Posted by Jtpsops on 2/23/2012 4:00:00 PM (view original):
I'm sure you'll find very different schools of thought. I'm sure the following conservation goes on in many front offices:

Stat Geek: "I don't think Bob's that good. His stats are average"

Scout: "I've watched Bob play, a lot. He's got the goods. He's got all the qualities we want in a player".

And then the GM has to decide which way he wants to go. Money, character and the ever popular intangibles factor in as much as raw numbers.

I think it depends on what level of player you're talking about.  The draft?  Maybe.  I know for high school and college kids stats don't mean much.  Ceiling, make up, and money play a large role.  Minor league stats are usually used cautiously, depending on level, league, park effects, etc.

But for major league player personnel decisions? Stats are king.

Example 1:

The stat: Assist - Jeter

The reality:

Example 2:

The stat: Putout - Jeter

The reality:

:

Posted by tecwrg on 2/23/2012 4:03:00 PM (view original):
But it's a balance.  A balance between what you see on the field and what you see in the stats.  When the two don't appear to align, you need to understand why and adjust your thinking accordingly.  You cannot just blindly follow the numbers.  Not every aspect or nuance of the game can be reduced to a stat in a spreadsheet.

I agree to a point.  But it's impossible to watch and remember all of the plays for just one team, let alone 30.  Your eyes can give you a general idea about something but you don't know that player A is better than player B (assuming they are comparable) without looking at the stats.  All we're really arguing over at this point is which stats.

As a Jeter hater, I refute that example. I still maintain that if Jeter lets that ball go, it still gets Giambi. It was perfectly online, and as he intercepted it, he took it into foul territory and flipped it back. And suddenly that becomes "wow, that throw was way off line and Jeter saved it!!"

Posted by jrd_x on 2/23/2012 3:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/23/2012 3:41:00 PM (view original):
Maybe because "certain people" understand that the game is played by people on a field, and not in Micorsoft Excel spreadsheets?

I think we all understand that the game is played by people on the field.

No one is arguing that the game is played on spreadsheets.  Stats are an important part of baseball and people who love baseball are constantly trying to gain a better understanding of what is actually happening on the field.

Do you think front offices are relying on pitcher wins and ERA?  Or have they moved on to more advanced metrics?  A buddy of mine that works for the padres says their analysts have developed their own proprietary metrics that are way beyond anything you'll find on Fangraphs, especially when it comes to defense.

Deciding that walks/homers are bad while strikeouts are good isn't really "advanced".

Front offices are trying to PREDICT future performance.    That's what they do.   Not walking guys or giving up homers is a good thing. 

They are trying to predict future performance.  But you can't predict the future without understanding the past.  Using advanced metrics to separate a pitcher's ability from the defense behind him, the park he pitches in, and luck helps predict the future.  It also helps us understand which pitchers were good and which pitchers were very good.

Everyone's looking for an edge, there are almost certainly proprietary metrics that aren't known to the wider community.

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/23/2012 4:08:00 PM (view original):
As a Jeter hater, I refute that example. I still maintain that if Jeter lets that ball go, it still gets Giambi. It was perfectly online, and as he intercepted it, he took it into foul territory and flipped it back. And suddenly that becomes "wow, that throw was way off line and Jeter saved it!!"

If Giambi SLIDES and avoids the tag, then it becomes "WTF did that ******* Jeter intercept that ball on the way to the catcher?!"

It would have been close - the ball was definitely losing steam. But A) Giambi is slow, B) the throw was perfectly online, and C) it took Jeter a second to receive it, grab it and flip it, so the original throw could still have made it in plenty of time.

As I said earlier, Jeter's a hustler - that dive into the stands pictured above was gutsy. But "the flip" is a sham.

The dive in the stands was completely gratuitous.  He caught the ball before he got near the stands.   A pop-up slide would've accomplished the same without the ESPN-targeted "dive". 

And Jeter only "hustles" because he has the range of Stephen Hawking.  Haven't you seen his UZR?

Perhaps, but I can give credit where it's due. Most guys with no range would just stand there and say "what do you want from me? I have no range!" He gives the proverbial 110% all the time.

Haters gonna hate.

As for "advanced metrics", I think stat-nerds like to say that because it sounds smart.  There is nothing advanced about "Walk/homer bad, strikeout good".  That's Little League stuff.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/23/2012 8:33:00 PM (view original):
Haters gonna hate.

As for "advanced metrics", I think stat-nerds like to say that because it sounds smart.  There is nothing advanced about "Walk/homer bad, strikeout good".  That's Little League stuff.

Great. I'm glad we agree that Carlton was better than Hunter.

Little bit more to pitching than Little League basics.