Makeup

by John Sickels on Jun 13, 2007 10:45 AM EDT in News

Baseball America has an interesting article about makeup and prospects posted online right now. If you're a subscriber you should check it out.

Obviously makeup and personality factors are important in prospect development. I wrote about this in the book this year in the David Winfree comment. I believe that the next big "thing" that teams are going to find an edge in is in finding new ways to study and measure makeup and personality.

If such a thing can even BE measured. Many clubs use standardized psychological tests, but I'm leery of that approach...perhaps that can be a component but I think something more is needed. Whoever gets a handle on this first will have a big competitive edge.

What I'm talking about is a sabermetrics of the mind...can such a thing be developed? It would not look like statistical sabermetrics...I don't think it is ever something you could reduce to numbers.

Could something like "Jungian Baseball Analysis" be developed? What do you think?

Tweet Comment 29 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Similarities...

to the education field. As a teacher, judging a student can be difficult, and it changes from teacher to teacher. Some students work great in certain classrooms and with certain teachers, while others just do not blossom without the right environment. They behave differently at home, in the classroom, on the field/court, and just outside of a structured environment.
I would say some of the same things about baseball players, who are being judged intensely while they are trying to mature into adults. Right situation, right teachers, players will blossom. I think that you are correct John in thinking that this will be the next wave of player development, but I'm not sure how accurately in the end this will be able to be measured. There are so many variables to a person's personality. But with such a large investment in these young men, teams want results on their investments, and betting on a relatively sure things makes owners sleep better at night.

by sdangler on Jun 13, 2007 11:22 AM EDT reply actions

I could see someone trying to use Myers-Briggs...

I could see someone trying to use Myers-Briggs personality types (or something similar) to try to find out if such things had any meaningful effect on how a player develops. I doubt there would be any effect, but that shouldn't stop anyone from looking for one. :-)

by mraver on Jun 13, 2007 12:07 PM EDT reply actions

The Wonderlic

test that they administer in the NFL is another way to go. As I understand it, the Wonderlic tests "intelligence" (ability to learn a playbook) more than makeup, but perhaps there's a modification that makes sense for baseball.

IIRC, last time this came up, a poster mentioned that the Baltimor organization had a pretty good test that they'd been using for a few years. I forget the details, but hopefully that person will chime in.

by Yakker on Jun 13, 2007 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions

makeup

Obviously a prospect who happens to be the well-adjusted, hard-working sort should be more promising, other things being equal. And I'm sure scouts who get to know a player as well as standardized tests can help figure that out. But in baseball to a greater extent than in other sports ultimate success also depends on the ability to maintain confidence in the face of failure, and on a willingness to adjust. I wonder is any teams have already moved on from the standardized tests to customized ones focusing on those qualities...

by igreen01 on Jun 13, 2007 12:09 PM EDT reply actions

I am Speechless (copied from diary post)

What has become of our society? Seriously!

A better question would be, if that scout was 'Asian' or 'Latin American' or 'Native American', and asks that same question of a 'black' player, is that racist!?

by NewKidInTown on Jun 13, 2007 12:44 PM EDT reply actions

dude

chill the F out and lay off this pacific islander thing. nobody's trying to call you racist.

by wily mo on Jun 13, 2007 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions

Scary

It's scary to contemplate, but I do believe these factors are measurable and I'm guessing that the tools already exist. They just have to be applied to this situation. Of course, as in any such quantification system or testing, there will be outliers who don't fit the norm, but as far a probabilities go, yes it can be done and probably already is to some extent.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jun 13, 2007 1:19 PM EDT reply actions

i don't know about how to test this exactly

but the question about testing is related to something on which i was about to start a diary. it's at least partly related to makeup, i think.

what effect does not getting a big league shot when a PLAYER thinks he's ready have on him not performing when he finally does get there? it seems that many of the top prospects have an idea in their own head that they're ready at some point. delmon young and andy marte are just a couple i can think of at the moment.

marte was pretty sure he made the roster after his first big spring with the indians. he had already been highly touted, obviously, and so had heavy expectations even going into spring training. then he clobbers the ball and gets sent down over aaron boone, who he then watched pretty much suck. is that too much for a kid to overcome...or for some anyway? could it be that his mental strength wasn't enough to keep him believing in his physical ability and that disappointment helped him to an earlire demise that expected? i know he's not 100% bust at this point, but since that spring he's never regained that level of play.

could this happen to brandon wood? i imagine he thought he was ready after that monster year a couple of years ago. how many stud prospects don't make it because they can't handle the adversity? and would it make a difference if the clubs handled those guys a little differently?

http://www.simdynasty.com/index.jsp?refer=mychiefs58

by huckleberry on Jun 13, 2007 2:22 PM EDT reply actions

Another example

Alex Rios also comes to mind. He was struggling in AAA after a breakout winter ball season when first called up, IIRC. And I guess you could also bring up Hanley Ramirez's not-so-impressive minors stats in this context.

by igreen01 on Jun 13, 2007 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions

well...

...that kind of illustrates one of the issues here. When Hanley Ramirez was a guy playing lousy at A-ball, what would have made you think at that time that that was because he felt he should be in the majors? Why should a guy playing lousy in A-ball think he should be in the majors? That's almost delusional. In fact, I honestly still don't believe this whole "Hanley was bored" theory. You get bored when you're too good, not when you suck too much.

Anyway, it illustrates two problems. First of all, if you base who gets promoted on who wants to be promoted, you've got a situation where players run the team. This is a bad thing, not only because the player might be wrong about being ready, but just on the principle that GMs are GMs and players are players and everyone is best off keeping it that way. Secondly, how do you know who's "discourageable" and who isn't, other than hindsight? Edgar Martinez and Kevin Youkilis could easily have become major league regulars 2-3 years before they actually did, but they're none the worse for wear.

I absolutely do think that players can get discouraged, and that a smart organization makes room for players to move up the ladder at a good pace. But the question would be, how do you apply that general principle to specific cases. Because you can't call a guy up just because he feels he should be up, and I don't know how you can tell ahead of time who's the Hanley/Marte type and who's the Edgar/Youkilis type.

and boom goes the dynamite.

by Mean Dean on Jun 13, 2007 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions

i totally agree

i'm just wondering if there are guys who lose what they could have been because it didn't happen like they thought it would. you can't have the players running the team. but teams get things wrong sometimes, too.

http://www.simdynasty.com/index.jsp?refer=mychiefs58

by huckleberry on Jun 13, 2007 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions

reminds me of Victor Diaz

That guy had 300+ ABs of above average ML production in his age 22-23 seasons, then got sent to AAA and absolutely did not hit. He now has as many HRs in 77 at-bats for Texas as he did all last season in the minors. Clear case where a player just wasn't trying. He's lucky he got a second chance.

by jeck on Jun 13, 2007 10:42 PM EDT up reply actions

Idiot

sorry but, you are. i know we are "fans" and all and we are supposed to be stupid but sometimes its a bit much. You dont know Victor Diaz and you should say that.

casedog

by casejud on Jun 13, 2007 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions

ok

I don't know Victor Diaz.

I do know that when a good hitter is reported to be sulking after not making the ML roster in Spring Training then goes on to have a horrificly bad season totally out of line with the rest of his career... he probably wasn't trying all that hard.

But my life will always be a little less bright for having been called an idiot by casejud. Not sure I'll ever recover.

by jeck on Jun 14, 2007 12:41 AM EDT up reply actions

The Rays

The Rays supposedly have been preaching makeup ever since the new front office came in, probably because the old front office got burned on guys like Hamilton and Dukes. They've definately shown it in the draft, drafting a bunch of college seniors that have been viewed as team leaders, and guys who have performed all kinds of community service for little kids and the elderly. Still, even when you look at makeup, it only goes so far, and that's why I don't think it will become the new market efficiency. You need talent on top of the makeup. Even the Rays apparently recognize this, not necessarily going with makeup guys in the first few rounds, but going almost exclusively with good makeup guys thereafter.

In the meantime, Desmond Jennings (one of the few upside drafts from last year) has similar issues to Milledge (including his own dropped charge for statutory rape), Nick Fuller (last year's 3rd round pick) got kicked off the team at USC for stealing a bunch of computers, and Nick Barnese (this year's 3rd round pick) missed an entire season after being suspended for conduct detrimental to the team. I can see where makeup is important, to the extent that you're trying to measure someone's drive to succeed, but when it comes to personality makeup, people probably just need to get over it. If someone can bring it to the ballpark, they just can. Maybe you don't want a whole clubhouse of bad personalities, but I'd rather have a clubhouse of good players who are driven with bad personalities than a clubhouse of guys with limited talent who are the nicest people in the world.

Vice-Chairman of the Sonnanstine Underground Railroad

by Brickhaus on Jun 13, 2007 2:51 PM EDT reply actions

The Braves

Also, of course, look very closely at "makeup" when they draft. It's both a separate consideration for them and (arguably) also embedded in their focus on local talent (get those good ol' Southern boys who grew up wanting to play in Atlanta).

by Yakker on Jun 13, 2007 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions

yep

and Moore brought that over to the R's as well.

Character - the 6th tool.

by doublestix on Jun 13, 2007 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions

Amen brother

Somebody has to point out the obvious. Thanks

casedog

by casejud on Jun 13, 2007 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions

Failure

I'd rather have a clubhouse of good players who are driven with bad personalities than a clubhouse of guys with limited talent who are the nicest people in the world.

Of course you would, you don't have to be around the bad personalities. But if you are trying to build an organization that has some respect for itself, you might care whether you have good people around you, not just talented ones.

But I think that misses the makeup issue.

Every one of the players who gets drafted has been one of the most talented, players on his team. This creates two issues.

First, you don't make it to the major leagues on talent. You make it on both talent and hard work. A kid who is getting by on his talent won't make it. So you need to evaluate whether this kid is willing to do the work or would rather party than play baseball.

Second, how will this kid deal with failure? Because as stars with more talent than anyone else, a lot of kids have never really had to deal with failure. You can see the problem when a guy zooms through the system and then can't make the jump to the big leagues.

Its the first time in their lives they have discovered their are limits to how good they can be. That they are now competing with players that have both as much talent and a lot more experience, instead of other players being their peers.

Some players never really figure it out. They are unwilling to take a step back in order to take the next step up. The idea of failing while learning to do something a new way is just not something they are prepared to accept.

by TT @ Minor League Ball on Jun 19, 2007 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions

Manny Ramirez

How many "makeup" tests would that guy have failed?

by cursedcleveland on Jun 13, 2007 3:04 PM EDT reply actions

Manny

There was recently an article on ESPN that had different scouting reports for players before they were drafted. The reports on Manny indicated a good attitude and work ethic.

Suprisingly there were some negative things for Griffey Jr. If I remember there was one saying he sat down on the field after being intentionally walked every time in a DH.

I am not a Manny fan nor am I a Griffey hater. I am just pointing out that people mature at different rates and that makes scouting even harder.

I agree with what John says, if there is a team that can figure out a way to measure makeup, that organization will benefit.

If I remember correctly, one premise of "Moneyball" had to do with makeup. Mr. Tools (Beane) never amounted to as much as Mr. Makeup (Dykstra.) That was one of the reasons why the A's were so high on Swisher, he had the moxie they were looking for.

by bl on Jun 13, 2007 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions

Link to ESPN Article

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=2872717&sportCa t=mlb

by bl on Jun 13, 2007 6:46 PM EDT up reply actions

If a where a GM

I'd be very careful to whom I drafted. I know organization are pressured to succeed quickly, but I believe makeup is just as important as skills. I still remember when the Cubs drafted Ben Christensen. At first I was thrilled that they got such a good pitcher. Then all the facts came out about what happened. Background checks and interviews are about all organizations can do right now.

by dmcclure on Jun 13, 2007 4:46 PM EDT reply actions

This is a

very interesting topic.

When looking at a player, I'd think it would make sense to test his "baseball IQ", not how smart he is in terms of general academia, and I don't know that testing a person's psychological profile would be of as much value, but it would certainly play a part. I think there are certain guys who obviously possess both types of intelligence, ie, book smarts and common smarts, but baseball players really need all 3. You look at a guy like Kevin Slowey. He doesn't have plus stuff, but he understands the importance of changing eye levels and pitching to his strength. Is that something he was taught? Who taught it to him? At what age? Those are important questions to ask and answer. Some guys, you get the feeling like they have no real understanding of situations in a game. What part of intelligence is that?

by phuturephillies on Jun 13, 2007 5:29 PM EDT reply actions

skeptical

I won't hold my breath waiting for a system to measure this stuff. It took a couple of years of Battle School to find out that Ender was the real deal

by Cabbage on Jun 13, 2007 7:06 PM EDT reply actions

Tools

I guess they could use an MRI test, like ask questions and see if all MLB players have a similar pattern when their brains are imaged, but I'm confident in saying that the chances of there being an "it" factor (so to speak) are slim to none.

There's just no one way to be an MLB player. Some guys need to get really pumped before every game to give it their all, some guys meditate and listen to Bob Marley before they head out. I think what you look for always has to be the total product obviously, yet how fair is it to judge a kid's makeup when he's entering the draft at ages 17-23? Are you the same person you were at that age? Weren't you entirely different by the time you were 25 than when you were that age?

I think what it comes down to is the ability to... well, scout makeup. Probably the best way to look at that would be to look at someone who's identical to the person, only much older. Which seems impossible at face value, but they do something very like this in genetic mapping -- I think the biggest key to projecting makeup is to look at the kid's family. Specifically, his parents and siblings (preferably male siblings if available). This would be in addition to looking at the kid obviously, but I think if you want to get a legitimate portrait of how a kid will act, you have to look at his influences, and specifically his family.

It's true Friends/peers influence how a kid will turn out more than family, but that can somewhat be changed with the right program/new friends (usually... especially if millions of dollars aren't brought into play right away). So if the kid has a 27 year old brother who looks completely put together, it's a more safe bet that the kid will be emotionally sound as well (see: the Drew family, the Manning family, the Weaver family, on and on and on). For example, with JD and Stephen Drew (and to a lesser extent, the "failed" prospect of the trio, Tim), you know that in spite of JD's issues, he never seems to have huge problems in the clubhouse, and is a productive player -- Stephen will probably be in a similar mold.

I'm sure that they do do stuff like this, but to bring back my original point, it might be worthwhile to sort of put em under the MRI scanning scope and see if they have similar brain functioning patterns as their family or certain other "high character" MLB players, since all "heart and grit and makeup" really is is neurofunctioning.

by mroak89 on Jun 13, 2007 8:15 PM EDT reply actions

Calipher Test

Is apparently a highly regarded test to test the leadership abilities and what people think of you and how to deal with pressure from players...but its used in the business world. There are definite psychological tests that can be used to determine traits such as these, but of course its a matter of taste which one to use...and Jugnianism is not even close.

by eeleye on Jun 14, 2007 12:47 PM EDT reply actions

NHL ahead of MLB?

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/blackhawks.asp?id=322728

Apparently, the Blackhawks, owners of the 1st pick in this years entry draft, will ask the top 3 candidates for the pick to interview with their psychologist.

by cooper7d7 on Jun 14, 2007 1:46 PM EDT reply actions