White Sox Interactive Forums
Sox Clubhouse
 Soxogram: 
Congratulations on the Rookie records for HR and RBI in April, Jose!

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Sox Clubhouse
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old 04-25-2013, 02:17 PM
doublem23's Avatar
doublem23 doublem23 is offline
MMXXIII
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Roscoe Village
Posts: 54,176
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dickallen15 View Post
I really don't see how a team could rely very heavily on sabermetrics for a draft. HS and college baseball is a totally different game, from the aluminum bats, to the higher seamed baseballs that are used in the NCAA.

The Nationals were very fortunate to have the number 1 pick 2 times when there clearly was one player above all others. Any team not using sabermetrics at all would have drafted Strasberg and Harper.
You're right, silly me, I was unaware that the Nats only fielded a 2-man roster. See, here I went and thought they had a 25-man team like the other 29 MLB franchises, but that's my mistake. I'll amend my posts in the future.

Sabremetrics are for more than just scouting. Does anyone think if Bryce Harper where in the White Sox farm system, he'd be an up and coming superstar? Or, more likely, he'd be on the fast track to burning out of baseball by the time he's 30? He'd probably still be in Birmingham, hitting .220 while striking out 45% of his PA's.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-25-2013, 02:21 PM
Hartman Hartman is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 530
Default

Why can't the solution be a nice mixture of both computer analytics and real world scouts? I also found Kenny's response to be odd in how pissed off he got at an old-timer's predictable opinion.

Either way, there is no upside to Hawk going on this show. It would be a bit like going on Piers Morgan's show and expecting a good outcome.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-25-2013, 02:23 PM
doublem23's Avatar
doublem23 doublem23 is offline
MMXXIII
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Roscoe Village
Posts: 54,176
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hartman View Post
Why can't the solution be a nice mixture of both computer analytics and real world scouts?
That is what most teams do
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-25-2013, 02:34 PM
chicagowhitesox1 chicagowhitesox1 is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Aurora Illinois
Posts: 1,031
Default

Is there a way to post the debat when it's over. I don't have the MLB Channel.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-25-2013, 02:39 PM
jdm2662 jdm2662 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Lombard, IL
Posts: 7,902
Default

What the hell, I went ahead and recorded this. Who says computers are bad? I just scheduled the recording while I'm at work on my iPhone...
__________________
4-time WSI NFL Pick 'em vs Spread Champion
2009 2010 2011 2013
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-25-2013, 02:41 PM
dickallen15 dickallen15 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,919
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
You're right, silly me, I was unaware that the Nats only fielded a 2-man roster. See, here I went and thought they had a 25-man team like the other 29 MLB franchises, but that's my mistake. I'll amend my posts in the future.

Sabremetrics are for more than just scouting. Does anyone think if Bryce Harper where in the White Sox farm system, he'd be an up and coming superstar? Or, more likely, he'd be on the fast track to burning out of baseball by the time he's 30? He'd probably still be in Birmingham, hitting .220 while striking out 45% of his PA's.
Silly you is right. The Nationals minor leagues are ranked fairly low (21 by Keith Law) and you posted this:

Yeah, and look at the results... You're talking about a team that won 95 games last year and probably has the most enviable collection of under-25 talent assembled... maybe ever?


The most enviable collection of under 25 talent assembled...maybe ever?
The Nationals currently have 4 players on their roster under 25. The two no brainers I mentioned and the incomparable Steve Lombardozzi and Anthony Rendon.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-25-2013, 02:41 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 16,258
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SI1020 View Post
I can't say what I want without opening up a giant can of worms. I'll just say that many businesses have lost both the arts of commons sense and evaluation. Particularly evaluation. You can never take a bloodless look at numbers no matter what your business is. It is so shorsighted and unproductive. As for Hawk, kittle will probably be right. Hawk could get steamrolled badly. It wouldn't make him wrong though.
Yeah, the premise that numbers don't lie is wildly false not just because peopel surrender professional judgment but because people are commonly looking at the wrong numbers. That's obviously true in business and in areas that are too political to get into. Sabermetrics isn't just about numbers, but it is about certain numbers being better than other numbers.

It started with metalurgy engineer Earnshaw Cook trying to show statisticlly what he believed, that Ty Cobb was better than Babe Ruth, writing a book that changed the way many look at baseball and gaining disciples that led to many believing they can rely on numbers to judge talent, not just in arguments over who had the better season or career, but who will have the better game, season or career. (By the way, getting back to a discussion a few weeks ago, has anyone looked at Jason Heyward's numbers lately?) The problem is, there is a lot of chaos theory that applies in baseball. There are adjustments on both offense and defense. There are hamstrings and hamate bones. There are short porches and triples alleys.

I read Cook a long time ago and understood what he was saying, and it influenced my belief that if I were the Astros in Game 4 in the 2005 World Series, I wouldn't have bunted the runner over in the ninth. But I would have bunted with Gillaspie in the ninth yesterday, and I was surprised Ventura didn't. The only thing I can figure is he knew more about the situation than I did. If I were Ventura, oreany other manager, I would know, at least hope to know a lot more than the isolated percentages of a situation before I make a decision. If I were a general manager, I would hope to know a lot more that a player's OPS before signing him to a contract, and I'm not talking about his WAR.

This isn't simply because once you get past organic statistics, simple raw numbers and averages, your numbers are getting more abstract. In some cases the sabermetrics people are ignoring organic stats because htey have decided they are unimportant. But how can you ignore Adam Dunn's batting average be unimportant? He is supposed to be an RBI man. He is supposed to be a run producer. You want him to hit with runners in scoring position. You put him in a spot in the order where he can drive in runs. You give him protection in the lineup so pitchers will pitch to him with runners in scoring position. Last year, he was the least likely to get a hit with a runner in scoring posiiton among players with more than a few opportunies on the White Sox, AND he led the White Sox in coming up with runners in scoring position. This year, no one on the White Sox has come up more times with runners in scoring position than Adam Dunn, and he is sub-.100 RISP man. Last year he came up with moe than 30 runners on third and less than two outs -- a deep fly or a ground ball into the shift will do -- and drove in fewer than 10, although Dewayne Wise robbed him in one such situation by being thrown out at third on what otherwise woudl have been a sacriice fly. Such facts should be statistically significant.

Don't tell me about his home runs if he's averaging less than two a week and he isn't doing anything else. Don't tell me about his OPS compared to someone eles's OPS. If you're watching the game, you can see Dunn has been a dismal failure in what he was signed to do, and that is ignoring his season before he was named the AL Comeback Player of the Year.

There was one early stats book, I don't think it was Cook's, that proposed the best batting order would place hitters in descending order based on their on-base percentages. Of course, that ignores that on-base percentages have a lot to do with where hitters hit in the order, who is hitting behind them and even who is on base in fronto of them. Here'w an idea. Let's lead off Swisher because he walks so much and watch him fail. Baseball is a game of role-players. It's a team sport where different players have diferent jobs. Winning is about execution. There are a lot of people who believe that sabermetrics misses the point becuase in their statistical analysis and what they choose to look at they limit what they see in the game.

I have found sabermetrics more popular among people who didn't play the game, although there are a few notable exceptions. In the end, debate on the topic is not going to change any minds. I'm not a Ken Harrelson fan, but I just hope he doesn't embarrass himself.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-25-2013, 03:10 PM
TheOldRoman TheOldRoman is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,832
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
Sabremetrics are for more than just scouting. Does anyone think if Bryce Harper where in the White Sox farm system, he'd be an up and coming superstar? Or, more likely, he'd be on the fast track to burning out of baseball by the time he's 30? He'd probably still be in Birmingham, hitting .220 while striking out 45% of his PA's.
So... what is your argument here? That having saber-versed scouts makes your coaching better?
__________________
In Kenny We Trust 7/31/05
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-25-2013, 03:31 PM
kittle42 kittle42 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lakeview
Posts: 18,227
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dickallen15 View Post
The most enviable collection of under 25 talent assembled...maybe ever?
The Nationals currently have 4 players on their roster under 25. The two no brainers I mentioned and the incomparable Steve Lombardozzi and Anthony Rendon.
Uh, oh!!!!
__________________
Ridiculousness across all sports:

(1) "You have no valid opinion because you never played the game."
(2) "Stats are irrelevant. This guy just doesn't know how to win."
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-25-2013, 04:09 PM
Milw Milw is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Naperville
Posts: 946
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
You're right, silly me, I was unaware that the Nats only fielded a 2-man roster. See, here I went and thought they had a 25-man team like the other 29 MLB franchises, but that's my mistake. I'll amend my posts in the future.

Sabremetrics are for more than just scouting. Does anyone think if Bryce Harper where in the White Sox farm system, he'd be an up and coming superstar? Or, more likely, he'd be on the fast track to burning out of baseball by the time he's 30? He'd probably still be in Birmingham, hitting .220 while striking out 45% of his PA's.
This is ridiculous. Harper was perhaps the most highly touted prospect in generations, and Strasburg is second. The Sox have never had a prospect comparable to either of them; that's not a fault of scouting or coaching, it's because they are once-in-a-generation talents. (OK, Mike Trout fans can argue, but the Sox weren't the only team to pass on him.)

Point is: Criticize the Sox scouting and coaching if you want, but you undermine your argument considerably when you bring Harper into it.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-25-2013, 04:12 PM
kittle42 kittle42 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lakeview
Posts: 18,227
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milw View Post
This is ridiculous. Harper was perhaps the most highly touted prospect in generations, and Strasburg is second. The Sox have never had a prospect comparable to either of them; that's not a fault of scouting or coaching, it's because they are once-in-a-generation talents. (OK, Mike Trout fans can argue, but the Sox weren't the only team to pass on him.)

Point is: Criticize the Sox scouting and coaching if you want, but you undermine your argument considerably when you bring Harper into it.
It is Sox management's fault in the sense that they obviously should have lost more games!
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-25-2013, 04:17 PM
WhiteSox5187 WhiteSox5187 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Southside
Posts: 14,356
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
That is what most teams do
I would THINK that almost every team does that. What bothers me is that there are some sabermetrics commentators out there who completely write off the intangibles or anything that can't really be quantified, such as when Keith Law or Bill James dismiss the idea of "clutch," or even Billy Beane at one point said he would be a better GM if he never saw players play the game. That is what irritates me. When you have guys who at least acknowledge that stats can only go so far, those are the people that are intesting to listen to.
__________________

Go Sox!!!
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-25-2013, 04:19 PM
Milw Milw is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Naperville
Posts: 946
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteSox5187 View Post
I would THINK that almost every team does that. What bothers me is that there are some sabermetrics commentators out there who completely write off the intangibles or anything that can't really be quantified, such as when Keith Law or Bill James dismiss the idea of "clutch," or even Billy Beane at one point said he would be a better GM if he never saw players play the game. That is what irritates me. When you have guys who at least acknowledge that stats can only go so far, those are the people that are intesting to listen to.
This. I've never understood the extremist positions in this debate. People who ignore data analysis are stupid, but no worse than people who dismiss intangibles.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-25-2013, 04:31 PM
kittle42 kittle42 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lakeview
Posts: 18,227
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milw View Post
This. I've never understood the extremist positions in this debate. People who ignore data analysis are stupid, but no worse than people who dismiss intangibles.
I love stats, but this is correct.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-25-2013, 04:41 PM
doublem23's Avatar
doublem23 doublem23 is offline
MMXXIII
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Roscoe Village
Posts: 54,176
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milw View Post
This. I've never understood the extremist positions in this debate. People who ignore data analysis are stupid, but no worse than people who dismiss intangibles.
Nobody would disagree with that. The only people who think there's this giant class of baseball fans that ONLY care about stats and not traditional scouting and intangibles are the ones that ONLY value traditional scouting (a la Hawk) and think that any time someone mentions something like FIP, BABIP, or, god forbid, WAR, means they must hate the human element of baseball.

Stats make baseball better. Not worse.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:10 PM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.