Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stats vs. Scouts

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Stats vs. Scouts

    I saw this article today and I thought It illustrated the ongoing conundrum in baseball: stats analysis vs. scouts analysis.

    http://www.mccoveychronicles.com/201...prospect-lists

    First, the mere fact that the Giants don't have a single player in the BP Top 100 prospects is a disgrace. While this list is no certain predictor of MLB success (Gary Brown anyone?) it's still a benchmark that the team is failing at.

    The top 100 based upon stats ranks 2 Giants prospects. Which is better, yet still sad in a way.

    My feeling is that stats based upon emotionally maturing kids is a crap shoot. You can't measure with a formula which kid is homesick or intimitated.

    But this balance between stats and scouts is a big deal in every GM's office.
    “Well, I like to say I’m completely focused, right? I mean, the game’s on the line. It’s not like I’m thinking about what does barbecue Pop Chips and Cholula taste like. Because I already know that answer — it tastes friggin’ awesome!"--Brian Wilson

  • #2
    For someone like Clayton Blackburn I think it's the scouting reports that are not high on him. Despite pitching well at every minor league level scouts hammer on him because he doesn't throw hard (high 80's-low 90's) and doesn't have "elite stuff". It doesn't help that he is built like Rick Reuschel either. But I think you and I, KH, would be very pleased if Blackburn pitched like Rick Reuschel for the Giants. LOL!

    Blackburn 1.jpg
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

    Comment


    • #3
      Another Big Daddy would suit me just fine. Dude won a lot of games for the Giants. He was one of those guys who didn't throw 99mph, but upset batters timing by changing speeds and with great location. I love watching pitchers who win more by guile than arm strength. They embarrass hitters more than some guy striking out on a Chapman heater.

      Plus the game could use more guys that look like a bus driver rather than Mr. Universe.
      “Well, I like to say I’m completely focused, right? I mean, the game’s on the line. It’s not like I’m thinking about what does barbecue Pop Chips and Cholula taste like. Because I already know that answer — it tastes friggin’ awesome!"--Brian Wilson

      Comment


      • #4
        the giants are often considered "oldschool" in their recruiting but I'm sure they use plenty of sabermetric stats. still especially for prep Players of course scouting is very important because HS stats don't tell you a lot. there are now national Showcases where prep Players face elite competition but the sample size is of course too small. I think for HS Players the traditional tool based scouting is still the way to go (although the Scouts also use "stats" like 40 Yard dash, velocity and now also ball Exit Speed off a tee).

        the giants System is not very strong right now but in the last years they often had fringy prospects and late round drafts turn into good Players so I would not write them off (that was certainly luck involved but probably also good developement). Also consider that they haven't drafted really high in the last 5-6 years.
        I now have my own non commercial blog about training for batspeed and power using my training experience in baseball and track and field.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by dominik View Post
          the giants are often considered "oldschool" in their recruiting but I'm sure they use plenty of sabermetric stats. still especially for prep Players of course scouting is very important because HS stats don't tell you a lot. there are now national Showcases where prep Players face elite competition but the sample size is of course too small. I think for HS Players the traditional tool based scouting is still the way to go (although the Scouts also use "stats" like 40 Yard dash, velocity and now also ball Exit Speed off a tee).

          the giants System is not very strong right now but in the last years they often had fringy prospects and late round drafts turn into good Players so I would not write them off (that was certainly luck involved but probably also good developement). Also consider that they haven't drafted really high in the last 5-6 years.
          The Giants have admitted to using an extensive amounts of sabernetrics...but they keep it on the down low because of PR.
          1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

          1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

          1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


          The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
          The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
            The Giants have admitted to using an extensive amounts of sabernetrics...but they keep it on the down low because of PR.
            Yes that's why I said they are considered oldschool. I think all franchises use sabermetrics a lot now, it is just that some talk about it ( the cubs, rays, As) while some don't. Some traditionalist fan bases don't like sabermetrics and think that clubs should be run by baseball lifers and not some eggheads from Harvard.
            I now have my own non commercial blog about training for batspeed and power using my training experience in baseball and track and field.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by dominik View Post
              the giants are often considered "oldschool" in their recruiting but I'm sure they use plenty of sabermetric stats. still especially for prep Players of course scouting is very important because HS stats don't tell you a lot. there are now national Showcases where prep Players face elite competition but the sample size is of course too small. I think for HS Players the traditional tool based scouting is still the way to go (although the Scouts also use "stats" like 40 Yard dash, velocity and now also ball Exit Speed off a tee).

              the giants System is not very strong right now but in the last years they often had fringy prospects and late round drafts turn into good Players so I would not write them off (that was certainly luck involved but probably also good developement). Also consider that they haven't drafted really high in the last 5-6 years.
              Dom the thing is that the Giants have a habit of going against old school thought when drafting. Joe Panik is a great example of this. When the Giants drafted Panik late in the first round the baseball community thought Panik was a huge over draft. No other team had Panik rated as a first rounder. The reason was because Panik lacked elite tools that old school scouts love. Panik had limited power, was not fast, and only had an average arm. What Panik had going for him was great contact hitting and drawing walks. But many scouts feared that since Panik had no power the walks would vanish once he got into the high minors. Most scouting reports I read had Panik's ceiling only as a utility player. But Panik has been better than that as he was an NL All-Star in 2015 and he earned it.

              Another guy is Matt Duffy. Given how ugly his hitting stats were in college it's amazing the Giants drafted Duffy in the 18th round. But Giants scouts saw something in Duffy. When a scouting department turns an 18th round pick into a second place finish in the Rookie of the Year that's a win for the scouting department.
              Last edited by Honus Wagner Rules; 02-03-2016, 11:29 AM.
              Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
                Another guy is Matt Duffy. Given how ugly his hitting stats were in college it's amazing the Giants drafted Duffy in the 18th round. But Giants scouts saw something in Duffy. When a scouting department turns an 18th round pick into a second place finish in the Rookie of the Year that's a win for the scouting department.
                This is what I'm talking about. No analytic could have predicted Duffy's rise to MLB. Yet some people think a formula can predict everything. Gotta be both imo.
                “Well, I like to say I’m completely focused, right? I mean, the game’s on the line. It’s not like I’m thinking about what does barbecue Pop Chips and Cholula taste like. Because I already know that answer — it tastes friggin’ awesome!"--Brian Wilson

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by dominik View Post
                  Yes that's why I said they are considered oldschool. I think all franchises use sabermetrics a lot now, it is just that some talk about it ( the cubs, rays, As) while some don't. Some traditionalist fan bases don't like sabermetrics and think that clubs should be run by baseball lifers and not some eggheads from Harvard.
                  St. Louis is a great example. Very traditional fanbase - and one of the most analytical teams over the past 20 years. Yet it is not discussed much publicly and they even put the least analytical human alive as manager in order to appease the fans. Mo always talks about "systems" and "ways" etc.m but he would never use words like analytic or sabermetric, etc.
                  1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

                  1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

                  1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


                  The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
                  The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Before statistical sample sizes are large enough at a meaningful pro level for data to make accurate projections - of course scouts are needed. The need lessons once peripherals have time to establish and sample sizes get larger. Does anybody in the published, professional sabermetric community actually contend scouting is unnecessary?
                    1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

                    1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

                    1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


                    The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
                    The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
                      Before statistical sample sizes are large enough at a meaningful pro level for data to make accurate projections - of course scouts are needed. The need lessons once peripherals have time to establish and sample sizes get larger. Does anybody in the published, professional sabermetric community actually contend scouting is unnecessary?
                      I'm not claiming anything about professionals....I'm just relating my experiences on BBF as being more old school than most. And that has got me hammered here more than once.
                      “Well, I like to say I’m completely focused, right? I mean, the game’s on the line. It’s not like I’m thinking about what does barbecue Pop Chips and Cholula taste like. Because I already know that answer — it tastes friggin’ awesome!"--Brian Wilson

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by KHenry14 View Post
                        This is what I'm talking about. No analytic could have predicted Duffy's rise to MLB. Yet some people think a formula can predict everything. Gotta be both imo.
                        I agree. No analytic or scouting could have predicted Matt Duffy's rise. John Sickels wrote this report right after Duffy debuted for the Giants in August 2014. He mentioned that despite Duffy's poor hitting in college he made good contact and didn't strike out lot. He was just physically weak. He also had speed, could bunt, and hit and run.

                        http://www.minorleagueball.com/2014/...b-in-two-years
                        Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
                          St. Louis is a great example. Very traditional fanbase - and one of the most analytical teams over the past 20 years. Yet it is not discussed much publicly and they even put the least analytical human alive as manager in order to appease the fans. Mo always talks about "systems" and "ways" etc.m but he would never use words like analytic or sabermetric, etc.
                          My other favorite code word for analytics is "process".
                          Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by KHenry14 View Post
                            I'm not claiming anything about professionals....I'm just relating my experiences on BBF as being more old school than most. And that has got me hammered here more than once.
                            IMO scouts will always have a role in professional baseball. I do think the process of scouting has changed dramtically in the last 10-15 years or so. The days of scouts looking for a "good face" or a "rugged look" are behind us now. Even the concept of baseball's five tools is changing. John Sickels uses what he calls the seven skills methodolgy to his scouting. I suspect many major league teams have developed similar approaches.

                            http://static.espn.go.com/mlb/s/down...rm/000427.html

                            http://www.minorleagueball.com/2007/2/15/15013/7071


                            Sickels believe that baseball skills are more important than baseball tools the higher you go in professional baseball.

                            http://www.draysbay.com/2014/3/18/55...lls-over-tools
                            Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
                              Before statistical sample sizes are large enough at a meaningful pro level for data to make accurate projections - of course scouts are needed. The need lessons once peripherals have time to establish and sample sizes get larger. Does anybody in the published, professional sabermetric community actually contend scouting is unnecessary?
                              No, but some "moneyball" Teams have heavily focussed on polished college hitters with good plate discipline in the first 1 or 2 draft rounds rather than taking more raw (but maybe more toolsy) HS hitters. the cubs almost exclusively took college hitters in the first 2 rounds in the last years. the phillies on the other Hand have liked HS Players in the last years.

                              might also have to do with were a Club is. if your window to compete is Close you might take Players with an earlier ETA while a Team that is years away or not needing immediate help might take a toolsy HS guy that might take longer.

                              aren't the Cards also more into college Players recently?
                              Last edited by dominik; 02-04-2016, 03:05 AM.
                              I now have my own non commercial blog about training for batspeed and power using my training experience in baseball and track and field.

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X