Straw hat or calculator?

[HibachiDG]

We've discussed this a bit in other threads, so I figured why not start one up with the discussion as a focus.

Basically, this question was posed on MLB Tonight on MLB Network last night. Calculator being the more statistically oriented approach with straw hat being the scout's approach.

This is definitely painting with broad strokes, and I feel like the best way to build a team is a bit of both, but, if you had to choose one, which way do you go?

Here are the teams from last year's playoffs and what I think would be their main approach...

Phillies - Scouts
Dodgers - Scouts
Cubs - Calculator
Brewers - Calculator

Rays - Scouts
Red Sox- Calculator
Angels - Calculator
White Sox - Scouts

The Phillies and Rays got to the World Series based mainly on taking players with a lot of tools and a lot of upside. The Angels move further and further to calculator based. The Red Sox were the best example of a team combining traditional scouting with sabrmetrics, but in dealing Manny for Jason Bay, they basically closed the door on that.

[Marc]

I would go with scouts, but it is risky because they have to be right. Numbers can be inflated due to various factors, so hold less importance. If you can find the traits you want in a player via scouting, that is most important, IMO.

[doublee]

Definitely scouts. Calculators fail to factor in a guy's attitude and feel for the game. On paper a guy like Jason Varitek appears to bring little to the table but his leadership and how he handles pitchers is worth its weight in gold.

Look at A-Rod. His numbers are off the charts and his teams have never won a flippin' thing. Just look at the Yankees for that matter. The best team money can buy and they still can't win a playoff series.

[catman]

I like scouting better than raw numbers. The numbers are only as good as the competition that the player is facing. I have seen hundreds if not thousands of minor league players and one can usually tell those who will make it and those who will not.

[philkid3]

There's a pretty big mistake in your assessment of teams in that the Rays are one of the quentisential examples of a statistical-approach organization. They're run by ex-Wall Street folks who apply what is almost exactly a moneyball approach (and be careful you actually know what moneyball is before you question that) to their organization. They build using empirical data to find market inefficiencies. They are absolutely a sabermetric organization, more so than just about any team in baseball. They even a couple days ago eliminated their advance scouting department in favor of computer scouting.

The Phillies and Rays got to the World Series based mainly on taking players with a lot of tools and a lot of upside.

Taking players with "tools" and "upside" has nothing to do with approaching with stat-based analysis or not. Teams are still looking for tools and upside, they are just evaluating them differently. A stat based team like the Rays is trying to figure out exaclty how much skill a player has, by whatever tool, and how much that is worth.

The A's, the original "calculator team" began the revolution by valuing a player's ability to get on base. It's the most important thing in the game, was much more easily determinable at the time and also much cheaper at the time. Since then, the entire market has caught up and the A's have moved to new realms of research, notabably how to value defense and find it cheap. The Rays do the same thing. Having a scientific approach to the game doesn't mean you don't want good players with a chance to get better, it just means you're finding those players with fact-based data analysis.

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. The Red Sox also changed absolutely none of their philosophies with the Manny Ramirez trade, so I'm not sure what that means. They are still a heavily forward thinking organization that employs the works of the very founder of sabermetrics. They just do so with enough resources to approach team building in many different ways that teams like the A's and Rays can't afford.

Calculators fail to factor in a guy's attitude and feel for the game.

And scouts fail to factor in a large sample size, empirical data and weights for the data. Or any sort of cold, subjective look. 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.

[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.

[philkid3]

Hibachi, with all due respect, I think the misconception is on your end. I'm not sure you actually understand what makes a "calculator" team or really much about value in baseball. I say this as a devout sabermetrician and someone whose hobby is baseball analysis and studying the approaches of different teams. I've spent a whole lot of time researching the Rays alone.

"Calculator teams" are teams that approach the game looking at empirical data to find the best players. Those players don't fit a certain type, and that is a HUGE misunderstanding about moneyball and data-based team building in general.

The Rays for three years now have been the picture of a data-driven team.


And avoiding outs is the most important skill for a position player in baseball. It is not the only skill and poor ability can be made up for, but it's the hardest deficiency to overcome with proficiency in other areas. Batting average is a mostly useless statistic, so comparing two players with it tells you very little. And player A is almost certainly better unless player B has a ton of power.


But that is neither here nor there. Anyone who actually knows a bit about the teams knows the Rays are one of THE sabermetric teams, and that is not a recent development, and the Angels are one of THE anti-sabermetric teams, and that is not a recent development.

Just because Mark Teixeira is the kind of player such a team might want doesn't mean a thing. I cannot emphasise enoug that you CANNOT evaluate their approach by merely looking at the players play.

[philkid3]

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

Quite simply, this has nothing to do with building a team via stats or not, and that's your misconception. I recommend doing a bit more research on the subject. Beyond the Boxscore is a great place to read.

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.

First off, you don't understand OBP if you think it's only walks. It is, simply, how often a player avoids getting out. As outs are the only limited resource in the game THIS IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL. There's a reason it correlates much better to winning and scoring than batting average: preserving your outs is not the only concent, but it's the most important. Batting average tells you really little of importance that OBP doesn't.

What OBP lacks is looking at the quality of a player's at-bats. Batting average doesn't do this, either. It treats a single and a home run as the same. Slugging Average does not, and thus suplimenting OBP with SLG gives you a fantastic way to evaluate a player's plate production that BA doesn't.

Essentially, the two most important things for a hitter are 1) avoid getting out and 2) advance yourself and other base runners as much as possible. Batting average doesn't tell you how often a player avoids getting out, and it doesn't tell you how much he advances himself and his teammates. OBP and SLG and OPS can be improved upon, but they are just as simple and available as batting average and tell you much more.


That is neither here nor there, though. The point is that I don't think you have much of an awareness of what teams who build with data analysis are trying to do, or which teams do that. I emplore you to actually research the subject if you want to be an authority on it.

And the Rays just turned around a franchise and went to the World Series with that approach. The A's won far more games year after year than they should have been able to on their dollar and have now built perhaps the strongest farm system in baseball with that approach with that approach. The Indians were a game from the World Series with that approach, and they lost to the Red Sox: a team that has won two World Series with that approach.

One thing I wonder if you understand is that all data doesn't tell you the same thing or look at the same things, and most teams who construct that way are looking at data that you probably haven't even heard of.

[HibachiDG]

I'll put aside which teams are or aren't sabrmetrics oriented. For the most part, I'll stick with the best teams are using both, so when that happens, it can be interpreted several different ways. I certainly still think that the Rays are a product more of scouting than of sabrmetrics, so I'm not backing off that, it's just that we'd be getting into a discussion just on a matter of degree and that won't really get us anywhere.

And avoiding outs is the most important skill for a position player in baseball. It is not the only skill and poor ability can be made up for, but it's the hardest deficiency to overcome with proficiency in other areas. Batting average is a mostly useless statistic, so comparing two players with it tells you very little. And player A is almost certainly better unless player B has a ton of power.

Batting average certainly has flaws, no question, but the idea that OBP has passed it, I don't buy.

Situation: Runner on 2nd, tie game bottom of the ninth, 2 outs. Who do you want up? A guy with a higher average or a guy with a higher OBP? NO ONE is going to say the guy with the higher OBP. You want the guy who has the better shot at scoring the run up there.

First off, you don't understand OBP if you think it's only walks. It is, simply, how often a player avoids getting out.

I don't think it is only about walks, but, you bring up one of the flaws of OBP here. A sac fly hurts someone's OBP, but they just got a run home.

As outs are the only limited resource in the game THIS IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL. There's a reason it correlates much better to winning and scoring than batting average: preserving your outs is not the only concent, but it's the most important. Batting average tells you really little of importance that OBP doesn't.

What batting average does tell you that OBP does not is whether or not someone will be able to move runners more than just one base at a time. If a player has a higher batting average than someone, then it is more likely that they will be able to be more productive when they do get on base.

With certain hitters, you want to have a good OBP, but in certain spots of the order, if you rely on it, you might find yourself hurt by it. For instance, I don't really care about the OBP for a 3-4-5 hitter. The job of those hitters are to make sure that they get runners home. So, OBP becomes much less important to me there. It's all about lineup construction. I don't think I'm downplaying the importance of OBP, I'm just not choosing to rely on it in certain situations.

If your 3-4-5 guys have more emphasis on OBP than average, you damn sure better have a really good bottom of the order to make sure you get those runs home. Not all teams have that kind of consistency from the bottom of their lineup.

The point is that I don't think you have much of an awareness of what teams who build with data analysis are trying to do, or which teams do that. I emplore you to actually research the subject if you want to be an authority on it.

First, I don't think I want to be an authority on the matter, I just have my opinion on it. But, if you think I haven't actually researched the subject or that I need a place to begin reading on sabrmetrics, that's your mistake. Spending time learning about something and then disagreeing with the conclusions is a lot different from not knowing the subject.

My biggest problem with the calculator side of things is that there is so much out there that the surface hasn't really been scratched on the interpretation side of things. Like, relying on OBP in situations where average is still the stat that should get more emphasis.

Quick example, Raul Ibanez vs. Pat Burrell. The Phillies this offseason chose to go with Ibanez over Burrell. Burrell was a plague on the Phillies lineup, despite his high OBP. The addition of Ibanez will, hopefully, make their lineup more productive. The reason is because Burrell hit for a much lower batting average in spots where just getting on base didn't mean a whole lot.

The Indians were a game from the World Series with that approach, and they lost to the Red Sox: a team that has won two World Series with that approach.

I would argue that last season was the only year that Red Sox moved from scouting/traditional approach to the calculator approach. So, I would not agree that the Red Sox won two World Series with that approach. Trading Manny was something they did based on the calculator side of things, because they thought it would be easier to make up for his production. They found out that that really wasn't the case.

But, I just think the main thing here, on placing teams in certain columns, is that we're giving different weight to what teams are doing.

One thing I wonder if you understand is that all data doesn't tell you the same thing or look at the same things, and most teams who construct that way are looking at data that you probably haven't even heard of.

I'm not sure where you're going with the first part of this, but I certainly would admit to not knowing everything that goes into the statistical side of things and am still learning on it.

[philkid3]

I would argue that last season was the only year that Red Sox moved from scouting/traditional approach to the calculator approach.

Then you are incorrect. This isn't an opinion, it's a fact. What do you think Bill James is employed for.

And that's a microcosm of the issue here. As someone elsewhere said when I brought this up: "I don't know how someone could be so wrong yet so sure that he is right."

I came across this thread and joined just to correct you. Several of the things in this thread are not an objective opinion thing, there's a fact to them and you have misinformation. Not to be a jerk, it's just the way it is: you are wrong about several things as a matter of objective fact, not subjective opinion.

But you refuse to accept that you are incorrect, so there's no point in furthering the discussion. You are wrong but you refuse to accept that as a posibility. So there's nowhere else to go with this. As another person linked to this thread said: "It's probably not worth your time." And he's probably correct.

Hopefully, though, I may have gotten to you enough that you will do your research and will make sure you know what you're talking about and have a more informed background on the topic.

Or, you can continue to be wrong and pretend you're right, but as you've been pretty classy, I'm going to go away trusting that you do have the capacity to either stop talking about a subject or learn enough about it that you at least don't spout inaccuracies as fact.

[HibachiDG]

Then you are incorrect. This isn't an opinion, it's a fact. What do you think Bill James is employed for.

So, just because Bill James is employed by the team the transition is instant? They become a calculator team right then? I find that rather hard to believe. I did note that I feel there has been a transition there with the Red Sox, I just didn't really feel that it was full on until the Manny Ramirez trade.

I came across this thread and joined just to correct you. Several of the things in this thread are not an objective opinion thing, there's a fact to them and you have misinformation. Not to be a jerk, it's just the way it is: you are wrong about several things as a matter of objective fact, not subjective opinion.

Not to be a jerk, but you haven't shown what is objective fact, not subjective opinion.

But you refuse to accept that you are incorrect, so there's no point in furthering the discussion. You are wrong but you refuse to accept that as a posibility. So there's nowhere else to go with this. As another person linked to this thread said: "It's probably not worth your time." And he's probably correct.

I'm completely OK with being incorrect. I am incorrect constantly. Because I argue what I believe in I refuse to accept the possibility that I'm wrong? Really? You're going to come with that? Sorry, but you aren't even bringing strong arguments...now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say the reason for that is that you're not even making attempt. Like you said, "it's probably not even worth your time"...and that's the attitude I feel like I've seen. You're just talking me down, not building up you arguments.

Again, just to be clear, I'm not saying you can't defend your viewpoints, I have no idea your knowledge based on five posts, I'm merely saying that I feel you haven't attempted to really support what you've said.

I mean, you come here, tell me I'm wrong and that you're right...then offer up that I can't see the possibility that I'm wrong?

Hopefully, though, I may have gotten to you enough that you will do your research and will make sure you know what you're talking about and have a more informed background on the topic.

Honestly, I've done a lot of reading about the topic and certainly don't plan on stopping any time soon. Before this conversation, after this conversation. I certainly feel like I have a good informed base on the topic, just because I'm less accepting of a lot of things doesn't mean I am not informed about them.

[philkid3]

Came back to post this.

The rays were one of the organizations that had a clue before most others did. One of the priorities of the Wall Street--trained front office that took over three years ago (a former Goldman Sachs investment banker, Matt Silverman, is the Rays' president) was to put an advanced statistical model in place that could measure defense with the same precision that has been applied to offense for years. "It's been a big focus of ours to get to a point where we feel comfortable taking information that we get internally, statistically, and use it with what our scouts are saying," says general manager Andrew Friedman, who was an analyst at Bear Stearns. "We've come a long way." Like the more advanced organizations that over the past few years used Zone Rating and UZR and plus/minus as road maps in developing their own models, Tampa Bay's internal metrics are closely guarded, proprietary secrets.

[HibachiDG]

I don't think I ever said that teams use one style exclusively and believe that I said that most teams, especially successful ones blend the two styles. This doesn't really do anything towards refuting my point. I just think you're placing emphasis on the areas that you want to see success from and de-emphasizing other notions.

[HibachiDG]

Not sure he'll be back to read it, but,

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big...urn=mlb,157414

Rays building a training center in Brazil to try and find some untapped, raw talent. Seems like the Rays are just becoming one of the best at blending both methodologies.

[bama4256]

Scouting all the way.