On the usage of statistics on the OH

[TonySoprano]

:laughlol:.......attitude is a good thing. If everyone got in line when the status quo got ruffled, we'd still be reporting to the British.

Attitude....it's a New York or New Jersey thing.

Note to all the nerds rumbling in their rubber cage match, you're all amateurs according to...

[eb45]

15 comics in my firefox toolbar

Registered member of SOCIAL ENTROPY since 2002

I own both Seasons of The Adventures of Pete and Pete on DVD, the third season is on my computer.

I have the entire 5th season of Doctor Who on my laptop.

I called The SCREEN SAVERS

My favorite Doctors are, in no particular order: T. Baker, McCoy and Smith

I play Settelers of Catan, Fluxx and Carasconne

I will destory you at Scrabble

I have an original RISK board from the 60's

I have an original Orioles Pennant Fever LP

My classroom door is plaster in the following comics: Penny Arcade, XKCD, SMBC and Dinosaur Comics

Above the comics is a big friendly sign that reads: Don't Panic.

I've played Settlers of Catan since I was ten years old. Own Fluxx and Carcassonne as well.

My favorite board game is 1960: The Making of the President.

I can name all the US presidents in under a minute.

I can name every country in the world from memory.

I know who won and lost every World Series ever.

My childhood was spent reading the Baseball Encyclopedia. I miss out on the nostalgia for 90's Nickelodeon shows and the like because of this.

I play Minecraft.

And you have a fiancé. Is this really a question still?

[El Gordo]

I've played Settlers of Catan since I was ten years old. Own Fluxx and Carcassonne as well.

My favorite board game is 1960: The Making of the President.

I can name all the US presidents in under a minute.I can name every country in the world from memory.

I know who won and lost every World Series ever.

My childhood was spent reading the Baseball Encyclopedia. I miss out on the nostalgia for 90's Nickelodeon shows and the like because of this.

I play Minecraft.

And you have a fiancé. Is this really a question still?

I can name the career HR leader for each letter of the alphabet. Quick, who has the most for Q, U, Z?:laughlol:

[El Gordo]

Wouldn't be close -- scouts would win every single time evaluating from minors on down. Existing established MLB players, I think you could make an argument for statistical analysis being able to come close to standing on its own.

For current ML players, I would think advance scouting is extremely important. It's a matter of what they are doing lately, not what their numbers show they should be doing.

[SilentJames]

BUT...have you ever won a Magic: The Gathering tournament? (Hint: I have)

I placed in the top ten in the Star Wars Customizable Card Game state tournament, out of 60 players.

[SrMeowMeow]

I placed in the top ten in the Star Wars Customizable Card Game state tournament, out of 60 players.

So, no.

[SrMeowMeow]

Existing MLB players, stat analysis can reveal some of the hidden gems. If you are talking about a straight draft of players, scouts are going to be able to pick out the best players in the game without much trouble. So the stats will probably give an edge later on in the draft when you are talking about rounding off the teams.

Your response seemed to indicate that the draft is the only area where stats wouldn't have an advantage. No way. In both MiLB and draft your statisticians would be spanked and it wouldn't be close. So stats probably win a small battle at the MLB level with players with track records and get their ass handed to them at every other level.

Sabermetric teams were able to regularly fleece normal stat teams. They would wreck and ruin stat-less teams. I think you VASTLY underestimate the difficulty of the job scouts would face.

Do you really think a team of expert scouts could come CLOSE to out-performing something as simple as Marcel in projecting 2011? They could not.

[eb45]

I can name the career HR leader for each letter of the alphabet. Quick, who has the most for Q, U, Z?:laughlol:

Carlos Quentin, Chase Utley, and I don't know Z. Todd Zeile?

[Stotle]

For current ML players, I would think advance scouting is extremely important. It's a matter of what they are doing lately, not what their numbers show they should be doing.

To what end? To prepare for a series next week? Sure. To run a draft whereby you are trying to figure out the top performers for the immediate future? No, I don't think so.

Obviously, both stats and scouting are required to make good baseball decisions. If you are considering signing a FA-to-be, you are obviously sitting on him during the season and getting a feel for where his game is right now and where you expect it to be for the next one to five years. But stats can GENERALLY get you a lot of the way there when you are talking about established players with a track record. They aren't perfect, but they are very solid and also allow you some tools to differentiate between close players and to identify certain production that a particular player provides that may not be apparent through viewings.

I definitely think scouting is important -- I just don't think I'd go so far as to say it is MORE important than stat analysis when we are discussing established ML players.

[Stotle]

Sabermetric teams were able to regularly fleece normal stat teams. They would wreck and ruin stat-less teams. I think you VASTLY underestimate the difficulty of the job scouts would face.

Do you really think a team of expert scouts could come CLOSE to out-performing something as simple as Marcel in projecting 2011? They could not.

You VASTLY underestimate the importance of reading what someone is actually writing.

I stated that stats were probably the better starting point, and a larger part of the equation, for established MLB players.

Since you are missing it, I'll flesh out more and highlight: Minor League performance and amateur performance, and more importantly projection of future talent in these circles, is not adequately reflected in stats. Accordingly, it is more important to scout these circles than to run statistical analysis (though a competent FO is doing some form of both).

If you were to have your advanced stat guys solely look at the stats from the last three minor league seasons, and I were to have a scouting department watch and grade these players, I am going to have a better drafted organization. The most important aspect of projecting and evaluating young talent is determining ceiling, probability and the appropriate balance of the two together for a particular player. My scouting department is going to be WAY better at identifying the guys who are seeing success at the lower levels but are unlikely to see continued success at higher levels. My scouting department is going to be able to identify a high effort delivery that is unlikely to hold up over a full ML season, or a pitcher whose fastball is hard enough to miss bats in AA but too imprecise to hold up two-plus times through a Major League lineup.

It just isn't close. When it comes to Minors and amateur draft, scouting trumps stats in a landslide.

[sangar]

I have a hat that reads: Tosche Station

I have a hat that reads "Linear Algebra Rules".

[The Epic]

I have this shirt.

[SrMeowMeow]

You VASTLY underestimate the importance of reading what someone is actually writing.

I stated that stats were probably the better starting point, and a larger part of the equation, for established MLB players.

Since you are missing it, I'll flesh out more and highlight: Minor League performance and amateur performance, and more importantly projection of future talent in these circles, is not adequately reflected in stats. Accordingly, it is more important to scout these circles than to run statistical analysis (though a competent FO is doing some form of both).

If you were to have your advanced stat guys solely look at the stats from the last three minor league seasons, and I were to have a scouting department watch and grade these players, I am going to have a better drafted organization. The most important aspect of projecting and evaluating young talent is determining ceiling, probability and the appropriate balance of the two together for a particular player. My scouting department is going to be WAY better at identifying the guys who are seeing success at the lower levels but are unlikely to see continued success at higher levels. My scouting department is going to be able to identify a high effort delivery that is unlikely to hold up over a full ML season, or a pitcher whose fastball is hard enough to miss bats in AA but too imprecise to hold up two-plus times through a Major League lineup.

It just isn't close. When it comes to Minors and amateur draft, scouting trumps stats in a landslide.

C'mon. You said that "stats probably win a small battle at the MLB level with players with track records". I read that and understood it, and I disagree. I think stats would win that battle to such an extent that all other battles would be meaningless. And yes, I'm saying that I would effectively rather pick random players in the draft than be the guy who can't use stats at the ML level.

I understand that, in relative terms, you're a scouting guy and I'm a stats guy, and this argument won't end in consensus. But there's no reason to tell me I'm ignoring/not understanding what you're saying.

[Stotle]

C'mon. You said that "stats probably win a small battle at the MLB level with players with track records". I read that and understood it, and I disagree. I think stats would win that battle to such an extent that all other battles would be meaningless. And yes, I'm saying that I would effectively rather pick random players in the draft than be the guy who can't use stats at the ML level.

I understand that, in relative terms, you're a scouting guy and I'm a stats guy, and this argument won't end in consensus. But there's no reason to tell me I'm ignoring/not understanding what you're saying.

Well, you are flipping between different questions! On one hand you are talking about projecting stat lines, and on the other you are talking about a draft.

I have zero trouble believing that ML scouts would be able to identify the best players in the game simply by watching. Where I think stats have a huge advantage is uncovering guys who are particularly good at a particular aspect of the game, or providing separation between the guys below the elite level, but in the first-division starter realm. So I think no matter who is making the decision, you get at Lincecum, Pujols, Hanley, Crawford, Mauer, Utley (when healthy), Lester, etc. identified at the top level. Both squads are going to draft from the same general pool of elite talents. In rounding out the roster, I think the stats group gets a big advantage, but the advantage is later in the draft and I'm dubious the stat guys are unearthing such extreme difference makers that this is a landslide. I think its an advantage to the stat team, but it's probably small and I don't know that I'd wager tons of money on the stat-drafted team winning a 21 game series, or anything like that.

Projecting stat lines, it's not close. A stat team, drawing from historical context, would and should crush scouts.

MiLB and amateur baseball, the stat team could not come close to the scout-driven analysis.

So, yeah, stats are a much better tool for projecting lines, and probably a better starting point for purely IDing production with MLers. But they aren't in the same ballpark as scouting when it comes to still-developing talents.

Good organizations, of course, are using both, as well as examining biomechanics and psychology.

[SrMeowMeow]

Well, you are flipping between different questions! On one hand you are talking about projecting stat lines, and on the other you are talking about a draft.

I have zero trouble believing that ML scouts would be able to identify the best players in the game simply by watching. Where I think stats have a huge advantage is uncovering guys who are particularly good at a particular aspect of the game, or providing separation between the guys below the elite level, but in the first-division starter realm. So I think no matter who is making the decision, you get at Lincecum, Pujols, Hanley, Crawford, Mauer, Utley (when healthy), Lester, etc. identified at the top level. Both squads are going to draft from the same general pool of elite talents. In rounding out the roster, I think the stats group gets a big advantage, but the advantage is later in the draft and I'm dubious the stat guys are unearthing such extreme difference makers that this is a landslide. I think its an advantage to the stat team, but it's probably small and I don't know that I'd wager tons of money on the stat-drafted team winning a 21 game series, or anything like that.

Projecting stat lines, it's not close. A stat team, drawing from historical context, would and should crush scouts.

MiLB and amateur baseball, the stat team could not come close to the scout-driven analysis.

So, yeah, stats are a much better tool for projecting lines, and probably a better starting point for purely IDing production with MLers. But they aren't in the same ballpark as scouting when it comes to still-developing talents.

Good organizations, of course, are using both, as well as examining biomechanics and psychology.

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.