Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
So an example would be, we have a process that combines performance or a player’s résumé with scouting reports, and we do it in a way that makes a lot of sense. It’s derived analytically based off of history and it’s the best match that maximizes the value. It’s a very complicated method of doing that, but we feel like we’ve done it. It needs to continue to get better but we feel like we’ve done it. It’s not a formula that combines things in a haphazard way. It’s a formula that combines things that would’ve worked in the past. So you end up in a discussion and you’re ranking two players, and player A has a better performance track record but player B has better tools, and you’re trying to compare them both. And then when someone starts arguing to put player B above player A because he has better tools, that’s when you need to have discipline in the process and say, ‘We’ve already incorporated that in our decision, so that’s not new information.’ Now, if you’re bringing new information, you’re saying, ‘Player A is sick or has an injury that we didn’t know about,’ then that’s new information and that needs to be baked in there. But to just repeat and sort of disagree with the process and say, ‘Well, I think we should be highlighting tools more,’ or ‘I think we should be highlighting performance more,’ or ‘I think this tool is more important than that tool or whatever,’ we’ve already gone through the discipline of figuring all that stuff out.
But to just repeat and sort of disagree with the process and say, ‘Well, I think we should be highlighting tools more,’ or ‘I think we should be highlighting performance more,’ or ‘I think this tool is more important than that tool or whatever,’ we’ve already gone through the discipline of figuring all that stuff out.
And then part leveraging the free work that people have done for us. I mean, it’s amazing how many websites and analysts and people are out there. Obviously you have to take all of that stuff with a grain of salt because it’s not your own resources and you don’t have quality control or anything like that. But if you’re ignoring that information, you’re leaving yourself at a disadvantage potentially. So really that, the fact that Kevin was really able to do that as a one-man band covering all 30 organizations for Baseball Prospectus, imagine what he can do when you give him 10 full-time scouts and you give him all the resources to generate this.
Ten hours later and still no Lisa. Maybe she really did quit on the Astros.
This is great in theory, but the information has to be really reliable and you have to really confident in your weighting.
The excerpt reminds me of hedge funds that think they have a model locked down or a gambler with a sure-fire system. They seem to want to come up with a way to exclude subjective judgment from their decision making because, let's face it, subjective judgments are wrong a lot.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (0 members)
Page rendered in 0.6381 seconds, 74 querie(s) executed