On the usage of statistics on the OH

[Stotle]

Oh, I mean, I agree. No team would ever want to do without scouting, or stats. And I concede everything about the minor leagues, including the draft, to scouting. My argument is just that I think that, overall, the team without stats would be more hopelessly crippled than the one without scouting. And I'm happy to agree to disagree on that.

No, I think the bolded is probably right, since the most damaging moves to organizations are probably poor FA signings. Without the benefit of stat analysis on the 28-34 year olds you are signing, I would think you would be more likely to cripple your team.

Further, advanced statistics are improving as they continue to incorporate "scouting" through instruments such as pitch f/x and field f/x. Five years from now, your statement will hold even more water. I don't think it removes the necessity for scouting at the highest levels -- player approach, feel, personality, etc. are highly important in making personnel decisions. But the more useful and accurate data that will be compiled, the less you need someone sitting behind home with a gun marking down a slider on saturday was generally a 50/55 and sat 81-83 with late action.

[SrMeowMeow]

No, I think the bolded is probably right, since the most damaging moves to organizations are probably poor FA signings. Without the benefit of stat analysis on the 28-34 year olds you are signing, I would think you would be more likely to cripple your team.

Further, advanced statistics are improving as they continue to incorporate "scouting" through instruments such as pitch f/x and field f/x. Five years from now, your statement will hold even more water. I don't think it removes the necessity for scouting at the highest levels -- player approach, feel, personality, etc. are highly important in making personnel decisions. But the more useful and accurate data that will be compiled, the less you need someone sitting behind home with a gun marking down a slider on saturday was generally a 50/55 and sat 81-83 with late action.

So what you're saying is, we agree that my stats-only team would beat Tony's scouting-only team.

[Stotle]

So what you're saying is, we agree that my stats-only team would beat Tony's scouting-only team.

Well....

1. Your stat-only organization would beat his scouting-only organization over the long haul.

2. Your stat-only organization would be better at projecting specific player lines.

3. Your stat-only organization may draft a better 25- or 40-man team from a pool of experienced MLB players, but the difference may be negligible over a number of games against each other.

4. His scouting-only organization would have way more fun at the holiday party.

Regarding #1, I note that the scouting-only organization is going to be way better than you at getting cheap home-grown talent. If they are good enough at scouting, they could probably do very well. But the huge advantage of statistical analysis in FA signings still would give you the long term edge, I'd think. Hmm, the acquisition of young talent is a good argument, though. Provided you have the money to extend them, I could see an argument that a team built through scouting only could be pretty competitive. But I still think there is probably too much volatility/attrition in development for them to compete with the stat-only org, long term.

[Tony-OH]

So what you're saying is, we agree that my stats-only team would beat Tony's scouting-only team.

Excuse me? When did I become the scouting only guy?

Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired if you think I'm somehow anti-stats in scouting or analysis. You are the only person around here who is making either/or statements like they mean anything.

[SrMeowMeow]

Excuse me? When did I become the scouting only guy?

Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired if you think I'm somehow anti-stats in scouting or analysis. You are the only person around here who is making either/or statements like they mean anything.

My reading comprehension sure is taking a beating in the press today. But it's my bad, poor wording. Basically I responded to a post of yours awhile back in the thread saying that I'd put up a stats-only team vs. a hypothetical scouting-only team of yours and win, and that's what I've been talking to Stotle about ever since. I don't think you're a scouting-only guy.

[SrMeowMeow]

Regarding #1, I note that the scouting-only organization is going to be way better than you at getting cheap home-grown talent. If they are good enough at scouting, they could probably do very well. But the huge advantage of statistical analysis in FA signings still would give you the long term edge, I'd think. Hmm, the acquisition of young talent is a good argument, though. Provided you have the money to extend them, I could see an argument that a team built through scouting only could be pretty competitive. But I still think there is probably too much volatility/attrition in development for them to compete with the stat-only org, long term.

You'd have a better core with scouting-only but would be way worse at evaluating it. You wouldn't know which players were the most valuable: which to extend, which to release, which to trade, who to trade for, etc. Basically, I think any transaction involving MLB players with at least, say, 1000 PA would be won by the stats-only team.

[Nigel Tufnel]

As it happens, Joe Posnanski wrote a blog post today that discusses the various offensive stats and their relative merits.

Posnanski even tackles the nerd issue (although he prefers the term geek):

I bring this up because I have been at spring training in Florida for a while, and I thought it would be a good time to explain again some of the sabermetric baseball terms that I use quite often in these blog posts and the baseball theories that I am fascinated by. But I need to first make it clear that I am not a sabermetrician. I’m not even an amateur sabermetrician. I know quite a few of these people, and I can tell you that my own efforts to add anything of any worth to the sabermetric community have been comically inept, and my own understanding of some of these sabermetric principles is pathetically simple and probably only about 40% right.

Mozart’s genius was that he could create the brilliant music.

Salieri’s genius was the he could hear the brilliance of the music.

I’d say that I enthusiastically but barely even know what Salieri’s talking about.

But here we are, and it’s baseball season, and I do write a lot about BABIP and WAR and John Dewan’s plus-minus, and OPS+, and I do often mock wins and RBIs and batting average, and while this doesn’t get me within three European countries of Cuttingedge, it’s all I’ve got. Just remember — like it would be possible for you to forget — I’m not a baseball geek. I’m like a dumb baseball geek.

[El Gordo]

As it happens, Joe Posnanski wrote a blog post today that discusses the various offensive stats and their relative merits.

Posnanski even tackles the nerd issue (although he prefers the term geek):

Thanks for that link. Excellent read.

[RVAbird]

Thanks for that link. Excellent read.

It always is with Pos. I'm amazed at how he consistently knocks it out of the park. He's the most well-rounded journalist who writes about baseball right now, in my opinion.

[Tony-OH]

It always is with Pos. I'm amazed at how he consistently knocks it out of the park. He's the most well-rounded journalist who writes about baseball right now, in my opinion.

Agreed. He's the only national writer I have bookmarked. I read just about everything he writes about baseball. He's definitely a guy I'd love to hang out while drinking a few beers with and talking baseball!