[HibachiDG]

Phil, I think the mistake you make there is that for the Cubs, Angels and definitely the Rays, you're over-emphasizing the calculator role.

The Rays might be moving more and more towards the calculator side of things, but that doesn't take away that the World Series team was predominantly based on the scouting approach. The basic predominating philosophy that got them to the World Series was to draft the toolsy high upside guys...take a lot, throw them against the wall and hope something sticks.

Now, are they moving to moneyball more now that they'll have less prime draft picks and maybe more money to get a guy long term? Could be. If they get back to the World Series, my interpretation of their team set up might be different, but, I'm just going with the current approach.

Also, the article you linked to doesn't say they are getting rid of scouting, it says they are going to video scouting...it's a huge difference. Live scouts can only be in one place at one time and they have to sit through games of players that they have no interest watching just to see one guy get 4 at bats.

The A's, the original "calculator team" began the revolution by valuing a player's ability to get on base.

And, those A's teams never won in the playoffs. And, they mainly got to the playoffs because they had a great run of pitching and Miguel Tejada, a player who was criticized by the Moneyball approach. The pitching success hasn't been recreated and they haven't been heard from much since.

The Angels are DEFINITELY not a "calculator" team, and I have never seen any information that the Cubs are, either. I'd be interested in something that says otherwise.

I think the misconception with the Angels comes because of their Latin scouting? But, their team as a core was designed around Vlad Guerrero, Torii Hunter and the Mark Teixiera trade midseason. Teixiera is the quintessential example of a guy propped up better than he actually is by the stats game. With the Cubs, you had a ton of really good players with a high OBP that put up the most runs in the NL last season.

I put the Cubs/Angels in the calculator column mainly because both teams are steady teams that lack situational hitting.

You can find nitpicky flaws in every approach, so the best approach is a mix of everything. Teams with limited resources, though, increasingly lean towards the objective large-sample data for a reason, though.

I think I mentioned it in the original post, but I agree that the best approach is a mix of everything...and really, with the playoff teams, I think you can find a mix of everything. I'm definitely keeping it broad, here, though.

It's the most important thing in the game, was much more easily determinable at the time and also much cheaper at the time.

I would disagree that OBP is the most important thing in the game. I definitely do not believe in the idea that a walk is as good as a hit. Say 6 guys come up in an inning, 3 make outs and 3 get on base. Do you want the 3 guys getting on base to walk there or do you want 3 singles? Obviously, you want the singles. Not a great example, but, it illustrates the point that a single can get the run home from 2nd, a walk can't. Or, the second single moves the runner from 1st to 3rd, and if there are less than two outs, that is pretty damn critical.

I think the main reason why I go with scouting over calculator, is because I've really only seen that calculator stuff play out in the regular season. Then, when the game is shortened and you've got to win 3-2 ballgames, making a productive OUT is more important than just being able to get on base.

Player A hits .250 with a .365 OBP
Player B hits .280 with a .345 OBP

I'll take Player B any day of the week and it's not even very close in my mind.

And, I'm not saying purely that batting average alone is the end all-be all stat, just that tossing it aside for OBP does come with some flaws.