Shanks seems to be responding to some caricature reported by Beane’s critics. To so grossly mischaracterize Moneyball is irresponsible. Maybe Moneyball does need a good swift kick in the pants, but Shanks misses so badly that he kicks himself in the face.

But Shanks said that his book was in no way a response to Moneyball!

</sarcasm>

It seems to me that Moneyball made some pretty ambioghtious claims about the right and wrong way to do things. I don't think it should be a suprise when books are written that take an equally strong claims about the right and wrong way to do things. Especially when those books are written about organazations that were and are more successful.

Anyway I haven't read Scouts Honor yet - but I can't wait to.

This thread will turn ugly

ambioghtious = ambitious

I have no excuse - I am ####.

What amazes me is that after 3 years at this site, I know less about Beane-ball or Moneyball than I did when I first arrived.

JC Bradbury saw Shanks’ redemption?

As firm as Clancy Brown’s furrowed brow...

"Oh that's funny. You're gonna look even funnier sucking my dick with no teeth!"

AO

I'm sorry, but if you think Moneyball says that defense is trivial, you need to read the book again.

And if you think that Shanks's book is *all* about proving that the Moneyball approach is flawed, *you* need to read the book again.

-- MWE

And if you think that Shanks's book is *all* about proving that the Moneyball approach is flawed, *you* need to read the book again.

Did someone say that? I count 2 of JCB's first 15 paragraphs as having anything to do with Moneyball. He does say that Shanks (or his publisher, rather), is using the anti-Moneyball angle to sell books. The Amazon review says, "Scout's Honor is the only anti-Moneyball book on the market, argued using the success of the Atlanta Braves - who have won their division 13 of the last 14 years."

As for *me*, I haven't read the book once.

Aw what the hell...

Depending on whom you talk to, Moneyball is either a wonder drug or a plague, and there seems to be little neutral ground on this; you are either for it or against it.

Doesn't this winder drug/plague dichotomy seem two years ago to anybody else? If one wants to move beyond that level of discussion, then why rehash it?

Although he doesn't directly address Moneyball until the last chapter, it's clear what the first 23 chapters are building up to.

Well it's clear to me that a sabre oriented reviewer would think the book was inevitbaly leading up to a crescendo of anti-Moneyball hate, I doubt that other more mainstream reviewers would see it that way. Admittedly, I haven't read the book, but I will be curious to read other reviews from non-sabre folks to see if they pick on the inevitibility of the anti-Moneyball chapter.

The first couple of links about the Bissinger/LaRussa book emphasized its anti-Moneyball screed/heresy aspeects, but on further review much of the anti-Moneyball stuff seemed to have been a marketing add-on from Bissinger and distracting red meat for sabre types.

However, there is one glaring omission: Leo Mazzone.

That's by far the meatiest criticism of the book itself (as opposed to the book as part of the Moneyball debate).

Is Mazzone reticent with the media in general? Sometimes if an author can't get an interview with a key figure that figure gets relagated to the background. Even so, it's a big enough part of the story that is has to be mentioned.

I think Braves scouting director Roy Clark does the best job:


Well, it's the guy you want at home plate with the game on the line and he wants to be there. Or it's the guy who's on the mound in a tough situation and you know that he is thriving on the moment.

Is Billy Beane looking for anything different? How could anyone disagree that this represents an important quality in a player?

I think what JC may be glossing over is that perhaps Clark and the Braves would rather have a player with lesser stats up in that position whereas Beane would probably just take the best player and bank on the probabilities working out for him.

Furthermore, accusing Beane of opposing makeup as it’s defined here is ludicrous, especially considering the "put a Milo on him" scouting discussion in Chapter Two of Moneyball.

I would have liked to have seen the specific accusation that Beane "opposes makeup". I suspect that that is an overinterpretation of what Shanks wrote.

One of the central examples of the importance of makeup in Moneyball is that the five-tool scouts' dream that was the young Beane was simply spoiled by internal demons that scouts missed. And the scouts, in awe of his tools, forgot to notice that Billy's play on the field reflected things that they were missing in their puppy dog eyes. But Lewis doesn't dwell on makeup because it's simply not something that differentiates baseball clubs from one another.

This isn't as good an example as JC thinks it is because the kinds of makeup issues that Beane suffered from would not have come up in the A's crude cut put a "Milo on him" stuff that Lewis described. My recollection is that the A's were "miloing" guys who had serious and obvious personality issues. I think one of the guys robbed a bank or something.

I think you can argue that a team that had the resources and desire to have a scout talk with potential draft picks for a few hours to gauge their makeup would have a much better chance to recognize Beane's potential problems than a team that was doing a rough cut Milo on potential criminals.

I don't think JC's statement that Lewis didn't dwell on makeup because it doesn't differentiate between teams is very well supported.

And though the Braves may stress makeup, they certainly don't have much room to point fingers at the A's as Shanks does. The Braves have overlooked many indiscretions of their own players: Chipper's extramarital affair, Andruw Jones' participation in the Gold Club scandal, Rafael Furcal's two DUIs, and don't forget John Rocker, who fits the mold of everything the Braves crave in a prospect—a smart Georgia high school product with competitive drive. Add to this the past acquisitions of known clubhouse cancers Gary Sheffield and Raul Mondesi.

Why is JC suggesting that the Braves point fingers at the A's on the issue of makeup? Again, I'd like to see an example of Shanks making the A's/Braves comparison. I think JC is probably exaggerating to make a point and not a very good one.

Proponents of good makeup players do not say that they want individual choir boys on the team. Pete Rose was a great makeup player and a scum bag. Teams that talk about makeup have a more on field baseball oriented definition of the concept than the one JC is attacking here.

I'd also point out that these teams tend to speak in terms of creating a collective clubhouse culture. In that way they can incorporate a SHeffield or a Mondesi or whomever because the overall team culture will predominate and the individual's supposed bad character will fade into the background. JC's use of individual exampls of misbehaving Braves players badly misses the mark.

But if Chipper Jones' willingness to lay out a high school player is more important than his career .400 OBP, then I've got some teenagers to punch.

That's just flat out stupid. Nobody ever said that Jones willingness to protect his HS teamamate is more important than a MLB .400 OBP. What's more it frankly suggests that JC did not and does not understand the importance of that Jones anecdote as it relates to the importance of makeup. It may be true that Shanks and the Braves do not do a good enough job of explaining the importance of makeup, but in this statement JC makes me wonder if he's capable of even understanding the points that Shanks and the Braves are trying to make.

Let's just say this is so rather than pretend old scouts possess some quality that sabermetricians just can't understand.

Old scouts posssess observational abilities that sabremtricans can understand, but certainly cannot do. Pretending away this important distinction is a bit of rhetorical misdirection at best.

What's selling this book isn't the story of the Braves. The anti-Moneyball marketing strategy makes this book sexy to the masses.

I think JC is overly sensitive to anything "anti-Moneyball" because he feels that he is in the middle of the debate. I have no idea "what's selling the book" but I can guarantee you that the "masses" are not interested in a point-counterpoint to Moneyball. They're interested in a book about a great and very popular organization. Not everything is part of some big Moneyball vs anti-Moneyball dichotomy. People who don't recongnize that are prone to become overly defensive about "their side" of the dichotomy.

Using statistical techniques, Beane's sidekick DePodesta (whom Shanks feels doesn’t deserve the Dodgers' GM job) finds that OBP is much more important to producing runs than previously thought, not to mention an excellent predictor of future success among prospects.

Is that last bit correct? I don't remember the DePodesta claim that OBP is an excellent predictor of future success among prospects. It's an overstatement about what he said about college players though.

A good chunk of JC's critique of the Shanks excerpt on Moneyball is correct. However, I found most of the last third of the review to be boring and not terribly interesting in addition to only being tangentially related to the book under review.

I only wish he'd stuck to what he does well than veer off into a rant against Moneyball (the philosophy and the book). He fails miserably in this area, and I'm afraid it's the part that people are going to focus on most.

Most people who read this book will be non-sabre Braves fans. They aren't going to focus on the Moneyball aspects at all. JC does a bad job projecting his sabre oriented criticims of the book on other people.

Well it's clear to me that a sabre oriented reviewer would think the book was inevitbaly leading up to a crescendo of anti-Moneyball hate, I doubt that other more mainstream reviewers would see it that way.

I've read it (twice), and I didn't see it that way. Moneyball is mentioned in the intro as the motivating factor for Shanks to write the book in the first place, and then chapter 23 is devoted to a discussion of (some of) the differences between the Braves' approach and what's documented in Moneyball. I agree with JC in that I don't think Shanks really understands what's presented in Moneyball, but in large part I think that's less his fault than Lewis's.

I have a review of Shanks's book written, but I haven't submitted it yet (I need to edit it one more time). But if you go into Shanks's book with the idea that it is really an anti-Moneyball screed rather than a laying out of the Braves' approach to player development, you are doing Shanks a disservice. While Shanks was motivated to write the book by the potrayal of scouts in Moneyball, which was diametrically opposed to his own experiences with them (again, I think the problem there is not so much what the A's actually do as how Lewis portrayed what they do), the book as a whole is a description of what the Braves actually do, and not really why what the Braves do is better than what the Moneyball teams do.

-- MWE

Does Shanks offer a disclaimer of "But, this #### doesn't work in the playoffs" anywhere in this book?

Shanks is an ass-hat.

Again, I just need to mention that.

Mike,
I'll be looking forward to your review (although I am planning on the getting the book anyhow).
I had read 3 nights in August and like parts of it, disliked parts, believed part of it, doubted part of it.
However, I was shocked to read in several reviews/discussions here that it was an anti-Moneyball book. I had to go back and re-read it (admittedly, skim it) to find any references to Moneyball after the preface.
I like JC's studies, but I suspect here that there is more to the book than what met his eye.

CF - thanks for adding a lot to the discusion. I just needed to mention that.

But if you go into Shanks's book with the idea that it is really an anti-Moneyball screed rather than a laying out of the Braves' approach to player development, you are doing Shanks a disservice.

I've almost finished reading it, and beyond intro and final chapter, there are little potshots about Moneyball all over the place. I think it does an otherwise good book a disservice.

I guess thats marketing for you.

I would have liked to have seen the specific accusation that Beane "opposes makeup". I suspect that that is an overinterpretation of what Shanks wrote.


Well, I haven't read the book, but it certainly sounds like Bill Shanks to me. In one of his articles previewing the book this winter, he condescendingly wrote that the Braves do things differently than the Moneyball A's: They actually look at off-the-field behavior.

It's clear at this point that the saber-types ###### up by not reading Moneyball with the skeptical eye it should have. Lewis' anti-scout screed, for instance, provides statheads with an embarrassing cross to bear, but what clearly exacerbated the problem was the reaction to this uncomfortable part of the book from the stat guys: silence, and in some cases outright endorsement. This wasn't the case across the board, of course. I remember Gary Gillette was on Outside the Lines with Joe Garagiola, Jr. and Ken Phelps, and he was critical of parts of the book. I think the rest of us would have been well-served to follow his lead.

Many of the criticisms of Moneyball are simply ridiculous, and come from people who either haven't read the book or are willfully misunderstanding the book and the theories behind it. Bill Shanks is one of them. I have no idea whether Scout's Honor is a good book or not, and I have no idea whether it's supposed to be the anti-Moneyball or not. But from what I know about him, he clearly does not understand statistics or people on the statistical analysis side of the aisle, which doesn't fly with me, given the apparent genesis of the book and the fact that an entire chapter is devoted to it.

But I'd feel a lot better about criticizing Shanks had myself and other statheads offered a real critique of Moneyball at the time of it's publication, rather than the tacit endorsement we gave it.

Rauseo- Your criticism would sting me more if it was coming from someone who didn't consider it community service to lecture the statheads about how much they suck.

In the past, I've mentioned the specific reasons why I dislike Shanks. He's arrogant without cause, a talentless hack who can't write, has no respect for sabrmetrics or sabrmetricians, or for that matter the importance of spirited debate.

So, again, Shanks is an ass-hat.

So is Orson Scott Card.

In the past, I've mentioned the specific reasons why I dislike Shanks. He's arrogant without cause, a talentless hack who can't write, has no respect for sabrmetrics or sabrmetricians, or for that matter the importance of spirited debate.

Shanks can certainly write. Scout's Honor is very well-written, informative, and entertaining in spots.

As far as his having a lack of respect for sabermetrics and its practitioners, I'm inclined to consider it more of a combination of several things, not necessarily in this order:

-- reaction/overreaction to the perceived arrogance of many of the sabermetric writers (certainly I can see this WRT Lewis)

-- lack of understanding of what sabermetrics really is

-- the extent to which his perceptions are shaped by his relationships with those in the Atlanta organization who themselves lack understanding of sabermetrics

And to be completely honest, I think that we bring it on ourselves, by not only expecting, but demanding, respect for sabermetrics while refusing to grant the same level of respect to those who have spent a lifetime working "the other side of the street", so to speak.

-- MWE

"Shanks can certainly write. Scout's Honor is very well-written, informative, and entertaining in spots."

I'll take your word for the book; I'll pick it up in a library at some point, but I'm not spending my money on it.

But I've posted over on BravesCenter, formerly the Braves board of Fanhome, since December of 2000. I even wrote for BravesCenter from its start in 2003 until June of 2004.

During that time, I've probably read hundreds of Shanks' various stories. None of them have been well-written.

If the book's better, great for Bill. But what I've read from him goes beyond unimpressive.

Anyway, that's all just peripheral, though it's more important for me than it is for must.

Rauseo- Your criticism would sting me more if it was coming from someone who didn't consider it community service to lecture the statheads about how much they suck.

In the past, I've mentioned the specific reasons why I dislike Shanks. He's arrogant without cause, a talentless hack who can't write, has no respect for sabrmetrics or sabrmetricians, or for that matter the importance of spirited debate.

So, again, Shanks is an ####-hat.

This is funny stuff. A post defending spirited debate following up its author's "ass-hat" comment. LOL.

And to be completely honest, I think that we bring it on ourselves, by not only expecting, but demanding, respect for sabermetrics while refusing to grant the same level of respect to those who have spent a lifetime working "the other side of the street", so to speak.

You've made this claim in various forms a 1000 times on this site, but I don't buy it. To the extent there's been a "demand[]" for respect, it's because statheads -- or whatever you want to call them -- have been ridiculed and sneered at by those on "the other side of the street" for years. Sabermetrics has only recently made a few inroads into the mainstream of the baseball community, and now its proponents are the bullies and bad guys? Baloney.

During that time, I've probably read hundreds of Shanks' various stories. None of them have been well-written.

Well, what do you expect of a well-written story/book/whatever? Is it that the author presents his points clearly, and argues them well, whether you agree with his thesis or disagree - or is it that good authors agree with you and bad authors don't? If you disagree with an author's central theme, it's strikingly easy to find fault with his writing; if you agree with it, it's also strikingly easy to ignore the same things for which you jump on the first writer's case.

-- MWE

I happen to agree with Emeigh about bringing it upon themselves.

How much ridicule does Joe Morgan have to take before he IS allowed to take it personally? I don't agree with a lot of the things he says, but as an in game analysts(his job) he does a heck of a job. I definately don't agree with the uniformed pot shots he takes at Money Ball, but how much of that is his reaction to being potshotted by the stat community?

Tv people are basically told to attempt to be likeable to the mass market, not the fringe groups. (except guys like Howard Stern who make a living by appealing to the fringe, and guys like Jim Rome that like to repeat the popular thing just louder so that the mass feels like their opinion is the fringe)


the inroads that the stat community has made was made by the stat community kicking and screaming to get in...the problem is that once you are inside you don't have to keep screaming.

" or is it that good authors agree with you and bad authors don't?"

No, that's not it, and I don't particularly like the accusation.

I enjoy the writing I enjoy, if at times it's hard to quantify exactly what that is. If the Supremes can know porn when they see it, I know what I consider to be good writing when I see it.

Now, maybe when I see Shanks' book, I'll see good writing. It's possible. But I've seen his work in the past, and it's far from impressed me.

And I'm not saying that mine is the only correct interpretation; the quality of a particular piece of writing isn't something objective. It's very much a matter of what strikes you well and what does not.

I've lauded the writings of many people whose ideologies I despise; George Will is one of my favorite columnists, and Peggy Noonan is as talented as they come. And both of them espouse ideas and philosophies I hate.

To the extent there's been a "demand[]" for respect, it's because statheads -- or whatever you want to call them -- have been ridiculed and sneered at by those on "the other side of the street" for years.

Look, if you're proposing a change in the way that people have done things for years, you should expect to be attacked - the "shoot the messenger" approach. That's normal behavior; people grow comfortable in the way that they've been doing things, and they get defensive and lash out when those ways are challenged, even when the criticism is valid. But that doesn't give the proponent of change the right to respond in kind.

Make the argument, build the case, and respond to valid criticism of the argument.

Sabermetrics has only recently made a few inroads into the mainstream of the baseball community, and now its proponents are the bullies and bad guys?

Not all of its proponents, not by a long shot. Not even most of its proponents. Just the ones who choose to engage on a personal level rather than addressing the substance of the opposing position.

-- MWE

Make the argument, build the case, and respond to valid criticism of the argument.

I think most saber types do that. Sure, there's some sniping back at the other side, but you can't give one side a pass by saying it's "normal behavior" and then attack the other side for returning the favor.

Not all of its proponents, not by a long shot. Not even most of its proponents. Just the ones who choose to engage on a personal level rather than addressing the substance of the opposing position.

Who are you talking about? The BPro guys?

well he could be talking about Neyer, Bill James or the Baseball Prospectus guys, all of them have crossed an acceptable line in their response to criticism or even in threads where they defended their point of view.

I'm pretty sure that the first comments calling someone stupid was from a saber point of view(of course the first comment that if these guys would just watch a game they would know better, is a thinly veiled attempt to call someone a name)

It's clear at this point that the saber-types #### up by not reading Moneyball with the skeptical eye it should have. Lewis' anti-scout screed, for instance, provides statheads with an embarrassing cross to bear, but what clearly exacerbated the problem was the reaction to this uncomfortable part of the book from the stat guys: silence, and in some cases outright endorsement. This wasn't the case across the board, of course. I remember Gary Gillette was on Outside the Lines with Joe Garagiola, Jr. and Ken Phelps, and he was critical of parts of the book. I think the rest of us would have been well-served to follow his lead.

Just wanted to reiterate this very good point from Tony in post #17.

I think most saber types do that. Sure, there's some sniping back at the other side, but you can't give one side a pass by saying it's "normal behavior" and then attack the other side for returning the favor.

If the side that is proposing change expects to see change adopted, it is that side's reponsibility to avoid making the discussion personal. Once the side proposing change responds in kind, it becomes easy for the side resisting change to dismiss the substance of the argument, and since the side resisting change is usually the final authority, the change doesn't get made even when it might be beneficial to do so.

That doesn't make it right for the side resisting change to become defensive and shoot the messenger, mind you. But the side proposing change has the burden of proof, IMO - and also the burden of responsibility to keep the focus of the debate on the substance of the change, and to avoid making it personal.

Who are you talking about? The BPro guys?

No specific group of people. Some of the BPro guys. Some of the people who post here. Those who act as though there is a "sabermetric way" to run a baseball team, and that the "sabermetric way" is the only right way to do things. Anyone who is not willing to grant that he/she doesn't have the final answer, and that maybe, just maybe, there are other ways to run a team besides the way that he/she thinks it should be run.

If you're a consultant (as I am), you have to remember that your job is not to tell other people how to run their business; you start with the assumption that they know what they are doing, even when they are doing things that are counter to what you typically would do. Your job is to provide them your knowledge and expertise - and to let them decide how best to use it.

It is not the job of the sabermetrician to tell a major league GM or manager how he should run his business. The sabermetrician is just like a consultant. The sabermetrician may violently disagree with the way that the major league GM or manager chooses to act (or not act) on the information he provides, and he may get very upset when the manager of the business acts as though he has nothing of substance to offer, and even dismisses his expertise as trivial on irrelevant. It's the sabermetrician's job to convince people that he does have something valuable to offer - and when he acts as though people should just accept that he has something valuable to offer because he says it's valuable and if you don't see that then you're an idiot, then he's just about eliminated the possibility that anyone will ever see that anything he has to offer is valuable.

-- MWE

And to be completely honest, I think that we bring it on ourselves, by not only expecting, but demanding, respect for sabermetrics while refusing to grant the same level of respect to those who have spent a lifetime working "the other side of the street", so to speak.


I agree with RP's take on Mike' statement above. I don't think Mike's statement is an accurate representation of those who are involved with sabermetrics. Mike's statement is pure opinion, and not factual. Any evidence to the contrary would be anectodal.

***

Those who act as though there is a "sabermetric way" to run a baseball team, and that the "sabermetric way" is the only right way to do things.

There is a sabermetric way, and it is the only way to do things.

The problem is how some (probably most) people define sabermetrics. They liken it to statistical analysis. I prefer the Epstein/Glasses definition. You have performance analysis in one lens and scouting analysis in the other lens. That's what sabermetrics is, encompassing all known data to form an educated opinion.

Only a fool would ignore one of the lenses. A misinformed person would weight the lenses improperly.

Sabermetrics finds the right weights to the lenses.

***

As for criticising Moneyball, I don't see it as a necessity. It was a story, and not a manual. That it dealt with factual events doesn't make it a documentary, any more than Michael Moore's 9/11 was a documentary. It's a story, told by an outsider, who was looking at how one team operates, and presented what he thought were the interesting parts of that operation that people would enjoy reading. That became a home run. I don't think Lewis was trying to write a thesis.

There is a sabermetric way, and it is the only way to do things.

Bingo.

Statistics and scouting are not either/or choices.

I don't think Lewis was trying to write a thesis.

Certainly not a thesis on the subject of baseball, at any rate. Lewis isn't a baseball analyst, or even a particular baseball expert. If Lewis was performing an analysis of any kind, it had to do with the valuation of information in making business decisions.

But more broadly, Lewis' book isn't an analysis. It's a profile, a piece of journalism.

It is not the job of the sabermetrician to tell a major league GM or manager how he should run his business. The sabermetrician is just like a consultant.

I don't understand this analogy at all. Sabermetrics, above all else, is just the effort to analyze baseball objectively and scientifically. Sabermetricians can be consultants, GMs, journalists, bloggers, and anything else they choose to be. If a writer wants to write that a team should be playing X instead of Y b/c the evidence shows that X is a better player, why shouldn't he write that?

If you're a consultant (as I am), you have to remember that your job is not to tell other people how to run their business; you start with the assumption that they know what they are doing, even when they are doing things that are counter to what you typically would do. Your job is to provide them your knowledge and expertise - and to let them decide how best to use it.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with this, Mike.

First off, limiting the sabermetric exercise to the role of consulting is unnecessary, as RP points out. But let's assume the sabermetrician is acting (or attempting to act) as a consultant.

I'm in the consulting business myself, as well. And I don't think it is proper for a good consultant to "start with the assumption that they know what they are doing." Neither do you start with the assumption that they don't. Rather, you start with an open mind on that important question, and allow the facts you gather to inform you whether they know what they're doing or not.

Obviously, from a marketing perspective, you won't win or keep many clients by insulting them. But in the long run, the best way to win and keep clients is by being as honest with them as possible -- and this most definitely includes being candid with them and saying (in the most sensitive and constructive manner possible, of course) that in your opinion they don't fundamentally know what they're doing, if indeed that's your best judgment of the situation.

Obviously a consultant's job is to provide the client with knowledge and expertise, and obviously only the client can decide what to do with it. But if the client's own competence is unexamined (assumed to be no issue), and thus unaddressed, then the consultant may well be failing to provide the client with the most comprehensive, useful, and honest knowledge and expertise to bring to bear on the situation.

I agree with Treder. I'm also a consultant, and I don't go in there with any assumptions. The client sets the parameters, and I work within those constraints.

A sabermetrician, an electrician, a lawyer... whatever. We are provided with an objective or with issues, asked to deal with them, while adhering to the limits imposed.

If a GM wants me to his his right-hand, I'll insult him if that's what the job permits. If he wants me to do some specific task-oriented stuff, then I'll present the results and be on my way.

Just a brief interruption in the discussion, but think this link posted on the Braves newsgroup is worth checking out.

Nate Pudwell

If you clean out the chaff, the story is interesting and the contrast in scouting results is worth considering, but ofcourse the eulogism gets to you :-)

What amazes me is that after 3 years at this site, I know less about Beane-ball or Moneyball than I did when I first arrived.

Yeah, I know. For at least a year now I've been trying to get the guy who posts the most about it to define it for me. Unfortunately he's too big a wuss to source it for me.

It's clear at this point that the saber-types #### up by not reading Moneyball with the skeptical eye it should have.

It wouldn't have made a difference, Tony. Shanks isn't responding to BTF, he's responding to Best-selling Author Michael Lewis. Even then, maybe some dork like Sheehan's stuck in 2001, but there are precious few Lewis-ites around here and there haven't been for a couple of years now.

There is a sabermetric way, and it is the only way to do things.

The problem is how some (probably most) people define sabermetrics. They liken it to statistical analysis. I prefer the Epstein/Glasses definition. You have performance analysis in one lens and scouting analysis in the other lens. That's what sabermetrics is, encompassing all known data to form an educated opinion.

Only a fool would ignore one of the lenses. A misinformed person would weight the lenses improperly.

Sabermetrics finds the right weights to the lenses.

This is a great post. I love its moxie and agree w/it. The problem, however, is the sticky middle, about "performance analysis" and "scouting analysis". Again, I presume everyone who runs a baseball team would agree you make judgments based on all known data, and include both kinds. Surely sabermetrics must be more than a procedural approach, but must have some substance jammed into the "performance analysis" that others would reject. Or am I wrong (again)?

The Braves are glad the Blue Jays do care about stats a little more than they do. They passed on a raw, 6’7” right-hander who throws in the mid-90s and has had little pitching instruction.

Who is already 23 years old. Congratulations on your stunning find.

But for a measly investment of $4000 ($1000 to Pudewell and $3000 to the GBL), the Braves have a projectable arm that they can work with. Any team could have taken the same gamble, but it was the Braves’ trust in their area scout that superseded the need for statistical information.

But no other team took the game, even the scouting-heavy ones. Even the Braves didn't think he was important enough to use the assurance of a draft pick on.

Shanks knows what he's talking about with most stuff but it's pathetic sometimes the way he tries to use things for his own agenda. What should have been a simple story about a guy the Braves found and are giving a chance to turns into him bragging about how Toronto wasn't interested in a very raw 23 year old who apparently has no significant pitching talent other than the fact that he throws hard.

If you're a consultant (as I am), you have to remember that your job is not to tell other people how to run their business; you start with the assumption that they know what they are doing, even when they are doing things that are counter to what you typically would do. Your job is to provide them your knowledge and expertise - and to let them decide how best to use it.

I must say that that totally depends on the type of consulting you do. I doubt anyone at McKinsey thinks that way.

Here's and interesting article by Bill Shanks. The intro: BravesCenter’s Bill Shanks provides a scouting scenario to find out whether fans are statheads or traditionalists. Shanks’s new book about baseball scouting and player development philosophies, “Scout’s Honor: The Bravest Way To Build A Winning Team,” is the answer to “Moneyball,” written two years ago about the Oakland A’s and their reliance on statistical information.

There is a sabermetric way, and it is the only way to do things.

The problem is how some (probably most) people define sabermetrics. They liken it to statistical analysis. I prefer the Epstein/Glasses definition. You have performance analysis in one lens and scouting analysis in the other lens. That's what sabermetrics is, encompassing all known data to form an educated opinion.

Only a fool would ignore one of the lenses. A misinformed person would weight the lenses improperly.

Sabermetrics finds the right weights to the lenses.


Tango and JC,

I respectfully disagree with your take on this situation. I seriously doubt that there is a platonic ideal or complete linear maximized plan that is the right way to run the ballclub. Even if you account for time, personnel, money, etc., I still imagine there is a set of plans that are indistinguishable for producing maximum utility.

I also disagree that its all about weighing. Information, and the processing of information has cost. Decisions are real time. There are certain pieces of information you do not weigh, you do not even ignore, you protect it from coming in the building.

I do agree, the problem is very definitional. When you have guys like Treder defining it as "all that is good" it by definition can't be bad.

And that is the biggest problem. Whatever you (Tango) are doing is good. Maybe it could be better, but its one of the best things happening. Call it what you will.

Whatever Treder is doing is bad. Maybe it could be worse, but I doubt it. Call it what you will.

An organizational philosophy that overvalues OBP at the expense of other skills. That is bad.

An organizational philosophy that overvalues college players compared to high school players. That is bad.

An organizational philosophy that devalues a source of information such as scouting, that is bad.

An approach to baseball that ignores all but stats. That is bad. Insulting others who have more information and make better decisions than you. That is unforgivable.

An organizational philosophy that can't value character (or only recognize it in acute cases of drug abuse or crime) is lacking.

And at the end of the day, I agree with Emeigh.

Too many people that are bad, with bad ideas have styled themselves as sabermetricians. Thus the definition has gotten away from you. The public views sabermetrics as a stats first management plan, not a science. And society makes definitions, not individuals.

I truly hate that those persons have cast a shadow on guys like you and Emeigh.

And Moneyball is the same thing. Its definition is some combination of those gimmicks that Beane used, and marketed as genius while he road the coattails of Alderson's work.

Here's and interesting article by Bill Shanks

By BTF standards, I am pro-scout. But this article rather misses the point. If you have an open spot in low ball an it's a question of signing the kid for peanuts, you sign him - because there's no risk, and no alternative presented; presumably the spot will go to roster filler anyway, so it may as well be someone the scouts like. But what if a lot of other teams are interested in this kid too. Would you throw a 6 figure signing bonus at him? Or could you spend that money better elsewhere? What if you only have one spot left in your minors - and it's a CHOICE between this kid, or a kid who the scouts don't like, but whose college numbers your analysts like?

Ultimately, I think this article actually does scouts a huge disservice, because it suggests their role is finding longshots to use as roster filler. And that is one role, but I also want them choosing the first round draft pick (should the Giants ever have one)!

Yes, I'd sign him.

That shouldn't have been the question. The question should have been "for how much do you sign him?".

The lack of statistical information means that your uncertainty level is high, so you don't offer him as much as you would otherwise.

At the same time, if you only had stats, say of 15 starts, and no scout information at all, your uncertainty level would also be high.

I don't particularly like the question, especially if it's to "prove" something. It's not a good test question.

don't particularly like the question, especially if it's to "prove" something. It's not a good test question.

I think its more of a Cosmo/Foxworthy question,


"You might be a Saberist if you spend a first round draft pick on a fat catcher."

Reread my post, BL. I said I liked Tango for being candid about his conviction (you may have noticed, but the more we press these guys the more they claim sabermetrics is all about exploiting market inefficiencies or some such vague blather), but that the "sticky middle" is where all the issues are. WHat team wouldn't claim they're searching for the right mix of scouting and other kinds of analysis?

I think the point which the author was rather unsuccessfully trying to illustrate was that how scouts are de-valued in a "stat-based" organization like the Blue Jays.

Scout A liked a kid but his organization had different principles and chose to ignore his request. I don't think it is that big an issue, as scouts are there to give suggestions, and often their suggestions are put side/overlooked.

But you suffer as an organization when you are inflexible. You have to learn to adapt and make some decisions which may not be in keeping in with the overall mantra of your drafting but is the right thing to do. So if an organization lost out on a stud relief pitcher because of this, it wasn't because they were stat-based, but because they were inflexible with their policies.

To go back to the analogy of the lenses, those lenses need to be calibrated and re-calibrated depending on the nature of the decision and the state of the organization.

A better analogy in my mind is treating it like a stock market. You have to perform some sort of risk analysis on prospects. You can take the "blue chip" stocks, and play it safe, or you can take some flyers. But what is the ideal strategy in an openmarket where you are trying to maximise profits? a good mix of both, and reacting quickly based on new information. I think drafting should be treated in a similar vein.

"You might be a Saberist if you spend a first round draft pick on a fat catcher."

As a Braves fan it pains me to say this, but the Braves success in first round selections has not been stellar. Mike Kelley? AJ Zapp? Chad Hutchinson? Jamie Arnold? The 2001 draft saw the Braves with 3 first rounders, similar to the A's "Moneyball" draft. They selected Macay McBride, Josh Burrus, and Richard Lewis.

They certainly struck gold with Chipper Jones (picked before Schurholz left KC), but most of their gold(club) was international selections like Andruw and Furcal or players selected or traded for by the prior GM like Glavine and Smoltz -- just as Beane has benefitted (to what degree we disagree) from his predecessor Sandy Alderson.

"An organizational philosophy that overvalues OBP at the expense of other skills. That is bad.

An organizational philosophy that overvalues college players compared to high school players. That is bad.

An organizational philosophy that devalues a source of information such as scouting, that is bad.

An approach to baseball that ignores all but stats. That is bad. Insulting others who have more information and make better decisions than you. That is unforgivable.

An organizational philosophy that can't value character (or only recognize it in acute cases of drug abuse or crime) is lacking."

I wonder, do you consider valuing character strength at the expense of baseball skills bad? Do you consider an over reliance on scouting, drafting high schoolers, or an approach that soley goes on scouting reports is bad? How about insulting others who try out new approaches and have had sucess with them?

How many times do you see a baseball guy say "Oh, we don't look at the numbers". It's Bull$hit, #1, because you simply have to look at the numbers, otherwise you don't know how he's doing unless you have a computer for a brain. Just the same way no organization does any of the things you just listed. Even your nemesis Beane makes trades based on character and drafts high school players. Don't pretend like the arrogance is all on one side. As someone in the middle, I'm sick of it from both sides. Maybe, because your posting is here, you figure you only have to address the "stat" side of it. I just don't see why you would only represent one side of a two sided arguement when you're trying to talk about a successful approach to managing a baseball team.

Reread my post, BL.

My apologies for misinterpreting your applause.

As a Braves fan it pains me to say this, but the Braves success in first round selections has not been stellar. Mike Kelley? AJ Zapp? Chad Hutchinson? Jamie Arnold?

Your premise could very well be true. At the end of the day, they are still getting their guys based on the use of better information that doesn't involve some alleged proprietary formula or some mystical market inefficiency. They also aren't literally cheering when another organization wastes a draft pick on a high school player.

So if an organization lost out on a stud relief pitcher because of this, it wasn't because they were stat-based, but because they were inflexible with their policies.


No its likely both, and probably more because they are "stat based" because they are improperly weighing information. Not even Beane is a big enough blowhard to say, "I know player z is better, but it will make my formula look bad if I tak them." He didn't take player z because he didn't think he was good enough because he was too stat based.

I wonder, do you consider valuing character strength at the expense of baseball skills bad?

That depends on the character and the skills involved, and your existing personnel. YOu don't set up a situation where your roster is dominated with bad character regardless of the baseball skills. Your little spreadsheets aren't telling you enough to where you can distinguish skill at the signing level to a large enough degree where you can weigh it that heavy against character. A scout can weigh both.

Do you consider an over reliance on scouting, drafting high schoolers, or an approach that soley goes on scouting reports is bad?

If there is an overreliance, it is flawed. If its high schoolers at the expense of better talent, yes. Considering your dealing with high school players, I think there baseball performance stats are pretty worthless.

So your attempt at cleverness is misplaced. Its next to impossible to overrely on scouting in this domain.

How about insulting others who try out new approaches and have had sucess with them?


Who is that? I have no problem exposing someone who uses the time honed strategy of winning with reserve clause talent and pretending its about his exploiting market inefficiencies.

Even your nemesis Beane makes trades based on character and drafts high school players

Yep, he's had to abandon those gimmicks when he found out they would just land him in the cellar. And when he does things the right way, we see he's a pretty average GM.

I just don't see why you would only represent one side of a two sided arguement when you're trying to talk about a successful approach to managing a baseball team.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I haven't read Scout's Honor. If it has flaws, then I'll be happy to talk about them.

And as near as I can tell, I was responding specifically to a point made by tango, who I respect a great deal.

Not even Beane is a big enough blowhard to say, "I know player z is better, but it will make my formula look bad if I tak them." He didn't take player z because he didn't think he was good enough because he was too stat based

A little nitpicking afore I pack my bags for the day. Not choosing Player A over Player B despite knowing that Player A is better is downright stupid, or pandering to your egomania if you think the Player A pick is going to make you look bad.
When I was talking of someone being inflexible, I was referring to their thought process, which I think you echoed, but in different ways, when you said that "they were too stat-based". An association's policy extends all the way from its design process to its execution. And while it is laudable to be focussed and have set goals, inflexibility at any level will be detrimental in the long run.

Exploiting market inefficiencies is not a new concept. It has been carried out since time immemorial. The A's hit the spotlight, because they went against the grain and had success. In the era of the toolsy athletes, they went for the beer bellied sluggers ( an exagerration ) as they were perceived as less risky and pay more immediate dividends for the As. I am fine with that policy, as long as it doesn't stop them from drafting the Jeremy Bondermans of this world. That I think was the key to their success in their late 90s drafting policy. I am not advocating that all other clubs follow that philosophy, but I think all clubs should have a policy set out for the type of team they want to draft, and pursue it, while on the other hand, be flexible enough to take advantages any other opportunities that may present themselves.

"Your little spreadsheets aren't telling you enough to where you can distinguish skill at the signing level to a large enough degree where you can weigh it that heavy against character. A scout can weigh both."

Who's spread sheets you arrogant little shithead? You wanna throw me in the spread sheet crowd, then you really are just proving that you don't think before you attack people.

"YOu don't set up a situation where your roster is dominated with bad character regardless of the baseball skills."

And you don't set up a team based solely on character regardless of baseball skills. One is just as bad as the other. No one I know of has ever advocated getting a bunch of bad people to play on the same team (maybe the GM of the early 90s Mets). It's about a balance and why you pretend that there is someone arguing that character doesn't matter is baffling to me.

"A scout can weigh both."

I've never met a scout, but I've only met a few, who had a degree in pyschology. Most character reports probably make their way around the league through word of mouth, not from a scout's special talents.

"So your attempt at cleverness is misplaced. Its next to impossible to overrely on scouting in this domain."

They are two seperate questions, one about the draft, one about scouting on the major league level, I apologize if I didn't make myself clear.

"And when he does things the right way, we see he's a pretty average GM."

So he was better when he was doing things the wrong way? Is that what you're saying?

"And as near as I can tell, I was responding specifically to a point made by tango, who I respect a great deal."

Every example you cited as poor baseball management was about an over reliance on stats, it seemed to me as if there were no organizations guilty of an over reliance on other forms of information, like say the Cincinatti Reds.

Who's spread sheets you arrogant little shithead?

Anyone you even smaller little thinker.

You wanna throw me in the spread sheet crowd, then you really are just proving that you don't think before you attack people.


No, I'm thinking a plenty, you aren't reading and I'm just really tired of dealing with the crowd that has to everything explained to them like they are three year olds. I'd just rather not waste the time, which is why the original post which you misinterpreted so terribly wasn't even directed at you.

And you don't set up a team based solely on character regardless of baseball skills. One is just as bad as the other. No one I know of has ever advocated getting a bunch of bad people to play on the same team (maybe the GM of the early 90s Mets). It's about a balance and why you pretend that there is someone arguing that character doesn't matter is baffling to me.


Baffling you is not a very hard thing to do. If you read, you would see that no one is arguing ignoring baseball skills. If you had even a little bit of analytical or comprehensive ability, you would understand that nobody is arguing either extreme except you. You would realize the whole point is that very many people, including, but not limited to Billy Beane aren't able to properly weigh information to achieve a balance.

But no, just like most of the crowd here you would rather make very obvious nonprobative statements to look clever.

They are two seperate questions, one about the draft, one about scouting on the major league level, I apologize if I didn't make myself clear.


Then make yourself crystal, because I don't think you are pointing at the Braves for overrelying on scouting on any decision. I am very directly saying the A's overrely on statistics and a large number of people on this board overrely on statistics. I'm not stuttering one iota.

So he was better when he was doing things the wrong way? Is that what you're saying?


Nope, I'm saying the same thing I"ve always said, without that core of Alderson talent he's pretty average. His gimmicks didn't work, and when he moves away from gimmicks, we see he has no market inefficiency to exploit.

Who's spread sheets you arrogant little shithead?

Anyone you even smaller little thinker.

just like most of the crowd here you would rather make very obvious nonprobative statements to look clever.


Damned by your own words I would have to say :-)

"Anyone you even smaller little thinker."

Wow, you're full of yourself.
"No, I'm thinking a plenty, you aren't reading and I'm just really tired of dealing with the crowd that has to everything explained to them like they are three year olds. I'd just rather not waste the time, which is why the original post which you misinterpreted so terribly wasn't even directed at you."

That's right, if someone can't understand your poor reasoning, and the reason for you bringing up such extreme examples, they're clearly stupid and not on par with your intellect. But when you can't understand what some else is saying, it's because they weren't clear or couldn't communicate what they intended. Gotcha.

"Nope, I'm saying the same thing I"ve always said, without that core of Alderson talent he's pretty average. His gimmicks didn't work, and when he moves away from gimmicks, we see he has no market inefficiency to exploit. "

Well, then you should have said that, your original statement wasn't very clear. Maybe you lack the capacity to express yourself properly the first time.

"If you read, you would see that no one is arguing ignoring baseball skills. If you had even a little bit of analytical or comprehensive ability, you would understand that nobody is arguing either extreme except you."

In fact, you are arguing an extreme: "An organizational philosophy that can't value character (or only recognize it in acute cases of drug abuse or crime) is lacking."

You said that. So I responded with the counter-extreme as another example of a bad way to run a team. It's pretty simple to understand that. My point is that it goes both ways, you have to weigh the character and the baseball skills. Alot of players are in the bigs despite lacking an ability to contribute because of their character. If any one extreme is close to being excercised in the majors, it's the one I provided. So you provide a bogus extreme, while I provide a more legitimate one, and I'm the one lacking analytical skills and comprhensive ability.

LL Cool J was able to win a lot of Rap battles over his career. It wasn't because he was a better rapper then most of the guys. It was because he was willing to keep saying the same #### over and over again until the guy he was battling got sick of him. You remind of him alot.

Tell me again how Ramon Hernandez outhit Mark Kotsay last year again.

Tell me again how Ramon Hernandez outhit Mark Kotsay last year again.

I'm not arguing any of the larger points, but just pointing out that it was much closer than you think (Petco is an insane pitchers' park):

The difference is a run every thousand games.

"I'm not arguing any of the larger points, but just pointing out that it was much closer than you think (Petco is an insane pitchers' park):"

I'm not arguing that Kotsay outhit Hernandez, I'm referring to the time that Backlasher said unequivocally that Hernandez had outhit Kotsay last year, and then backed up by saying he had a higher OPS+ (he did, by two points), and ignoring the fact that Kotsay had like 200 more abs.

You know, its like how this jerkoff gets on Danny everytime for accidentally presenting sim stats in an arguement.

You know, its like how this jerkoff gets on Danny everytime for accidentally presenting sim stats in an arguement.

Yeah, and that's petty, and I'm tired of seeing it. It adds nothing to his arguments.

So you don't need to start doing the same thing.

"So you don't need to start doing the same thing."

Yeah, you're right. My bad.

I'm not arguing that Kotsay outhit Hernandez,

Then why did you bring it up. Because Hernandez did outhit Kotsay, and he did it while playing catcher. I imagine he's pretty close to doing it again right now when you take all things into account.

Maybe you lack the capacity to express yourself properly the first time.


From your perspective, I really do hope that is the case. In fact, I'd love to become even more cryptic so I don't get in these degraded conversations.

My point is that it goes both ways, you have to weigh the character and the baseball skills.

Wow, that is insightful! I bet most people would have never thought of that.

In fact, you are arguing an extreme

I'm arguing Beane, who is an extreme.
You remind of him alot

Good, you remind me of Vanilla Ice. Now that we know where everyone stands in the rap hierarchy, lay some of that insight on me about how you have to balance things.

What amazes me is that after 3 years at this site, I know less about Beane-ball or Moneyball than I did when I first arrived.

To explain, BL, why my post was prone to a misread. Lately, as you know, the claims about "Moneyball" have involved a tactical retreat. That is why I posed the above at #5 here: all you hear from advocates now is that others misunderstand and misconceive what Moneyball is about. Then you get some pablum about "market inefficiencies" and other weak statements. Tango Tiger boldly claimed no, Moneyball or sabermetrics exists and is the ONLY WAY TO GO. He then followed this up w/the vague statement that I called the "sticky middle." I applaud his commitment and candor. I question the sticky middle.

And Mike Emeigh is my hero.

I also disagree that its all about weighing. Information, and the processing of information has cost.

As does the gathering of information. As does the signing of players. Some teams can afford more than others.

If you are going to sign high school players, you are going to have to do a lot of it based on scouting, because high school stats are pretty meaningless. How do you allocate? Some of the top ones are going to be "cherry-picked" for you by national publications, so you know to go look at them. You can probably concentrate on local guys, because the travel budget is reduced, and if they are fans, they are probably more signable.

After that, the triage begins. It does make sense for an organization like the A's which has a lower financial ceiling to concentrate more on college players, for the quicker return, and because college stats do have a little more meaning. Not to the exclusion of high school, but the balance will be different. They are also probably going to be less involved in the international market, for the same monetary reasons.

Also, I notice here a tendency to once again conflate sabermetrics and moneyball, to the point JC is describing sabermetrics as the exploitation of market inefficiencies, which is what others have called "Moneyball".

For the 10,000th time -- Moneyball is the title of a book. That is all that it is. It is "writing/reporting" by a guy whose main interest is to tell a story that will be as interesting as possible, so as to sell as many books as possible, while being close enough to the facts that he will neither look like a complete fool nor be sued for misreprenting facts. To read it as a manual, or as being completely accurate, is foolish.

Has anyone here ever been personally involved in some incident that was widely reported/written about? I have been involved in several. The reporting was always off. Reporters/writers are trying to tell/sell a story.

As to the definition of sabermetrics -- it will always mean different things to different people. I don't think there is any publicly accepted definition, because frankly the vast majority of even the baseball public neither knows nor cares. So if the "adherents" want to put a definition on it, and can keep arguing and fighting for it, then that definition is as valid as any other, and may eventually prevail. [And if it don't, just start over and call it something else. ;-)]

As to Beane -- he has done okay. I never thought he was a genius (except when he traded for the one true John F. Mabry -- a mark of true brilliance, as the historians, oracles and philosophers all now agree, except for a benighted who will be purged ere long). He does an okay job in a fairly competitive division -- either Seattle or the Angels have been reasonably formidable most years -- with very limited resources. You can see a lot of teams with a lot more resources who have not done nearly as well.

He is no Schuerholz/Cox/Mazzone. But then, he did not start out with Ted Turner's big bucks, before the spigot got turned off by AOL.

The perceptual problem for Beane has been two-fold -- He has exposed himself, by allowing access for Moneyball, as an insufferable sort. And he was oversold by Neyer and others. But, bottom line, he has done okay.

I'm going to frame post #63..

:-)

veyr lucid and spot on!

For the 10,000th time -- Moneyball is the title of a book.

Srul: I'm just following the other JC who uses the term in his review repeatedly. And, I'll add, there's nothing wrong w/following the popular term here. We're talking about Beane's approach, and to vascillate b/w Beaneball, Moneyball, and sabermetrics seems perfectly acceptable in this context.

The perceptual problem for Beane has been two-fold -- He has exposed himself, by allowing access for Moneyball, as an insufferable sort. And he was oversold by Neyer and others. But, bottom line, he has done okay.

And I think I agree, which is pretty consistent with my statements. In fact, I've said "above average" on many occasions.

As does the gathering of information ...

Agreed.

It does make sense for an organization like the A's which has a lower financial ceiling to concentrate more on college players, for the quicker return, and because college stats do have a little more meaning. Not to the exclusion of high school, but the balance will be different.

I think I agree. Where I would diverge is the weight that his placed on those stats. You can probably look at SEC stats and do some decent translation. I doubt you can look at some lesser conferences and get very much information at all.

But here is the real digression. What do you have at the end of the day. Has your strategy given you a competitive advantage in the college information? No, not unless you are spending better scouting dollars there too. Is there an argument to be made that Beane is better at selecting and valuing college talent than other GMs, or is it that some other GMs realize that the high school talent may be better. Maybe the Big 3 establish this.

I can walk into an estate auction with a bunch of curators. I might be able to price and value the Monet, Degas, Renoir as well as them. I might even be able to value the Pollack as well as them. I'm not going to be able to value the next tier of artists as well. If I spend just as much resources as they do, I might come close, but they still may have a better eye than I do.

and to vascillate b/w Beaneball, Moneyball, and sabermetrics seems perfectly acceptable in this context.

"perfectly acceptable"? This is an internet discussion board. Anything short of threats of physical violence and racial slurs appears to be "acceptable". Is that the standard we should strive for?

I am in favor of clarity of thought and clarity of expression. Otherwise, we end up talking past each other.

It is apparent on this thread, and many others.

"perfectly acceptable"? This is an internet discussion board. Anything short of threats of physical violence and racial slurs appears to be "acceptable". Is that the standard we should strive for?

I have low expectations. Read the 1st 10 posts on this site. You'll see I was the only person who raised a question about the terminology, everyone else just proceeded to discuss "Moneyball." Again: the more I read at this site, the less I know about "Beaneball" or "Moneyball" or whatever you want to call it or them. Initially, people were making all kinds of claims about OBP and preferring offense to defense and marginalizing speed and dissing scouting. Initially VERY FEW people questioned those points; very few people said ANYTHING approaching "whoa, these are contextual and merely the current market inefficiencies". Now, the entire thing has shifted. See even the Hudson thread where the former rhetoric (You can't judge a trade by its outcome) is being scuttled in favor of "wait and see: you can't prematurely judge a trade."

But here is the real digression. What do you have at the end of the day. Has your strategy given you a competitive advantage in the college information? No, not unless you are spending better scouting dollars there too.

Well, theoretically you don't have any more information than anybody else. But maybe you're better at adjusting for competition and park. Maybe you use the stats to target your scouting dollars better. Maybe there exists a group of players where the scouts have a blind spot, and you really are better off without the scouting data.

I think Moneyball suggested that two of those three were true for the Athletics. Though I don't think Lewis had any real evidence of it at the time he wrote the book; basically Beane was gambling that it was true in that draft.

What do you have at the end of the day. Has your strategy given you a competitive advantage in the college information? No, not unless you are spending better scouting dollars there too. Is there an argument to be made that Beane is better at selecting and valuing college talent than other GMs, or is it that some other GMs realize that the high school talent may be better. Maybe the Big 3 establish this.

I think I agree, here. I don't think Beane has necessarily gotten a competitive advantage, and those who say he has have probably oversold him, EXCEPT to the extent that they can show overall that drafting college is better than drafting high school. I think that Beane is trying to make a virtue of necessity, because drafting college is probably a better overall monetary choice.

But I am not convinced that it is better for getting great players. I think great players win pennants. I think truly great players more often distinguish themselves before college, so you better grab them if you want them.

I think your actual positions are not that from from mine, and are thus by definition quite reasonable. I also think you cannot keep from rubbing some of the Beane-fan's people's faces in it, whenever his moves come a cropper.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. I intend to take out a full page ad when David Eckstein gets the starting nod at the All Star Game. All it will say is:


HEY KEVIN, HOW DO YOU LIKE ME NOW?

Couldn't touch Rakim.

But I am not convinced that it is better for getting great players. I think great players win pennants. I think truly great players more often distinguish themselves before college, so you better grab them if you want them.

I think that's true on the average, but there are lots of great players who do go to college. As BL mentioned, all 3 of the Big 3 did. Bonds and Clemens both did. Mussina, McGwire, Helton, Glaus, ... I could go on all day. Eschewing high school players does not mean that you can't still get a star. If you do better at drafting college players than anybody else, you can win pennants that way.

Note that my argument in this post is theoretical, and not about Beane specifically.

I am in favor of clarity of thought and clarity of expression.

And I agree with you. Moreso today than in the past. In the past, I mentioned and still believe that I do, and shall continue, to express myself here in a style consistent with oral conversation.

But I'd give that up in a heartbeat for persistent clarity. But it can't be obtained. People will post without reading an article; people will post without reading a thread; and people will post without reading the entire post they attempt to rebut.

Its inevitable degradation. I will stive to make myself very clear, concise and articulate when I am engaging in conversation that is worthwhile. Which, as you have noted, may mean that you will "bring out the best in me."

However, when we do reach the point that we are being concise, you can't sell me so much of the blue sky. You can't tell me your discipline is "all things good and great" and deny me from any definitional position to encompass a class of people.

All those things that Neyer preached wrt Beane; those strategies that eschewed valuable inforamtion or overvalued information; those persons that took all such things on blind faith were wrong. Treder specifically has been wrong about Pitcher Utilization, Steroids, Bonds, and Francisco.

I'll let anybody come up with a class name, and I'll continue to use it until someone tells me, "that is not what X is all about." or some sophistic nonsense about individuals. It is just a waste of time.

But maybe you're better at adjusting for competition and park. Maybe you use the stats to target your scouting dollars better. Maybe there exists a group of players where the scouts have a blind spot, and you really are better off without the scouting data.



Maybe you are right, but shouldn't that be were the discussion is occuring.

Obvously you know my position on DIPS, so let me expand that to a larger hypothesis. How much marginal utility are you getting from these stats?

I am amazed at what some of you real sabermetricians have done in showing past value. I am more skeptical wrt projection for personnel decisions.

I thought James' discovery regarding the correlation of OBP compared to batting average was real. Here we have a real defined hidden skill that can get lost. Having good plate discipline is observable. The repeatable nature of OBP is not.

WHen you are dealing with minor league, high school, and college information, you still have a cost for the data that is stats. Only so much is publically available. WHen you spend more to get more data for stats, the additional amount you spend to get scouting would be pretty small. (e.g. you want pbp, you have to send somebody to the games, and its not much more to send a scout than a charter). Plus, the translation will introduce so much error that the end result has questionable validity.


I don't absolutely disagree with your position. In fact, I think its an area that deserves more discussion.

Why does anyone on this list even respond to Backlasher? He's clearly a moron who gets his jollies riling up the place. Just ignore the dumbass. I'm sick of this, "oh we have to take everyone's critiques seriously" garbage. We have to take serious critiques seriously. The guy's a total joker. He understands neither stats nor critical thinking. If he were serious, he would have enough balls to reveal his identity instead of just being some random brown turd in the punch bowl.

The "emperor" has no clothes.

<shaking>Ooooo, I can't wait for the patronizing third-grade playground comebacks. I'm so scared of Mr. Backlasher. </shaking>

<shaking>Ooooo, I can't wait for the patronizing third-grade playground comebacks. I'm so scared of Mr. Backlasher. </shaking>

Well that infused some humor back into my day. I guess you are still smarting from that little beatdown you got in the DIPS thread. I know its not easy to realize that the little graduate class you took in statistics really doesn't help you do analysis.

And when you learn how to do more than just a few little tricks that were outdated in the 1950s, maybe you can get a chance to sit at the big boys table.

Until then, I find the Hardhat Times B team a constant source of amusement. At least when you confine yourself to book reviews, you can't be shown up by your own A team (i.e. Vinay and Studs).

But you can always go whine and cry on your blog about how great an empirical researcher you are. But like I've told others, please feel free to not respond to me. I'm really not gaining anything from discourse with you.

But I do feel bad for you. So much of your self-image is wrapped up in what you think you have accomplished as an analyst. It must really smart to find out that you really aren't that good.

People will post without reading an article; people will post without reading a thread; and people will post without reading the entire post they attempt to rebut.

Such people are probably not worth a great deal of time and effort. It has been my experience that problem with most of the people who cannot express them with clarity, is that they are incapable of thinking clearly in the first place. GIGO.

All of us will occassionally mispeak, or shoot too quickly from the hip or let our tempers get the better of us. To err is human, etc. Those who are worthy of extended discourse, when that happens, will often reconsider, regroup, and where necesssary retract or even apologize.

Those who do not are not worth the neurons to me. Since I make my living in a state of perpetual conflict, I don't need to spend my leisure time at it. You choose to engage, but then again, you tend to be "called out" by some of these. If you enjoy it, go for it. To each their own, the lady said as she kissed her cow.


However, when we do reach the point that we are being concise, you can't sell me so much of the blue sky. You can't tell me your discipline is "all things good and great" and deny me from any definitional position to encompass a class of people.

Sure I can. You don't have to label classes of people. You can treat them as individuals. Or you be more specific, by referring to them per their specific beliefs.

In Sabermetrics, as in everything else, there will be people who understand a little, and people who understand a lot, and people who go entirely off the rails into error. You speak of "blind faith", but really, can everyone be expected to examine every hypothesis, sabermetric or not, in order to call themselves a baseball fan? Most of us always hear the adage, "don't make the first out or the last out at third base". It makes sense; can we not subscribe to it as received wisdom, until shown otherwise, without running a 40 year statistical analysis?

For some reason, this reminds me of the Passover parable of the four sons -- The wise son, the wicked son, the foolish son and the son who did not know how to ask. Each is responded to, in the appropriate manner.

The wise son, the wicked son, the foolish son and the son who did not know how to ask.

Let me guess, you are the wise, I am the wicked, and cast of thousands are competing for the foolish.

You don't have to label classes of people. You can treat them as individuals. Or you be more specific, by referring to them per their specific beliefs.


I think that is rather inefficient. Schools of thought exist, and why should one try to shy away from them. I'm a Democrat; I'm a union member. It does not mean that I agree with the party or my four partners on everything, but its an appropriate label. And for the Union, you can say we have a very distinct position on the steroids issue with some disagreements over sanctions.

Each is responded to, in the appropriate manner.

And there is more wisdom in that parable than I possess. But its teaching of varying response has been upheld. I do respond differently to different audiences. I just do not use the preffered means with one audience.

I repeat:
If [Backlasher] were serious, he would have enough balls to reveal his identity instead of just being some random brown turd in the punch bowl.

He doesn't, and he won't. The emperor has no clothes.

Schools of thought exist, and why should one try to shy away from them.

I entirely agree, if you want to label a school of thought, and respond. So long as the label fits. By your own standards, if the same label lumps together people whom you consider to be vastly different in their abilities and conclusions, the problem then is not labelling per se, but the specific label chosen.

I'm a Democrat; I'm a union member. It does not mean that I agree with the party or my four partners on everything, but its an appropriate label.

And here, I think you answer your own question. To call someone a Democrat is only the very beginning of the exercise. Scoop Jackson Democrat? Yellow Dog Democrat? [Boy, am I showing my age].