Are Stats for Dorks?

[BaltimoreTerp]

If they did then Nolan Reimold would be toiling in AAA ball.

That's the exact opposite of the truth.

You seem to be dealing in an awful lot of absolutes in your opinions here, even when trying to draw-out explanations from others.

[LookinUp]

You tell me. That is basically my point, when does the eye ball factor overcome the stats? I am not and never will be a scout but I have it my family, albeit Europen Football, I know that numbers never tell the entire story. If they did then Nolan Reimold would be toiling in AAA ball.

For any given player, you might see him enough to know. For the hundreds of players in the minors, college and high school that a franchise must scout, it would take infinite resources. Stats are incredibly important.

[crawdad]

You tell me. That is basically my point, when does the eye ball factor overcome the stats? I am not and never will be a scout but I have it my family, albeit Europen Football, I know that numbers never tell the entire story. If they did then Nolan Reimold would be toiling in AAA ball.

Reimold's numbers were lighting up AAA . . . so that example doesn't really say what you think it says.

Probably where stats overcome the human eye is measuring changes over long periods of time. Primarily that means skill degradation . . . sometimes the build up of skill, but typically there is often not enough data for that. Stats often are more useful in telling who has had the best year because personal biases outweigh a lot of things and being able to see every player day in and day out is next to impossible.

So in short . . . statistics are most useful when the amount of data or the time frame or the actual physics involved are beyond what humankind is able to quantitatively measure through first person observation.

[ejf1025]

Show me the man whose seen every single player and every pitch they've thrown or AB they've had and I'll show you the first scouting report I would trust over stats.

[Hooded Viper]

Come on guys, I am not talking about this season with Nolan's numbers. I am talking about, basically, his minor league career prior to this year. His stats never said he would do so well and be anything more than at 4th outfeilder. Or am I wrong?

I have read a lot of opinions on this thread and basically came to a conclusion: It takes both numbers and "eyeball" factor.

I would really love to hear AM perspective on the subject so if anyone has the luck to discuss it with the man, please ask the question.

Good night fellas.

[crawdad]

Come on guys, I am not talking about this season with Nolan's numbers. I am talking about, basically, his minor league career prior to this year. His stats never said he would do so well and be anything more than at 4th outfeilder. Or am I wrong?

I have read a lot of opinions on this thread and basically came to a conclusion: It takes both numbers and "eyeball" factor.

I would really love to hear AM perspective on the subject so if anyone has the luck to discuss it with the man, please ask the question.

Good night fellas.

Reimold's ISO, walk rate, and K rate were always good looking. The only issue I ever had was his injury incidence. In fact, the only negative outlooks I have ever seen on Nolan had been from scouts.

[Hooded Viper]

Come on guys, I am not talking about this season with Nolan's numbers. I am talking about, basically, his minor league career prior to this year. His stats never said he would do so well and be anything more than at 4th outfeilder. Or am I wrong?

I have read a lot of opinions on this thread and basically came to a conclusion: It takes both numbers and "eyeball" factor.

I would really love to hear AM perspective on the subject so if anyone has the luck to discuss it with the man, please ask the question.

Good night fellas.

Reimold's ISO, walk rate, and K rate were always good looking. The only issue I ever had was his injury incidence. In fact, the only negative outlooks I have ever seen on Nolan had been from scouts.

So you knew he was going to do so well in the majors? Are you AM?

[crawdad]

So you knew he was going to do so well in the majors? Are you AM?

As I mentioned before . . . both Stotle and I have thought high of him and saw him as having a potential 30+ homerun bat. These assessments have been made on this forum, Baltimore Sun forums, and on the blogs we have kept.

So, again, yes. We thought he was going to be average to good with potential plus power.

[justcompete]

Don't feed the trolls!

The stats indicate I am dumberer from reading HV's posts.

Guess he is getting a kick out of baiting people.

While this guy might have some points his approach leaves a lot to be desired.

[TonySoprano]

Sportos, motorheads,geeks, sluts, pinheads, dweebies, wonkers, richies, they all adore them.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Sportos, motorheads,geeks, sluts, pinheads, dweebies, wonkers, richies, they all adore them.

They think Stats is a righteous dude.

[TonySoprano]

Unfortunately chicks still dig the longball. :cussing:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ltD21rYWVw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ltD21rYWVw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Art Wing]

Mandatory biannual Orioles Hangout anti-stats thread... check

death and taxes...death and taxes...death and taxes...

[ejf1025]

Come on guys, I am not talking about this season with Nolan's numbers. I am talking about, basically, his minor league career prior to this year. His stats never said he would do so well and be anything more than at 4th outfeilder. Or am I wrong?

I have read a lot of opinions on this thread and basically came to a conclusion: It takes both numbers and "eyeball" factor.

I would really love to hear AM perspective on the subject so if anyone has the luck to discuss it with the man, please ask the question.

Good night fellas.

Modern stats are exactly this.

They are a vehicle that helps us sort and quantify what we have perceived from watching.

We know by watching that the game and "basic stats" are misleading. That someone who gets a bunch of steals may also have been caught a whole bunch and killed several rallies. We know that high OF assist totals could be the cause of people running on a poor arm. We know that a high fielding % may be because the player has no range.

There are tons of details and subtleties to baseball...

The modern stats simply try to get a more comprehensive metric...metrics that try as best they can to take into account the inconsistencies and misleading moments of baseball that we know are there...

It's also critical to note that stats completely widen the pool for comparative analysis....

Even the best baseball men have personally never been able to truly "scout" more then a relatively minute number of ball players. They can't watch everyone at once, or directly compare them in any type of "neutral" environment--"the eye" is very limiting.

[lint06]

I understand the basic stats. That is, I understand batting ave., on-base percentage, ERA and, well, that's it. I think all the "fancy" stats have their place but I don't get them. I know they tell us things, but they aren't always good evaluators of talent. I suppose it takes the right combination of stats understood properly to get anything out of them.

I do know this. If you get a hit 3 out of every 10 times you come to the plate, you are a good hitter.

In conclusion, stats are nice, and eyeballing is nice and both seem to work. As long those of us who don't get the stats don't talk bad about the statisticians and the statisticians don't talk bad about the non-stat-heads, it's fine.