How Many Stats Guru's Predicted That....

[The Wedge]

Pavlov is sitting up in his grave and applauding you all.

[Mackus]

Of course it's a combination of things...stats being numero uno and scouting somewhere behind it. Think of it this way:

FAN: Hey, my MLB scout friend, I saw a kid pitch in a high school game yesterday and he was phenomenal! That means a TON because I've been watching baseball for over 40 years!

SCOUT: That sounds great! Maybe I'll check him out. What's his K:BB ratio?

FAN: I don't know, but I watched him and he's awesome! I think he can pitch at the big league level.

SCOUT: Really? What about splits? How's he do with righties vs. lefties?

FAN: Not a clue. He's good, though.

My point? Somebody saying "I watched him and I think he'll do well" might raise an eyebrow, but the real substance comes along in the numbers. Yes, if in that scenario said scout actually checked out the pitcher, he'd also be interested in mechanics and mound presence, but typically at higher levels, (and I know it's going to pain you to hear it said) shortcomings in either of those areas will be evident in that pitcher's statistics.

To add to this, the 40-year scout has made his life's work watching and making judgements on players, and his continued employment in this field has been contingent upon him being accurate at a rate at least comparable to the rest of his peers if not better.

His opinions are meaningful.

the opinions of someone, perhaps someone old, perhaps someone who likes brooks robinson, are not meaningful. The amount of knowledge and skill the "layperson" has when it comes to watching and making judgements with our eyes on baseball is woefully embarassingly terrible when compared to the people who do it professionally. So yes, making judgements with your eyes is important and a good way to judge players, or at least a good way to get a large piece of the puzzle for younger players and HS/college guys. But only when the eyes making the judgements have had years of training doing so. Any random fan saying "this guy looks good" is about as reliable as picking players based on their uniform number.

[DREKTUNES]

Pavlov is sitting up in his grave and applauding you all.

Yep. Call me when we go back to missing Paul Bako and Gil.

[Old#5fan]

Of course it's a combination of things...stats being numero uno and scouting somewhere behind it. Think of it this way:

FAN: Hey, my MLB scout friend, I saw a kid pitch in a high school game yesterday and he was phenomenal! That means a TON because I've been watching baseball for over 40 years!

SCOUT: That sounds great! Maybe I'll check him out. What's his K:BB ratio?

FAN: I don't know, but I watched him and he's awesome! I think he can pitch at the big league level.

SCOUT: Really? What about splits? How's he do with righties vs. lefties?

FAN: Not a clue. He's good, though.

My point? Somebody saying "I watched him and I think he'll do well" might raise an eyebrow, but the real substance comes along in the numbers. Yes, if in that scenario said scout actually checked out the pitcher, he'd also be interested in mechanics and mound presence, but typically at higher levels, (and I know it's going to pain you to hear it said) shortcomings in either of those areas will be evident in that pitcher's statistics.

To a point I would agree with you but I think he would be more interested in what he hits on the radar gun, whether he walks many batters and how many strikeouts he has per innings pitched, along with ERA, etc. However, none of this is going to matter much until he sees the kid pitch. It could be he pitches against very inferior competition such as for a small private school against other small private schools.

[The Rick]

Pavlov is sitting up in his grave and applauding you all.

LOL, classic. Very well done.:wedge:

[Hank Scorpio]

Of course it's a combination of things...stats being numero uno and scouting somewhere behind it. Think of it this way:

FAN: Hey, my MLB scout friend, I saw a kid pitch in a high school game yesterday and he was phenomenal! That means a TON because I've been watching baseball for over 40 years!

SCOUT: That sounds great! Maybe I'll check him out. What's his K:BB ratio?

FAN: I don't know, but I watched him and he's awesome! I think he can pitch at the big league level.

SCOUT: Really? What about splits? How's he do with righties vs. lefties?

FAN: Not a clue. He's good, though.

My point? Somebody saying "I watched him and I think he'll do well" might raise an eyebrow, but the real substance comes along in the numbers. Yes, if in that scenario said scout actually checked out the pitcher, he'd also be interested in mechanics and mound presence, but typically at higher levels, (and I know it's going to pain you to hear it said) shortcomings in either of those areas will be evident in that pitcher's statistics.

Scout : What does he throw?

Fan : Strikes.

Scout : How's his fastball control in the zone?

Fan : Dunno.

Scout : Does he have a feel for his changeup?

Fan : ...

Scout : How about his breaking ball?

Fan : All I know is the kid can pitch. He'll make to the majors.

[Old#5fan]

To add to this, the 40-year scout has made his life's work watching and making judgements on players, and his continued employment in this field has been contingent upon him being accurate at a rate at least comparable to the rest of his peers if not better.

His opinions are meaningful.

the opinions of someone, perhaps someone old, perhaps someone who likes brooks robinson, are not meaningful. The amount of knowledge and skill the "layperson" has when it comes to watching and making judgements with our eyes on baseball is woefully embarassingly terrible when compared to the people who do it professionally. So yes, making judgements with your eyes is important and a good way to judge players, or at least a good way to get a large piece of the puzzle for younger players and HS/college guys. But only when the eyes making the judgements have had years of training doing so. Any random fan saying "this guy looks good" is about as reliable as picking players based on their uniform number.

Not necessarily. Some "random" fans could be a lot more skilled at observation, knowledge, and plain ole common sense than others. You are stating something that is without basis. Especially, if that "random" fan may have been following the game for decades as opposed to someone who is still in their infant stage of watching and observing the game. I attended my first ML game in 1963. I just wish I would have a fraction of the knowledge of the game then that I do now. Even twenty years ago, I had a lot less knowledge of judging players than I do now. I am constantly learning by observing and listening and reading about the game.

[The Rick]

Not necessarily. Some "random" fans could be a lot more skilled at observation, knowledge, and plain ole common sense than others. You are stating something that is without basis. Especially, if that "random" fan may have been following the game for decades as opposed to someone who is still in their infant stage of watching and observing the game. I attended my first ML game in 1963. I just wish I would have a fraction of the knowledge of the game then that I do now.

It appears as if you attended your first and only ML game in 1963.

I seriously am dumbfounded as to how you are not willing to concede anything after 8 pages of people proving you wrong post after post.

[Old#5fan]

It appears as if you attended your first and only ML game in 1963.

I seriously am dumbfounded as to how you are not willing to concede anything after 8 pages of people proving you wrong post after post.

Yep, I was 8 years young and went with my Dad and one of his co-workers. I sat in the back seat of a VW Beetle which was just fine for a kid my age, riding all the way from Sharpsburg, Maryland to Baltimore on old 40 in the days prior to I-70 being built. I remember Steve Barber pitched for the Orioles against the KC A's. Russ Snyder hit a walkoff homer and all I knew was everybody stood up and cheered and a bell (cowbell) was being rung. Everyone left the park happy. Of course I was so small I didn't see the homer when everyone stood up. My Dad bought me a hot dog, coke, and a 1963 Orioles Pennant that had the team photo on it in color. I hung it in my bedroom for many years. My first game was a very good experience other than being short and hard to see when people stood up, and nice memory.

[DrungoHazewood]

Isn't a scouting report considered "watching" a player?

So in effect you are agreeing with me on this in that I have already espoused that the best way to try to predict the future is a combination of things, and not just any one method?

One should carefully consider and weigh all of the available information.

You have consistently said that the statistical analysis part of that should be completely ignored because it has no relevance. Therefore, you are wrong.

[Old#5fan]

One should carefully consider and weigh all of the available information.

You have consistently said that the statistical analysis part of that should be completely ignored because it has no relevance. Therefore, you are wrong.

Actually, I believe what I have been espousing is relying solely on stats to predict the future is an utterly worthless endeavor. I have never proclaimed using stats to be worthless when combined with observation, scouting, and common sense.

[DrungoHazewood]

Actually, I believe what I have been espousing is relying solely on stats to predict the future is an utterly worthless endeavor. I have never proclaimed using stats to be worthless when combined with observation, scouting, and common sense.

Sure you have. Every day, and twice on Sundays. You've consistently said that statistics were utterly worthless for most applications. Why would you consider them as one input to your decision-making processes when they're utterly worthless?

[TonySoprano]

Actually, I believe what I have been espousing is relying solely on stats to predict the future is an utterly worthless endeavor. I have never proclaimed using stats to be worthless when combined with observation, scouting, and common sense.

Sure you have. Every day, and twice on Sundays. You've consistently said that statistics were utterly worthless for most applications. Why would you consider them as one input to your decision-making processes when they're utterly worthless?

Down goes Fraz-iah

Down goes Fraz-iah

[NCRaven]

Here's yet another ridiculous thread that will inevitably last 10 pages with people going back and forth and OldFan never admitting he's wrong.

Did you base this prediction, which is pretty d*mn close to hitting the nail on the head, on statistical analysis or you observations as a seasoned fan of this board over the years?

Note: You made this prediction in only the 4th response on the very first page.

[Old#5fan]

Sure you have. Every day, and twice on Sundays. You've consistently said that statistics were utterly worthless for most applications. Why would you consider them as one input to your decision-making processes when they're utterly worthless?

I think there may be some confusion over my stance then. I have stated that stats are a most useful measurement of the past. I stated they are not at all useful in the future other than they do serve some value as a secondary element to observation of the player. I have said though that by themselves they are a utterly useless tool for prognostic use. I stand by these statements. I also stand by my belief that minor league stats are particularly non-useful in translating success to the majors, in that productive stats in the minors don't mean the player will produce as well in the majors. There is a big jump involved there and success in the minors doesn't mean all that much.