Stats4Gnats posted:
What would be nice is if you had a personal scorer at your side all the time and you could just say Joey showed good Baseball IQ, Billy didn’t deal well with adversity, Tommy didn’t respond well to pressure, Eddie didn’t stay focused. Trouble is, those kinds of evaluations are happening hundreds of times during a game, and prolly even more. So chances are by the time you voice an evaluation you’re already making other ones. So what ends up happening is, rather than a hard number you can evaluate, all you have is the memory of a perception, and everyone should already be aware how untrustworthy memory is.
I disagree. You're still dealing with a subjective measurement. I track that kind of stuff on a pad of paper or whiteboard, too, but it's my judgement.
As a "stats" guy, please tell me how you quantify that Billy did or didn't deal well with adversity? How do you quantify if Tommy did or didn't respond well to pressure? Is it pass/fail? Is there a 20-80 scale on his reaction? And would we measure a general reaction, or consider the best Billy could have done compared to Tommy?
SS kicks a routine ground ball with a runner at 2b going to 3b. He decides the runner will be safe at 1b. He doesn't throw the ball to 1b. How did he do there? Dad thinks he has a good baseball IQ because he held the ball. I think he failed because he didn't pump fake and check 3b. Or maybe he did and checked 3b but didn't throw when he had the runner caught off guard?
The whole game is subjective. No one has fun arguments about who the fastest man in the world is at the moment. The stop watch is objective. Some days I wish I coached track.