Sabermetrics, My Take

Let me start off by saying that Bill James and his fellow sabermatricians have provided a valuable tool for baseball fans and management to gauge the relative worth of players. But, there is a saying in life that the pendulum always swings too far. I have read so many smug posts on this board scoffing at those who play this game and coach this game, acting like that isn?t important, all you need is sabermetrics and you can run this team from the press box. In my humble opinion, that is hogwash. Sabermetrics are much more valuable at gauging a player?s career after it?s over then it is at gauging the value of someone like Paredes. It?s probably a great tool at ranking players who have retired or have already had long careers then it is at judging the development of 22-26 year old players. If a guy walked a lot at Norfolk, sometimes that translates and sometimes it doesn?t. It takes a human being to make that judgment and no formula will be accurate. Bottom line is that sabermetric formulas are not a perfect measurement of human behavior. What formula is? It is one tool in the tool box. How valuable? Well, there is a reason major league managers make millions to deal with the intangibles that sabermetrics can?t measure. A smart GM will balance sabermetrics with the judgment of his scouts, managers and coaches because human behavior can?t be measured with a formula. Relative worth of young players can?t be judged with a formula. Some guys are done growing at 18, others blossom between 20 and 24.

So, my proposal is that the coaches and scouts respect the sabermatricians and the sabermatricians respect the coaches and scouts. There is room for both the eye test and the formula and the humans that can balance them will always be the most valuable members of any organization.

You do realize that every single organization has used a combination of analysis and scouting for over a decade? This supposed fault line is mostly a fabrication by old writers. And the rampant distrust of analysis is little pockets of resistance that bear little weight on major league decision making.

I find the "eye test" "I played the game" crowd to be as smug and rather more condescending then the "saber" crowd.

You won't find any "saber" guys saying that analytics is all you need but you will find plenty of examples of the "old school" crowd claiming that is what the "stat guys" say.

You are also a lot less likely to find the "saber" guy discounting overwhelming evidence.

Also, can you please use paragraph breaks in the future? I know the odd formatting isn't your fault but it, combined with the lack of breaks, makes following your post harder then it should be.

Have a pleasant night.

I find the "eye test" "I played the game" crowd to be as smug and rather more condescending then the "saber" crowd.

You won't find any "saber" guys saying that analytics is all you need but you will find plenty of examples of the "old school" crowd claiming that is what the "stat guys" say.

You are also a lot less likely to find the "saber" guy discounting overwhelming evidence.

Also, can you please use paragraph breaks in the future? I know the odd formatting isn't your fault but it, combined with the lack of breaks, makes following your post harder to follow then it should be.

Have a pleasant night.

I will try to do better in the future, have a nice night yourself.

You do realize that every single organization has used a combination of analysis and scouting for over a decade? This supposed fault line is mostly a fabrication by old writers. And the rampant distrust of analysis is little pockets of resistance that bear little weight on major league decision making.

Both sides tend to distrust the other. Both sides tend to discount each other. IMO, the pendulum has swung too far towards sabermetrics, but maybe that's fair as the formulas have been ignored for the first hundred years of baseball.

You do realize that every single organization has used a combination of analysis and scouting for over a decade? This supposed fault line is mostly a fabrication by old writers. And the rampant distrust of analysis is little pockets of resistance that bear little weight on major league decision making.

Pretty much my take. I'm no scout and certainly have no organizational insight but I would guess good organizations have already began to merge scouting and sabremetrics to a great degree, and they are more complementary, not competing functions.

Pretty much my take. I'm no scout and certainly have no organizational insight but I would guess good organizations have already began to merge scouting and sabremetrics to a great degree, and they are more complementary, not competing functions.

I disagree. What would the formulas tell you about Paredes when it came to the decision on whether to cut him before the season? There will always be a natural contention between the two factions and that will probably always be good for the organizations that respect both.

o

As is the case with something like Sociology, where you have 3 major perspectives (2 large-scale perspectives of Conflict Theory and Functionalism, and one small-scare perspective of Symbolic Interactionism), I believe that that different "sides" of these baseball analysts could learn and complement each other.

You have the old-school statistics, you have the newer metric statistics, and you have the "eyeball" test(s). I don't think that any of them can stand completely on their own, but I also don't believe that any of them can be completely discounted, either.

I believe that is somewhat of what Drungo was saying in Post # 4 ....... if not, then I apologize in advance for misconstruing his post/comment.

Both sides tend to distrust the other. Both sides tend to discount each other. IMO, the pendulum has swung too far towards sabermetrics, but maybe that's fair as the formulas have been ignored for the first hundred years of baseball.

I actually think you're completely off base with this and that this is probably more of an impression you've gained on here. Not saying there still aren't competing interests and friction, and every organization is different, but i see the two merging if anything. Then again, I don't claim to know anything, just my impression from reading stuff online.

Maybe stotle or Tony could chime in from the scouting side and provide a perspective..

I actually think you're completely off base with this and that this is probably more of an impression you've gained on here. Not saying there still aren't competing interests and friction, and every organization is different, but i see the two merging if anything. Then again, I don't claim to know anything, just my impression from reading stuff online.

Maybe stotle or Tony could chime in from the scouting side and provide a perspective..

My assumption is that most if not all MLB organizations have concluded that a tightly integrated scouting/analysis construct is a large competitive advantage. Or rather, not having one is a big disadvantage since almost everyone has one. Scouting has to fill in the holes in analysis, such as the amateur side of things. And provides a lot of at least complimentary information on things where there is a ton of hard data. And lots of places like development where the analysis side uses scouting information as inputs to the process.

I don't see how you could have a competitive team in today's environment without a robust system that integrates both.

o

As is the case with something like Sociology, where you have 3 major perspectives (2 large-scale perspectives of Conflict Theory and Functionalism, and one small-scare perspective of Symbolic Interactionism), I believe that that different "sides" of these baseball analysts could learn and complement each other.

You have the old-school statistics, you have the newer metric statistics, and you have the "eyeball" test(s). I don't think that any of them can stand completely on their own, but I also don't believe that any of them can be completely discounted, either.

I believe that is somewhat of what Drungo was saying in Post # 4 ....... if not, then I apologize in advance for misconstruing his post/comment.

Great post, I agree.

IMO, the pendulum has swung too far towards sabermetrics, but maybe that's fair as the formulas have been ignored for the first hundred years of baseball.

Sabermetrics is the use of objective information and empirical analysis to discover truths about baseball. It literally can't swing too far that way. Unless you think truth isn't a good goal.

Sabermetrics is the use of objective information and empirical analysis to discover truths about baseball. It literally can't swing too far that way. Unless you think truth isn't a good goal.

It can swing too far if you think all human behavior can be measured in formulas. Objective truth is in the eyes of the beholder.

I disagree. What would the formulas tell you about Paredes when it came to the decision on whether to cut him before the season? There will always be a natural contention between the two factions and that will probably always be good for the organizations that respect both.

As I stated before i think Paredes is a guy you can look at from a statistical and scouting perspective. Yes, he almost certainly leans more heavily on the scouting side with his physical tools, but there are statistical factors in his favor like batting average and the ability to hit to all fields and an ability to hit for power when hit puts balls in the air and/or hits with backspin. The A's assistant GM commented some years ago that they identify skill sets from statistical data and then turn them over to their scouts. Much like Duquette they look for discards or undervalued players They work together to evaluate that players chance of success. I see no reason why the same thing can't be done with initial identification from the scouting side and consultation with the anlaytics side. If the scouts and analysis aren't working together then that organization is well behind the 8 ball in my opinion.

I would also guess that scouts are using much more technology, statistical tools and data collection at a much higher level.

As I stated before i think Paredes is a guy you can look at from a statistical and scouting perspective. Yes, he almost certainly leans more heavily on the scouting side with his physical tools, but there are statistical factors in his favor like batting average and the ability to hit to all fields and an ability to hit for power when hit puts balls in the air and/or hits with backspin. The A's assistant GM commented some years ago that they identify skill sets from statistical data and then turn them over to their scouts. Much like Duquette they look for discards or undervalued players They work together to evaluate that players chance of success. I think the same think can be done with identification from the scouting side. If the scouts and analysis aren't working together then than organization is well behind the 8 ball in my opinion.

I would also guess that scouts are using much more technology, statistical tools and data collection at a much higher level.

I think we agree that both sides need to work together but disagree that there is always harmony. I think that conflict within an organization is inevitable and the management of that conflict is an important part is successful organizations. There is just too much difference of perspective to ignore the natural conflict imo.