Orioles are one of the teams that the Twins have contacted in regards to Justin Morneau

[soxhotcorner14]

Didn't DD reduce the pro scouting department because he believed stats could be the better way to evaluate pro players and then based on the stats, can send the scouts to maybe backup what the stats seem to say about the players. Now he believes scouting is more important for players that are not yet pros or in the minor league system and why he pretty much made all the O's scouts amateur scouts and then do pro scouting as needed.

Partially correct. He said with the use of video and stats he could reduce the pro scouting and utilize those resources for amateur scouting. So he didn't cut the dept. he just re-assigned the resources since he doesn't have the best budget for scouting.

I'm sure someone can pull up the link for that quote. But if I recall that was the gist of it.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Partially correct. He said with the use of video and stats he could reduce the pro scouting and utilize those resources for amateur scouting. So he didn't cut the dept. he just re-assigned the resources since he doesn't have the best budget for scouting.

I'm sure someone can pull up the link for that quote. But if I recall that was the gist of it.

Yeah, this is correct as I recall. Just a more efficient use of resources since video is readily available at the ML level. Of course we don't get eyes on input about the guy shaking in his boots at the end of the bench.

[OrioleMagic79]

The king of advanced stats like WAR is a man made famous for his "Money Ball" approach...which is amazing in it's ability to get his teams into the playoffs once in awhile, yet never make it to, let alone WIN, the World Series...He famously doesn't even watch the games his team plays in...

You can use advanced stats, but they have to be in combination with using good judgment...

by the way, show me one example where you cannot look at a guy's "traditional stats" and not use basic intellect and logic to predict his value to the team, and therefore must rely on WAR to determine that information...

Alex Rodriguez had a 10.0 WAR in 2002, he had a .300 BA, 57 HRs and 142 RBI...and his other stats were amazing too...I could have told you that he was a huge asset to the team with WAR...are you telling me that you couldn't?

Interestingly though, isn't 10.0 WAR extremely high? Palmeiro was on that team with a .273 AVG 43 HRs and 105 RBIs, Michael Young had a great year, Ivan Rodriguez had a really solid year (3.3 WAR)...Palmeiro was a 4.6 WAR...

Juan Gonzalez 70 G, 8 HR, 38 Runs, 35 RBI, .282 AVG, 2 SB, WAR 1.6

Michael Young 156 G, 9 HR, 77 Runs, 62 RBI, .262 AVG, 6 SB, WAR 1.3

That Young v. Gonzo comparison doesn't make any sense at all...How is Gonzo worth more wins than Young when he played 70 games, scored 39 fewer runs, drove in 27 fewer runs, hit one less homer, and stole 4 fewer bases? Was it because Gonzo got hurt? I thought WAR took everything into consideration, isn't injury a problem that is considered? If not, that is an instance where stats can't help you and you have to use "judgment" - oh my, that evil biased thing we all hate...screw it, Gonzo was a great sign, he is worth an extra 1.6 wins this year...

But really, 10 WAR for A-Rod? Does that even make sense? For a team that won 72 games, there must be a couple guys with -20 WAR or something, huh? A last place team with a huge superstar that is worth 10 extra wins...and another batter worth an extra 4.6 in Palmeiro...so without those two guys on the team, would the Rangers have lost 15 more games and finished with only 57 wins? No, probably not...

A-Rod is a classic example of a guy who piles on stats in non-meaningful situations, which is why even as a Yankee he only has one WS ring in his entire career...he is a liability in high stress/high importance situations...he's only had one post-season where that wasn't true, and guess what? His team won the World Series...

So this to me is a perfect example of why 10 WAR is asinine for A-Rod in 2002, on a team that was awful...he obviously was not winning games with clutch performances...moreso just adding stats when the game was out of reach...which means the team still lost, therefore he shouldn't be building stats toward a positive WAR...especially one that high...

Look, this is making my point, but if I had more time I would clean it up a bit for more clarity...I do believe you can understand my point though, so I will let it be...

We aren't going to convince one another, but I will stand by the point that WAR is useless, especially without the "eyeball test" - Every guy I ever played ball with (and I played at a reasonably high level), and every guy I ever coached with (HS level), or even learned from (former HOF players, coaches, and MLB players abound) never ever taught me to discount what you see with your own two eyes...a guy can have a 98 mph fastball, but if you don't watch for his weaknesses and get wrapped up in that number, you will likely fail when you face him...but there might not be any reason to fail, maybe he tips his pitches, or it is straight as an arrow and just a matter of timing...

anyway, I gotta go home and see my family, but it's pretty clear where I stand on the issue, and I think journalists and guys that never played the game at a high level get too wrapped up in stats...Billy Beane being the exception, he was incredible as a prospect...but never amounted to much in MLB...I tend to wonder if he was psyching himself out about the numbers and stats of the pitchers he faced instead of just learning about how to hit the guy by watching him and breaking him down...

[soxhotcorner14]

Yeah, this is correct as I recall. Just a more efficient use of resources since video is readily available at the ML level. Of course we don't get eyes on input about the guy shaking in his boots at the end of the bench.

:laughlol::laughlol:

[weams]

Partially correct. He said with the use of video and stats he could reduce the pro scouting and utilize those resources for amateur scouting. So he didn't cut the dept. he just re-assigned the resources since he doesn't have the best budget for scouting.

I'm sure someone can pull up the link for that quote. But if I recall that was the gist of it.

Yeah, this is correct as I recall. Just a more efficient use of resources since video is readily available at the ML level. Of course we don't get eyes on input about the guy shaking in his boots at the end of the bench.

You are both right. And MacPhail IV got demoted. A Crosschecker was fired. Both slots were filled with others. Sarah Gelles oversee the video portion. Last year was the first season that the Orioles invested in the Bloomberg product as well. It is a fantastic advantage, except that a lot of the other teams already had it. So he removed a deficit.

[luismatos4prez]

Interestingly though, isn't 10.0 WAR extremely high? Palmeiro was on that team with a .273 AVG 43 HRs and 105 RBIs, Michael Young had a great year, Ivan Rodriguez had a really solid year (3.3 WAR)...Palmeiro was a 4.6 WAR...

Juan Gonzalez 70 G, 8 HR, 38 Runs, 35 RBI, .282 AVG, 2 SB, WAR 1.6

Michael Young 156 G, 9 HR, 77 Runs, 62 RBI, .262 AVG, 6 SB, WAR 1.3

That Young v. Gonzo comparison doesn't make any sense at all...How is Gonzo worth more wins than Young when he played 70 games, scored 39 fewer runs, drove in 27 fewer runs, hit one less homer, and stole 4 fewer bases? Was it because Gonzo got hurt? I thought WAR took everything into consideration, isn't injury a problem that is considered? If not, that is an instance where stats can't help you and you have to use "judgment" - oh my, that evil biased thing we all hate...screw it, Gonzo was a great sign, he is worth an extra 1.6 wins this year...

You must read into WAR to understand what goes into it, because it's too frustrating and to argue against someone who disagrees so strongly with something he doesn't understand. With all the work you've put into this post, why not take five minutes and carefully read about what WAR is? Because you're clearly misunderstanding it.

[Mr Snuffleupagus]

The king of advanced stats like WAR is a man made famous for his "Money Ball" approach...which is amazing in it's ability to get his teams into the playoffs once in awhile, yet never make it to, let alone WIN, the World Series...He famously doesn't even watch the games his team plays in...

You can use advanced stats, but they have to be in combination with using good judgment...

by the way, show me one example where you cannot look at a guy's "traditional stats" and not use basic intellect and logic to predict his value to the team, and therefore must rely on WAR to determine that information...

Alex Rodriguez had a 10.0 WAR in 2002, he had a .300 BA, 57 HRs and 142 RBI...and his other stats were amazing too...I could have told you that he was a huge asset to the team with WAR...are you telling me that you couldn't?

Interestingly though, isn't 10.0 WAR extremely high? Palmeiro was on that team with a .273 AVG 43 HRs and 105 RBIs, Michael Young had a great year, Ivan Rodriguez had a really solid year (3.3 WAR)...Palmeiro was a 4.6 WAR...

Juan Gonzalez 70 G, 8 HR, 38 Runs, 35 RBI, .282 AVG, 2 SB, WAR 1.6

Michael Young 156 G, 9 HR, 77 Runs, 62 RBI, .262 AVG, 6 SB, WAR 1.3

That Young v. Gonzo comparison doesn't make any sense at all...How is Gonzo worth more wins than Young when he played 70 games, scored 39 fewer runs, drove in 27 fewer runs, hit one less homer, and stole 4 fewer bases? Was it because Gonzo got hurt? I thought WAR took everything into consideration, isn't injury a problem that is considered? If not, that is an instance where stats can't help you and you have to use "judgment" - oh my, that evil biased thing we all hate...screw it, Gonzo was a great sign, he is worth an extra 1.6 wins this year...

But really, 10 WAR for A-Rod? Does that even make sense? For a team that won 72 games, there must be a couple guys with -20 WAR or something, huh? A last place team with a huge superstar that is worth 10 extra wins...and another batter worth an extra 4.6 in Palmeiro...so without those two guys on the team, would the Rangers have lost 15 more games and finished with only 57 wins? No, probably not...

A-Rod is a classic example of a guy who piles on stats in non-meaningful situations, which is why even as a Yankee he only has one WS ring in his entire career...he is a liability in high stress/high importance situations...he's only had one post-season where that wasn't true, and guess what? His team won the World Series...

So this to me is a perfect example of why 10 WAR is asinine for A-Rod in 2002, on a team that was awful...he obviously was not winning games with clutch performances...moreso just adding stats when the game was out of reach...which means the team still lost, therefore he shouldn't be building stats toward a positive WAR...especially one that high...

Look, this is making my point, but if I had more time I would clean it up a bit for more clarity...I do believe you can understand my point though, so I will let it be...

We aren't going to convince one another, but I will stand by the point that WAR is useless, especially without the "eyeball test" - Every guy I ever played ball with (and I played at a reasonably high level), and every guy I ever coached with (HS level), or even learned from (former HOF players, coaches, and MLB players abound) never ever taught me to discount what you see with your own two eyes...a guy can have a 98 mph fastball, but if you don't watch for his weaknesses and get wrapped up in that number, you will likely fail when you face him...but there might not be any reason to fail, maybe he tips his pitches, or it is straight as an arrow and just a matter of timing...

anyway, I gotta go home and see my family, but it's pretty clear where I stand on the issue, and I think journalists and guys that never played the game at a high level get too wrapped up in stats...Billy Beane being the exception, he was incredible as a prospect...but never amounted to much in MLB...I tend to wonder if he was psyching himself out about the numbers and stats of the pitchers he faced instead of just learning about how to hit the guy by watching him and breaking him down...

The first step in appreciating WAR is to pay total disregard to the idea that it actually

equals wins.

Hating WAR is no different than hating OBP or OPS. It's a stat, use it fwiw. We also don't need BA to tell us Tony Gwynn was a good hitter, but it's nice to be able to quantify it and compare to others.

[CA-ORIOLE]

You must read into WAR to understand what goes into it, because it's too frustrating and to argue against someone who disagrees so strongly with something he doesn't understand. With all the work you've put into this post, why not take five minutes and carefully read about what WAR is? Because you're clearly misunderstanding it.

Yeah, I was going to respond to him, but it's just not worth the effort. I don't get the sense that he wants to learn anything.

[Art Wing]

The first step in appreciating WAR is to pay total disregard to the idea that it actually

equals wins.

Hating WAR is no different than hating OBP or OPS. It's a stat, use it fwiw. We also don't need BA to tell us Tony Gwynn was a good hitter, but it's nice to be able to quantify it and compare to others.

If one happens to believe dWar is flawed, even partially, the bolded is not necessarily true.

[DrungoHazewood]

You must read into WAR to understand what goes into it, because it's too frustrating and to argue against someone who disagrees so strongly with something he doesn't understand. With all the work you've put into this post, why not take five minutes and carefully read about what WAR is? Because you're clearly misunderstanding it.

It's not even a real debate or argument. He's staked out a rigid ideological position based on bits and pieces of half truths, and no amount of explanation or reasoning or facts will budge him. It is like arguing with an answering machine. No matter what you say the same canned response comes back.

[EddieO'sSC]

The king of advanced stats like WAR is a man made famous for his "Money Ball" approach...which is amazing in it's ability to get his teams into the playoffs once in awhile, yet never make it to, let alone WIN, the World Series...He famously doesn't even watch the games his team plays in...

You can use advanced stats, but they have to be in combination with using good judgment...

by the way, show me one example where you cannot look at a guy's "traditional stats" and not use basic intellect and logic to predict his value to the team, and therefore must rely on WAR to determine that information...

Alex Rodriguez had a 10.0 WAR in 2002, he had a .300 BA, 57 HRs and 142 RBI...and his other stats were amazing too...I could have told you that he was a huge asset to the team with WAR...are you telling me that you couldn't?

Interestingly though, isn't 10.0 WAR extremely high? Palmeiro was on that team with a .273 AVG 43 HRs and 105 RBIs, Michael Young had a great year, Ivan Rodriguez had a really solid year (3.3 WAR)...Palmeiro was a 4.6 WAR...

Juan Gonzalez 70 G, 8 HR, 38 Runs, 35 RBI, .282 AVG, 2 SB, WAR 1.6

Michael Young 156 G, 9 HR, 77 Runs, 62 RBI, .262 AVG, 6 SB, WAR 1.3

That Young v. Gonzo comparison doesn't make any sense at all...How is Gonzo worth more wins than Young when he played 70 games, scored 39 fewer runs, drove in 27 fewer runs, hit one less homer, and stole 4 fewer bases? Was it because Gonzo got hurt? I thought WAR took everything into consideration, isn't injury a problem that is considered? If not, that is an instance where stats can't help you and you have to use "judgment" - oh my, that evil biased thing we all hate...screw it, Gonzo was a great sign, he is worth an extra 1.6 wins this year...

But really, 10 WAR for A-Rod? Does that even make sense? For a team that won 72 games, there must be a couple guys with -20 WAR or something, huh? A last place team with a huge superstar that is worth 10 extra wins...and another batter worth an extra 4.6 in Palmeiro...so without those two guys on the team, would the Rangers have lost 15 more games and finished with only 57 wins? No, probably not...

A-Rod is a classic example of a guy who piles on stats in non-meaningful situations, which is why even as a Yankee he only has one WS ring in his entire career...he is a liability in high stress/high importance situations...he's only had one post-season where that wasn't true, and guess what? His team won the World Series...

So this to me is a perfect example of why 10 WAR is asinine for A-Rod in 2002, on a team that was awful...he obviously was not winning games with clutch performances...moreso just adding stats when the game was out of reach...which means the team still lost, therefore he shouldn't be building stats toward a positive WAR...especially one that high...

Look, this is making my point, but if I had more time I would clean it up a bit for more clarity...I do believe you can understand my point though, so I will let it be...

We aren't going to convince one another, but I will stand by the point that WAR is useless, especially without the "eyeball test" - Every guy I ever played ball with (and I played at a reasonably high level), and every guy I ever coached with (HS level), or even learned from (former HOF players, coaches, and MLB players abound) never ever taught me to discount what you see with your own two eyes...a guy can have a 98 mph fastball, but if you don't watch for his weaknesses and get wrapped up in that number, you will likely fail when you face him...but there might not be any reason to fail, maybe he tips his pitches, or it is straight as an arrow and just a matter of timing...

anyway, I gotta go home and see my family, but it's pretty clear where I stand on the issue, and I think journalists and guys that never played the game at a high level get too wrapped up in stats...Billy Beane being the exception, he was incredible as a prospect...but never amounted to much in MLB...I tend to wonder if he was psyching himself out about the numbers and stats of the pitchers he faced instead of just learning about how to hit the guy by watching him and breaking him down...

Keep in mind the the A's went to the playoffs in the seasons 2000-2003, losing each divisional series 3-2. The A's once again reach the ALCS in 2006 losing 4-0. Surely you understand that once you get to a 5 games series, it is essentialy crap-shoot.

[weams]

Keep in mind the the A's went to the playoffs in the seasons 2000-2003' date=' losing each divisional series 3-2. The A's once again reach the ALCS in 2006 losing 4-0. Surely you understand that once you get to a 5 games series, it is essentialy crap-shoot.[/quote']

“My [stuff] doesn't work in the playoffs.”

"My job is to get us to the playoffs. What happens after that is [freaking] luck."

[WalkofLife]

?My [stuff] doesn't work in the playoffs.?

"My job is to get us to the playoffs. What happens after that is [freaking] luck."

Nate Silver and Dayn Perry co-wrote a really great article on this. Here it is: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=betweenthenumbers/billybeane/060405

[Roll Tide]

How about we let the Twins role the dice with Matt Hobgood and we'll roll the dice with Justin Morneau. Seems fair.

Britt says its a dead rumor that the Twins are not dealing him.

[EddieO'sSC]

?My [stuff] doesn't work in the playoffs.?

"My job is to get us to the playoffs. What happens after that is [freaking] luck."

Yea, seems to work out that way often for the Yankees; though, they seem to find a way to get there. Maybe they have really better scouts than anyone else.