Baseball- Sabremetrics vs Scouting

[Crapshoot]

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today...107debate.html

Great debate. To me, its clearly that old warhorses come of as just that, but I think its an interesting read for everyone on any side of the debate.

[cuervo72]

Very nice article, thanks!

[Suicane75]

Excellent article. Thanks for the link.

As a lifelong fan I must admit that when Bomber or anyone else for that matter starts busting out stats like DIPS or VOPS or even OPS I completely zone out. I realize that there is something to be said in those stats but when I see a stat that tells me that so and so is better than so and so, i just don't get it, cause i know in my heart that the second guy is the better baseball player, no matter what some stat says.

It's a fine line but I think it's one that was bridged nicely in the article.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

Excellent article. Thanks for the link.

As a lifelong fan I must admit that when Bomber or anyone else for that matter starts busting out stats like DIPS or VOPS or even OPS I completely zone out. I realize that there is something to be said in those stats but when I see a stat that tells me that so and so is better than so and so, i just don't get it, cause i know in my heart that the second guy is the better baseball player, no matter what some stat says.

It's a fine line but I think it's one that was bridged nicely in the article.

Well, See- that's what I rally against. In terms of predictive performance, scouting may have some validity, but in terms of what has happened- it really doesnt. I hate the "I know he's better..... because" arguement. Its the Jack Morris for the HOF or Derek Jeter is a Gold Glove line- intangibles becomes a catch all for a lack of evidence..

[QuikSand]

Good article.

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Well, See- that's what I rally against. In terms of predictive performance, scouting may have some validity, but in terms of what has happened- it really doesnt. I hate the "I know he's better..... because" arguement. Its the Jack Morris for the HOF or Derek Jeter is a Gold Glove line- intangibles becomes a catch all for a lack of evidence..

I guess i can agree to a certain point, but I think the fact that it's a team game gets lost alot in a players value. A guy with all the guady stats in the world means less to me than a guy who produces a winner. For instance, a guy like Adam Kennedy, he doesn't have very good stats, but he brings something to the table that makes me wish he was on my team. Now would i take him over Derek Jeter, no, but would I take him over Jimmy Rollins? I just may, and again, the stats don't bear me out, but for the Phillies, i think Kennedy would be a better team contributer than Rollins.

[Maple Leafs]

Great article. I wish they'd gone on for another ten pages.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

I guess i can agree to a certain point, but I think the fact that it's a team game gets lost alot in a players value. A guy with all the guady stats in the world means less to me than a guy who produces a winner. For instance, a guy like Adam Kennedy, he doesn't have very good stats, but he brings something to the table that makes me wish he was on my team. Now would i take him over Derek Jeter, no, but would I take him over Jimmy Rollins? I just may, and again, the stats don't bear me out, but for the Phillies, i think Kennedy would be a better team contributer than Rollins.

See, Im not sure where you get that from- it seems to me that you've got a belief, with nothing to back it up. Now if you argue Rollins is more injury prone, or that he's not a good bit for a FB staff- that might make sense. Instead, it seems as if there's some quality about him (that Im unsure if you or I or anyone can isolate) that you seem to think is bad- but Im questioning why this is the case. I mean, what evidence exists to support the assertion ?

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

See, Im not sure where you get that from- it seems to me that you've got a belief, with nothing to back it up. Now if you argue Rollins is more injury prone, or that he's not a good bit for a FB staff- that might make sense. Instead, it seems as if there's some quality about him (that Im unsure if you or I or anyone can isolate) that you seem to think is bad- but Im questioning why this is the case. I mean, what evidence exists to support the assertion ?

Thats my point. I WATCH 120 Phillies games a year. I don't see Adam Kennedy alot, granted, but he has a reputation. Seeing Rollins play for 3 years I can say this, he's fast as hell and a good base stealer, he's good defensively, he runs hot and cold but will generaly produce above average stats over the course of the season, and lastly, he just doesn't have IT, and I would take a guy with less stats who has IT on a team desperatly missing IT.

[cuervo72]

Wow, Rollins had a better year last year than I would have guessed. Kennedy is in the ballpark stats-wise I guess, but unless he has a better glove I would side with Rollins, especially given that he's a couple of years younger.

The Phils have other bigger problems (like CF)...

[Bomber]

After reading through the article I think Bane comes off the best. Teams shouldn't pick one strategy or the other, they need to be blended. However, I'm a little shocked that an assistant GM hasn't heard of DIPS. I'd be interested in what CentralMassHokie, our resident stathead, has to say about the article.

[Shkspr]

I agree with Huckabay most of all, but then, I've been listening to him for fifteen years.

I think what bothers me about the whole Moneyball debate is that at its core, it ISN'T about stats vs. scouts as some of the old timers seem to think. What Moneyball is about is the idea that you can maximize your resources by looking for prospects in places the other 29 teams aren't. When Kansas City opened their baseball academy, that was as much a Moneyball sort of idea as sitting Paul DePodesta in a corner with a laptop on draft day. What Billy Beane discovered is that traditional scouting was leaving a lot of players with major league potential by the wayside, and more importantly, everybody else was ignoring them. Just a few short years later, that's not the case. At least three other teams are sniffing around the same pile of players as Oakland is (and one of them won the World Series), so the players that are worth signing that crop up using performance analysis aren't going to be as cheap in the future.

The other big lesson to look at from performance analysis is an underlying idea that is stolen right from traditional scouting: similar players develop similarly. How many players have been described as "the next Willie Mays" or "a young George Brett?" The difference is, we've begun to get sophisticated enough that we really CAN answer those questions, even when the result surprises us. Baseball Prospectus's scouting report on Wily Mo Pena is the famous case in point. Pena had done NOTHING in his career, and yet the computers spat out a rosy set of projections that made even the folks at BP disavow any connection to them. Their projection system was smoking crack.

And yet to everyone's amazement, Pena ended up hitting very closely to the projection. SOMETHING in Pena's performance (his stats) made the computer think Pena was capable of the leaps that Jesse Barfield, Jim Thome, and Matt Williams made at the same age, while still recognizing that there was a chance that he could end up as the new Ron Swoboda. One player doesn't prove a system, and I'm sure that the designers of the projection system are going to be very interested in figuring out how they can use the Wily Mo Pena Experience to better their prediction average. But that "hunch" that paid off for the BP team will probably let a traditional scout keep his job a few more years, since obviously SOMEONE in Cincinnati thought enough of Pena to give him 364 plate appearances despite his previous struggles. Good call.

Traditional scouting is a snapshot of the now. Performance analysis is an essay of the then. Combining both methods of evaluation will pay off later.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by Bomber

After reading through the article I think Bane comes off the best. Teams shouldn't pick one strategy or the other, they need to be blended. However, I'm a little shocked that an assistant GM hasn't heard of DIPS. I'd be interested in what CentralMassHokie, our resident stathead, has to say about the article.

Bane came off to me as someone just saying the right things to stay in the good graces of the sabrmetric organizations he might work for in the future. When he says he reads what Voros writes... um yeah, he doesn't publish anything anymore.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by Shkspr

Pena had done NOTHING in his career, and yet the computers spat out a rosy set of projections that made even the folks at BP disavow any connection to them. Their projection system was smoking crack.

Nate Silver said at one point that someone in the CIN organzation told him that the PECOTA projection on Pena was low.

[Bomber]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

Bane came off to me as someone just saying the right things to stay in the good graces of the sabrmetric organizations he might work for in the future. When he says he reads what Voros writes... um yeah, he doesn't publish anything anymore.

EDDIE BANE: Alan, you said, "You guys may not be aware." That's one of the things we're battling. We are aware. I read these guys' stuff all the time.

This line? I think he's just saying "guys" refering to all the sabremetric work being done, not necessarily just these two.

[CentralMassHokie]

Originally Posted by Bomber

After reading through the article I think Bane comes off the best. Teams shouldn't pick one strategy or the other, they need to be blended. However, I'm a little shocked that an assistant GM hasn't heard of DIPS. I'd be interested in what CentralMassHokie, our resident stathead, has to say about the article.

Basically, it was a fun read. I don't read much more into it than that. Teams that go full bore on the performance analysis side while disregarding somewhat traditional scouting are going to only be marginally better than teams that go full bore on the traditional side without incorporating performance analysis.

Teams that blend it well (right now, the Yankees and the Sox) are going to be the most successful. Of course, it just so happens that those teams are the most wealthy (arguably) and can afford to take risks like that.

There was a really good comment the other day by one of the folks on the Mostly Mariner podcast. He went to hear a Mariners scout speak and was amazed at how little they've progressed in the past 25 years or so - especially for high school scouting. It's still all about projectable body types over performance for high schoolers, since they have no track record. Someone's going to make an advancement there and clean house for a draft or two before other folks catch on.

Anyway, I've read Voros' stuff before and I'd really be interested in hearing the interview, since he comes off kinda snotty and I wonder if he wasn't getting put on the defensive by the traditional guys.

In the long run, stats are only as good as the people who use them. Folks around here (Boston) keep talking about how great Varitek has been and how he's going to have a Fisk-like career, but there's very little evidence of that. In a year and a half, when Varitek passes 1000 games caught, there's a good chance he's going to implode just like every other catcher in history (well, but 3).

Conversely, folks around here are ripping Pedro and talking about how he'll be out of baseball in 2 years, when the reality is he probably just had his early 30s adjustment season (check Maddux, Schilling, Clemens, etc. and you'll see what I mean). Pedro's probably going to be #1/2 starter level for at least 3 or 4 more years.

Ok, I'm way off topic now. Suffice it to say, teams that find the right balance between traditional scouting and performance analysis are going to be the most successful (Red Sox, Yankees, Dodgers, As, Padres). And teams that don't (I'm looking at you, Brian Sabean) are going to slowly fall by the wayside.

Of course, then you look at a team like the Braves who go an entirely different route (basically only scouting the Georgia area) and clean up with their draft picks. Maybe they are the team that has nailed the method for the draft. Punt 85% of the country and concentrate on getting it right about one batch of players. As long as that area doesn't have a downturn in talent, the team could clean up.

[Crapshoot]

Hughes is a blowhard- that's for sure. That was the underlying impression I came away with.

[lynchjm24]

'I want to read a book by Pat Gillick. Or Brian Sabean. Or Terry Ryan—but we can’t get him to brag about himself. These guys won’t do it. When they write a book, I want to read it.'

Nice one Bane. Billy Beane didn't write the book.

Bane:'The future of scouting, and I hope the Angels are ahead of the curve, is we're going to have to understand what Gary Huckabay is writing about. And what Voros McCracken is writing about. We do. And we're going to get it. But the day of not needing a scout to see Mark Rogers and Brendan Donnelly, it's not going to come. I think people were trying to eliminate advance scouting by using Inside Edge or something. That's not working.'

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by CentralMassHokie

Basically, it was a fun read. I don't read much more into it than that. Teams that go full bore on the performance analysis side while disregarding somewhat traditional scouting are going to only be marginally better than teams that go full bore on the traditional side without incorporating performance analysis.

Teams that blend it well (right now, the Yankees and the Sox) are going to be the most successful. Of course, it just so happens that those teams are the most wealthy (arguably) and can afford to take risks like that.

There was a really good comment the other day by one of the folks on the Mostly Mariner podcast. He went to hear a Mariners scout speak and was amazed at how little they've progressed in the past 25 years or so - especially for high school scouting. It's still all about projectable body types over performance for high schoolers, since they have no track record. Someone's going to make an advancement there and clean house for a draft or two before other folks catch on.

Anyway, I've read Voros' stuff before and I'd really be interested in hearing the interview, since he comes off kinda snotty and I wonder if he wasn't getting put on the defensive by the traditional guys.

In the long run, stats are only as good as the people who use them. Folks around here (Boston) keep talking about how great Varitek has been and how he's going to have a Fisk-like career, but there's very little evidence of that. In a year and a half, when Varitek passes 1000 games caught, there's a good chance he's going to implode just like every other catcher in history (well, but 3).

Conversely, folks around here are ripping Pedro and talking about how he'll be out of baseball in 2 years, when the reality is he probably just had his early 30s adjustment season (check Maddux, Schilling, Clemens, etc. and you'll see what I mean). Pedro's probably going to be #1/2 starter level for at least 3 or 4 more years.

Ok, I'm way off topic now. Suffice it to say, teams that find the right balance between traditional scouting and performance analysis are going to be the most successful (Red Sox, Yankees, Dodgers, As, Padres). And teams that don't (I'm looking at you, Brian Sabean) are going to slowly fall by the wayside.

Of course, then you look at a team like the Braves who go an entirely different route (basically only scouting the Georgia area) and clean up with their draft picks. Maybe they are the team that has nailed the method for the draft. Punt 85% of the country and concentrate on getting it right about one batch of players. As long as that area doesn't have a downturn in talent, the team could clean up.

I agree with a lot of what you say here. I wouldn't say the Yankees blend anything right now. They clearly aren't on the Pavano signing. Great pitchers' park, great defense, right handed to Yankee Stadium = DISASTER.

Brian Sabean has a method to his madness. They are going to be cooked for a long time with Barry is gone, but at least he's got a clear goal and is moving towards it - better then about half the teams in the league who just don't have a clear goal.

I think when scouting high school players you do need to look for projectible bodies and 'makeup' to a point. There are no numbers that can be translated or even considered.

Finding baseball players is hard, and neither method is ever going to be very good, but blending is the only way.

[CentralMassHokie]

I think what most of the traditional guys miss is that almost all of the saber guys believe in scouting. They just don't think its the best way to identify talent.

In a saber org, they're running spreadsheets and computer models and identify guys who may have been overlooked by traditional methods (like Chad Bradford or Mark Bellhorn). They then send the scouts out to take a look and identify if there's legitimate reasons to not go after a certain player. Then collate all of that information into something that helps them make an informed decision.

But, like in the IT world currently where some folks irrationally fear their job is going to India, the traditional scouts seem to be fighting tooth and nail in most orgs to buck the system and leak to the media (many of whom are also not enamored with the saber trend since they'll have to learn something new).

It's a supremely interesting time in baseball.

[ISiddiqui]

I think CentralMassHokie hit it on the head. It is exactly like those people who think their job is going to India. It's an irrational fear that they will be replaced by computer and that is how picking players is only going to work. Scouts definetly have a place in the Sabermetrics world, they just have to realize that 'body type' ain't the way to go.

[CentralMassHokie]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

I agree with a lot of what you say here. I wouldn't say the Yankees blend anything right now. They clearly aren't on the Pavano signing. Great pitchers' park, great defense, right handed to Yankee Stadium = DISASTER.

This offseason has been a particularly poor one for the Yankees. But I think that's less Cashman/Michaels and more Steinbrenner.

Brian Sabean has a method to his madness. They are going to be cooked for a long time with Barry is gone, but at least he's got a clear goal and is moving towards it - better then about half the teams in the league who just don't have a clear goal.

I give Sabean a hard time because he started the ludicrous market for SS this offseason. I get what he's trying to do (win while the window with Barry is still open) and even find his whole punt the 1st round draft pick every year since they're not worth the bonus money interesting. I just don't think it's smart.

I think when scouting high school players you do need to look for projectible bodies and 'makeup' to a point. There are no numbers that can be translated or even considered.

Absolutely. It's just that no one has been able to make any steps forward other than talking about strong trunks and clean throwing motions. You figure someone would have figured out measureable methods (flexibility, durability, etc) to identify players who are likely to excel.

Finding baseball players is hard, and neither method is ever going to be very good, but blending is the only way.

I agree completely. And it's got to be from top to bottom in the organization. There's always room for dissent, but there are some tenets I think organizations need to agree on ... stuff like OBP is more important than BA, young pitchers need to have their use watched very carefully, etc.

That's why it amazes me that Baker is still in charge in Chicago. He's pretty much doing the opposite of what the front office is doing.

[lynchjm24]

I think he punts the first round pick because he wants the money in this year's major league budget - not because they aren't worth it.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by CentralMassHokie

Absolutely. It's just that no one has been able to make any steps forward other than talking about strong trunks and clean throwing motions. You figure someone would have figured out measureable methods (flexibility, durability, etc) to identify players who are likely to excel.

This is value in seeing things like a repeatable delivery.... I think that tradional scouting is very valuable and you can win with it - ask Minnesota.

[CentralMassHokie]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

I think he punts the first round pick because he wants the money in this year's major league budget - not because they aren't worth it.

I don't know. Even if that's true, that's pretty short-sighted planning for a team that's completely bereft of talent at the minor league level at this point.

I think the Giants will be competitive this season, but after that ... wow, it gets ugly. Granted, Sabean could blow it all up and start anew when Bonds retires, but they don't have much talent to deal.

[CentralMassHokie]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

This is value in seeing things like a repeatable delivery.... I think that tradional scouting is very valuable and you can win with it - ask Minnesota.

I don't disagree. But I guess what I'm arguing is that you'd think traditional scouts, in an effort to get a leg up on their competition, would have developed some measures to try and improve their craft. It doesn't seem to have happened.

I'm certainly not disputing that a 6'-2", 200 lbs. pitcher with a strong lower half and a fluid, repeatable delivery is almost always a better bet than a 5'-9", 165 lbs guy with the same performance. You'd just think that some of these scouts would have their own NFL Combine type system for evaluating talent quantitatively.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by CentralMassHokie

I don't disagree. But I guess what I'm arguing is that you'd think traditional scouts, in an effort to get a leg up on their competition, would have developed some measures to try and improve their craft. It doesn't seem to have happened.

I'm certainly not disputing that a 6'-2", 200 lbs. pitcher with a strong lower half and a fluid, repeatable delivery is almost always a better bet than a 5'-9", 165 lbs guy with the same performance. You'd just think that some of these scouts would have their own NFL Combine type system for evaluating talent quantitatively.

I think they don't bring them together because they don't want to share info between teams. It's a competitive business and everyone is looking to make their name by finding the next Don Mattingly in the 19th round (or whatever round he went in).

[JeffR]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think CentralMassHokie hit it on the head. It is exactly like those people who think their job is going to India. It's an irrational fear that they will be replaced by computer and that is how picking players is only going to work. Scouts definetly have a place in the Sabermetrics world, they just have to realize that 'body type' ain't the way to go.

There is some reason for them to think that way, though. Moneyball is what's trendy right now, and there'll always be people who jump on that sort of bandwagon without understanding it. I'm sure that at least some of the guys Bane and Hughes mentioned losing their jobs are good scouts that have been replaced by Sabermeticians that won't do any better at identifying talent, just because a knee-jerk owner is following a trend.

But the long-term outlook should be good for both sides. Eventually, the better-run teams will figure out you need both types of guys, and you need them cooperating and communicating. And by that point, maybe they'll get paid what they're really worth. In the non-baseball world, somebody who's a key player in deciding how a company spends $100 million-plus annually on personnel expenses makes a lot more than $50,000 a year.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JeffR

There is some reason for them to think that way, though. Moneyball is what's trendy right now, and there'll always be people who jump on that sort of bandwagon without understanding it. I'm sure that at least some of the guys Bane and Hughes mentioned losing their jobs are good scouts that have been replaced by Sabermeticians that won't do any better at identifying talent, just because a knee-jerk owner is following a trend.

That is a good point, but I'd imagine that the knee-jerk owner would put a Sabermatrcian as the GM, who would counsel against firing the 'good' scout. At least, I'd hope so.

[Ksyrup]

Looks like ESPN picked this up:


http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/column...lan&id=1963830