think about but when it comes to evaluation of team/player performance stats tell us the results. They just don't tell us the entire reason behind the results.

But to expound upon Lee's earlier point a player that hits .280/.390/.510 but is apathetic is more likely to hit at that level again or better. A player that hits .240/.310/.300 but is a happy hardworker is likely to still be below average the next season.

Most of the things that seemingly can't be explained by statistics could be easily explained by random variation. That doesn't mean everything is random variation but just because you can't explain a lot of things is not proof that measurables exist.

I've played a lot of sim games and every season there are a lot of things that happen that don't make sense. For example, I have Ty Cobb on my team and he was batting .279 through 40 games. In the last 40 games, he has batted .430. This is just a stupid game so it has to be random variation. Now, If this happened in real life, people would assume that there was some psychological reason for Cobb's turn around or maybe they would say he made an adjustment. They might be right or they might be wrong. It could just be random "luck".


Absolutely. This is a great example of something I have thought in the past. When a great player goes through a slump there could be reasons behind it and it could be just random variation. During a season every player and every team has a fluctuation in production. Are these highs and lows due to emotion or just normal variation over a season? I wouldn't be shocked if you could fit that variation to a normal random variable and reasonably predict the length of slumps of a player or a team over a season.

[Yoda]

Most of the things that seemingly can't be explained by statistics could be easily explained by random variation. That doesn't mean everything is random variation but just because you can't explain a lot of things is not proof that measurables exist.

I've played a lot of sim games and every season there are a lot of things that happen that don't make sense. For example, I have Ty Cobb on my team and he was batting .279 through 40 games. In the last 40 games, he has batted .430. This is just a stupid game so it has to be random variation. Now, If this happened in real life, people would assume that there was some psychological reason for Cobb's turn around or maybe they would say he made an adjustment. They might be right or they might be wrong. It could just be random "luck".

By unmeasurables I mean things like being a quality teammate. There's no stat for it so a lot of people blow it off as not being important, and I usually don't put a lot of weight into it, but when practically every pitchers says that Rogers had a big influence on them last year, there has to be something to it. That won't ever show up on the back of any of Kenny's baseball cards though.

Sure an argument can easily be made the players may have just been having better than expected success and it was a coincidence that Rogers just happened to be there talking a lot. I disagree with a lot of things that a lot of players say. Just because they play the game doesn't mean they have a whole lot of baseball sense (Kruk!). But when a group as a whole has a common opinion, there's something to it.

[Yoda]

Absolutely. This is a great example of something I have thought in the past. When a great player goes through a slump there could be reasons behind it and it could be just random variation. During a season every player and every team has a fluctuation in production. Are these highs and lows due to emotion or just normal variation over a season? I wouldn't be shocked if you could fit that variation to a normal random variable and reasonably predict the length of slumps of a player or a team over a season.

I agree too, but I wouldn't rule out emotion completely. It's a long season. You're going to have spells where you're just sort of going through the motions. That happens less often when guys around you are playing well.

I do think team and player slumps are mostly due to variation though. This is a fun discussion to think about.

[Yoda]

I wasn't responding to your post directly.

I know but I think DaYooper missed my point entirely so I just wanted to make sure nobody else did.

[estrepe1]

I agree too, but I wouldn't rule out emotion completely. It's a long season. You're going to have spells where you're just sort of going through the motions. That happens less often when guys around you are playing well.

I do think team and player slumps are mostly due to variation though. This is a fun discussion to think about.

The question then becomes whether those lulls are also just a part of the normal variation during the season? I don't think we can come up with a good answer but it is certainly possible that is the case. There are extenuating circumstances like DY facing his alcoholism or Ivan his divorce. But could those be explained by random luck falling on a team?

I agree this is an interesting discussion. I don't have a really good answer for it though. I know that emotion can effect the play of a player. But I also know that a good player is more likely to bounce back from the lulls than the bad player is to repeat the good times.

I know but I think DaYooper missed my point entirely so I just wanted to make sure nobody else did.

Its all good.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I know but I think DaYooper missed my point entirely so I just wanted to make sure nobody else did.

In hindsight, I should not have quoted you, as that did make it seem I was trying to argue against your post. Really it was more of a tangent on my part .... :confused:

[DaYooperASBDT]

Most of the things that seemingly can't be explained by statistics could be easily explained by random variation. That doesn't mean everything is random variation but just because you can't explain a lot of things is not proof that measurables exist.

I've played a lot of sim games and every season there are a lot of things that happen that don't make sense. For example, I have Ty Cobb on my team and he was batting .279 through 40 games. In the last 40 games, he has batted .430. This is just a stupid game so it has to be random variation. Now, If this happened in real life, people would assume that there was some psychological reason for Cobb's turn around or maybe they would say he made an adjustment. They might be right or they might be wrong. It could just be random "luck".

What an elegant explanation of what my brain was feebly attempting to express on this subject! Thanks Lee.

[DaYooperASBDT]

More thoughts:

1. When it comes to "slumps", they are difficult at best to understand. Part of my brain (the other brain cell?) wants to come up with something beyond random variation. In some instances, it could be that a player has simply faced tougher competition. Or played in poor weather conditions. But I suppose that you run out of justifications quite quickly?

2. Picture the mechanics of hitting or throwing a baseball, with the great complexity of nerve firings, visual processing, timing, and coordination of many different muscles. At that point the concept of "random variation", especially over small samples of games, begins to make more sense to me.

3. As for projecting future performance, I have noticed that minor league stats often can be indicative of future major league numbers, especially stats at the "AA" level of play. I can't claim that proven, as I've only looked at a miniscule percentage of all players (just a few that intrigued me). But has anyone else noticed a trend there?

[tiger337]

By unmeasurables I mean things like being a quality teammate. There's no stat for it so a lot of people blow it off as not being important, and I usually don't put a lot of weight into it, but when practically every pitchers says that Rogers had a big influence on them last year, there has to be something to it. That won't ever show up on the back of any of Kenny's baseball cards though.



Saying that Rogers had a big influence could just be their way of showing respect. It doesn't necessarily mean that his presence improved their performance. Maybe they were just that good. I know he talked to them a lot and maybe he did help them. We'll never know. I'm skeptical because Rogers has been on a lot of poor pitching staffs in the past.

That won't ever show up on the back of any of Kenny's baseball cards though.



Don't they usually have a paragraph on the back of the Cards underneath the stats where they say things about the player that have nothing to do with stats?

[DTroppens]

Normal variation has something to do with it without a clue. However, I think there are times when people either enhance that variation with head games. Also there are times when people do realize they are having mechanic problems so that does involve lulls. Of course you can equate their lack of mechanic discipline as a variation I guess as well if it is something that consistently happens to all players or at least many players.

[DTroppens]

Like Tiger337 I play a ton of role playing games.

Random variation is a fantastic thing in the world of role playing baseball or any sports games. I had the 1946 Ted Williams bat UNDER .300 for most of the season while his card suggested it should do much better. Not withstanding Williams for much of that year the Red Sox pretty much matched their stats and yet in my replay they were a very distant third and never contended.

I'm playing the 1952 Tiger season as well (sorry I haven't kept up with the posts here) and while my run margins are pretty similar to the actual season the Tigers are only 11 games below .500 and in early August have surpassed that season's actual win total.

Many people gripe when random variation impacts their replays in a way they don't expect, but in reality just those two words can create some wacko results.

[whitecapwendy]

Saying that Rogers had a big influence could just be their way of showing respect. It doesn't necessarily mean that his presence improved their performance. Maybe they were just that good. I know he talked to them a lot and maybe he did help them. We'll never know. I'm skeptical because Rogers has been on a lot of poor pitching staffs in the past.
Which brings up another intangible--team chemistry. Maybe Rogers wasn't able to have an influence on other pitching staffs because the team chemistry was not there, and the pitching staffs were not open/teachable. Some teams seem to be 25 individuals who are looking out for their own interests, and other teams are a team who have a strong team chemistry that helps them support one another and learn from each other. When I did interviews of last season's Whitecaps for an article, every single one of them commented on the team chemistry that was so unique from every other team for which they had played. I saw guys go out to the batter on deck last year to give them a pointer or two. That batter, who had previously been going through a slump, ended up laying down a beautiful bunt. I still think that the 2006 Whitecaps success had as much to do with their chemistry as it did with the talent and good coaching they had.

[DaYooperASBDT]

"Chemistry" might add a couple of wins for you. But I was always better at chemistry than I was at hitting ..... :grin:

[estrepe1]

Which brings up another intangible--team chemistry. Maybe Rogers wasn't able to have an influence on other pitching staffs because the team chemistry was not there, and the pitching staffs were not open/teachable. Some teams seem to be 25 individuals who are looking out for their own interests, and other teams are a team who have a strong team chemistry that helps them support one another and learn from each other. When I did interviews of last season's Whitecaps for an article, every single one of them commented on the team chemistry that was so unique from every other team for which they had played. I saw guys go out to the batter on deck last year to give them a pointer or two. That batter, who had previously been going through a slump, ended up laying down a beautiful bunt. I still think that the 2006 Whitecaps success had as much to do with their chemistry as it did with the talent and good coaching they had.

The 2006 Whitecaps success had a lot to do with Maybin and Hollimon hitting the heck out of the ball.

Chemistry is one of those things that teams seem to gain and lose over the course of the season.

[tiger337]

Chemistry is one of those things that teams seem to gain and lose over the course of the season.

And it seems to be determined by how well the team is doing.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I say the chicken came first.

[estrepe1]

I say the chicken came first.

If the chicken is talent you are correct.

[Yoda]

And it seems to be determined by how well the team is doing.

Ding, ding, ding. Bad teams have poor chemistry. Good teams have good chemistry. Just compare the 2005 and 2006 Pudge Rodriguez.

[DaYooperASBDT]

If the chicken is talent you are correct.

That was a joke, son! :grin:

[Yoda]

Saying that Rogers had a big influence could just be their way of showing respect. It doesn't necessarily mean that his presence improved their performance. Maybe they were just that good. I know he talked to them a lot and maybe he did help them. We'll never know. I'm skeptical because Rogers has been on a lot of poor pitching staffs in the past.

I thought about that too. I'm sure talent had everything to do with it. You have to have talent to become good, but a lot of times you also have to have the right coaching. Though I haven't followed his teams closely, I've never heard about him being this sort of mentor before in his career. And I've never heard players paying that much respect to a veteran like that as often as they did this year, so I don't think they were just being nice to him. I think Kenny just liked playing here, under this coach, and being surrounded by all of the young, coachable talent that they had. I think we had a version of Kenny this year that his past teams didn't have. I can't say for sure though.

I also think that, unlike in NY and part of his time in TX, he was more at peace with his ability and he wasn't worrying about it all the time. I've always thought of Kenny as this uptight guy that's always grumpy and stressed out a lot. Maybe the perception was wrong, but he wasn't anything close to that this year. Maybe he just realized that he didn't have to try being the star pitcher anymore and decided to start trying to help everyone else. Ironically, that's what made him a star in Detroit.

And I do think players can make better coaches than the coaches themselves.