How baseball is changing

Friedman played at Tulane

But yeah, Zaidi and others did not.

So what is the big insight from this?  I want my team to have more depth than yours.   I have better players than you all throughout my roster and that will help me win more games.  Really?  Talk about Captain Obvious. 

Any GM worth his salt understands if his 3rd and 4th starter are better than yours he'll win more games.  Old timers would not have been talking about WAR etc. but that would have been his goal to get more better players than you.

What most people never think about the Yankee dynasty of the 30's to 50's was that they were always the deepest team around and had more pitching than anyone.  All the focus is on DiMaggio, Mantle, Berra and Ford etc. and they were a big part of the difference but over 162 games depth matters.

You are severely missing the point in HOW the advantage is created.

No doubt analytics/big data is changing the game.  The challenge is understanding what is most important to your org and having the front office intellectual talent to interpret the data.  It is still a collective effort from prospect evaluation to assembling the best talent on the field and in the front office.  It appears to me that the importance of the front office stat guys has never been more important.  Your all-star first baseman is important but the head sabermetrics guy may be just as important to the organization.  JMO.

Not really.  The approach to evaluating talent has changed with the new measures. 

But the other piece of the comments made was that getting a better backup catcher or an upgrade or two in the bullpen was some reinvention of how to think about building a team.  My response was that adding better players makes a better team is nothing new.  How you measure their value i.e. dollars spent vs. what you get is what has changed. 

I am not a head in the sand the new stuff stinks type of guy....but there are certain things that are time tested.  If my 15-25 is better than your 15-25, then over 162 I will deal with injuries better, I won't wear out my star players and a whole other raft of advantages that comes with depth.  For teams with lower budgets this is the place to try to find the bargain players that help bridge the gap if you can't afford Cabrera or other premium players at the prime of their careers.

If they can do a better job of making decisions and do it cost effectively than some old salt then they are going to become the new front office. 

I thought it was interesting that at around the 3:20 mark, one of the panel members mention taking batter care of the prospects while they are in the minors, especially when it comes to nutrition and training.  I haven't had a chance to finish the whole thing yet.

There will always be room for old school scouting and player assessment. The new metrics are valuable, but decisions are made based on what will happen in the future rather than what has happened in the past. The metrics help in predictability, but there is no perfection.

Often players that have had good years, never have another good year.  Sometimes playears have bad years and then figure things out and become all stars.  Sometimes this  issue to nothing more than slight injury or a mental block.  This is where the old scouting is involved.  This is where the players tools become important.

In some ways the unattractive numbers by a player with big potential can turn into the best value of all.  That player doesn't get the big FA money.  Every year there are many that go from bad numbers to star production.

So yes the game is changing, it will continue to change.  Technology will continue to get better, but IMO some things will never totally change because the past does not always define  the future.  There will always be room for the old fashion way of evaluating and predicting, using the people that rely on experience and instinct.

Metrics change. Bill James is now saying with the decrease in slugging percentage and batting averages, batting averages are rising in importance against on base percentage. He said with less power walks just leave more runners on base. 

I think the poster boy for this perspective this season is Nelson Cruz.  O's got a steal on him last winter.  This time around he'll probably get big bucks...but how many years?

So who'll overpay this soon to be 35 year old player for a 4 or 5 year deal and get maybe 1 or 2 good to decent years and eat the last 2 or 3.  Teams like the Yanks and Red Sox can afford those mistakes but I'd be shocked to see somebody like KC who might be a player or two away taking that risk. 

LHD - I also thought that was a VERY interesting and timely statement given some of the lawsuits in the minor leagues.  If it was my money, I'd spend a few more bucks to give my minor leaguers more creature comforts and better performance food options.  A minor leaguers body is only going to be able to perform as well as the low dollar food per diem he puts into it.  

The Angels and Pirates were the only two teams that finished in the top half of MLB in walks given up.  The other eight playoff teams pitchers were in the bottom half, giving up less walks.

I suppose runs scored would be the most important offensive number for a team.  OBP has to be up there somewhere in importance.

Originally Posted by PGStaff:…

…Technology will continue to get better, but IMO some things will never totally change because the past does not always define  the future.  There will always be room for the old fashion way of evaluating and predicting, using the people that rely on experience and instinct.

Assuming we’re only talking about how players are picked that get into the pro “system”, of course that will never TOTALLY change because too many things factor into it, not because the past doesn’t always define the future. As baseball statistical analysis gets better, and there’s no doubt it will, those who refuse to change from “old fashioned way of evaluating and predicting” will either change or become so irrelevant they’ll be out of the game forever.

I’m really surprised that someone who’s business depends so much on statistics can’t see how they’ve changed the game forever.

WHAT? Are you following this closely? BTW they still have pro and advanced scouts in Baseball.  They can't rely on just the numbers.  And I fully understand the changes taking place and have recognized that many times on here. And we use more modern technology than anyone outside of MLB.  We do get it!

I hope this is not an attempt to simply argue about something.

Back to some more numbers...

Here are the top teams in runs scored this past season.

Angels

Tigers

Rockies

A's

Blue Jays

Dodgers

Twins

Orioles

Nationals

Pirates

Here are the top in OBP

Dodgers

Tigers

Pirates

Rockies

Twins

Blue Jays

Angels

Nationals

Cardinals

Oakland

Of the top 10 teams in runs scored, 9 were among the top 10 in OBP.

BTW, Giants and Royals were mid range on both.

Originally Posted by PGStaff:

WHAT? Are you following this closely? BTW they still have pro and advanced scouts in Baseball.  They can't rely on just the numbers.  And I fully understand the changes taking place and have recognized that many times on here. And we use more modern technology than anyone outside of MLB.  We do get it!

I hope this is not an attempt to simply argue about something.

Jeez PG, I didn’t say or even imply that scouts don’t still play an important part in choosing who goes on and who doesn’t, and I didn’t anytime in any venue ever suggest anyone rely on just numbers for anything!!!!!! Why do you and so many others so quickly jump to the conclusion that’s what number’s people are saying, just because they suggest numbers are gaining in importance? I’ve been around a very long time and I’ve never once heard anyone, even the most vociferous of numbers people say all personnel decisions should be made using nothing but the numbers.

I know you understand the changes. What I said was: I’m really surprised that someone who’s business depends so much on statistics can’t see how they’ve changed the game forever. That was in response to you saying: some things will never totally change because the past doesn’t always define the future. It didn’t mean you don’t understand the game or don’t believe in the numbers.

And I know you use modern technology! In many cases that modern technology you use is exactly what generates the numbers that so many find to be so valuable in evaluating players. Ya know, anytime something is measured, tracked, and reported on, a statistic is generated. In baseball that’s very often far more than hits, RBIs, or wins. Joe’s time in the 60 becomes a stat when you put it in the database so people can see what it was, just like his PG score or rating. And please don’t try to tell me you guys were around 50 years ago. Your stuff is all relatively new when compared to the game, and from what I understand, they’ve changed the game forever, I assume for the better.

So no, this isn’t some lame attempt to simply argue about something. That’s insulting, although I have to admit not untypical of many on this site who want to try to shut me up because they think nothing I have to say has any value. I had always given you far more credit than that, but I guess I’ve been wrong. So I’ll apologize for saying anything.

So many things go into making a high level MLB player that it is impossible to do any of it with a certainty regardless of the method used.

Injuries, substances or lack of competitiveness can cause a player to not reach his "potential".  None of which can be foretold entirely with numbers or the eyeball.  A little digging is required which is leg work.  What kid of kid is he?  How much does he want it?  Can he take the grind physically and mentally?  Some things like size, strength may be indicators but they don't tell the full story. 

Numbers are proof of performance past and may give insight into future performance.  The job of player evaluators is to take all of this in, weigh the knowable estimate the unknowable and decide on which players teams will place their money. 

If you are right more times than not you should have a competitive team.  If you have a good run and make good evaluations consistently over a 3 to 7 year period you build a annual contender for a decade.  

I also think there are two levels - amateur scouting and professional scouting.  Finding the HS and college players that become MLB players will still be the area where the scout makes his bread.  In the professional ranks the numbers will have significantly bigger weight because the playing field is leveled and the chances of explosive change in performance decreases as players establish themselves at that level.  When a guy becomes .285/.350 20HR 12SB for a 2nd or 3rd season in a row...he is what he is for some period of time.  You might get a 28 or 32 HR season along the way but you might also get 12-14.  Over time the norm is going to be 18-22. 

Determining how that guy fits your roster and at what price - that is the game the numbers play.  

A scout on the other hand might find you the nugget that might have 2 or 3 years left in him.  I mentioned Cruz and the number of years he will get yesterday and last night the Mets made a 2 year bet on Cuddyer.  The Dr.'s and scouts have to weigh in on these kind of players to evaluate if bodies and skills are eroding to the point the risk is too high.  The value of the numbers unless there is clear erosion in them is probably less of a factor in these situations. 

Originally Posted by luv baseball:

So many things go into making a high level MLB player that it is impossible to do any of it with a certainty regardless of the method used.

Absolutely true!

…What kid of kid is he?  How much does he want it?  Can he take the grind physically and mentally?Some things like size, strength may be indicators but they don't tell the full story. …

…Numbers are proof of performance past and may give insight into future performance. …

I pulled those out of that post because they generally show the two different sides to this discussion, one being hard numbers that show past performance based on observation, and the other being things that show more about the person than performance. But what many people don’t seem to understand is, they’re both based on observation, and most likely put into some kind of format where the observations about one player can be compared to others. That makes them all STATISTICS.

What matters is, the validity of the observation, how it was saved for later use, and how everything was interpreted, and the organization doing that the best will have the most success. The trouble is, every organization is different, so the same methodology that works for one will likely not work the same way for any other.

Assuming we’re only talking about how players are picked that get into the pro “system”, of course that will never TOTALLY change because too many things factor into it, not because the past doesn’t always define the future. As baseball statistical analysis gets better, and there’s no doubt it will, those who refuse to change from “old fashioned way of evaluating and predicting” will either change or become so irrelevant they’ll be out of the game forever.

I’m really surprised that someone who’s business depends so much on statistics can’t see how they’ve changed the game forever

Stats,

Above is what you posted. 

First of all, you replied to my post directly.  Where did I say that anyone was refusing to change from the old fashioned way of evaluating and predicting? I simply said there will always be room for the old fashioned way of evaluating and predicting, using people that rely on experience and instinct.  In other words there is more to it than simply looking at numbers.  That said the numbers continue to reveal more as we evolve.  Human experience will never become irrelevant, so these people will never be out of the game.  When predicting the future you need to analyze the numbers, understand the things the numbers don't tell you, combine those things to come up with the best possible GUESS at what might happen over the next few years. 

And for absolutely sure the game has changed and it will continue to change, just like everything else in our lives.  I'm not very smart, but I'm not dead yet and can see that very clearly.

Maybe I read your last comment incorrectly.  But this is what you wrote,

"I'm really surprised that someone whose business depends so much on statistics can't see how they've changed the game forever."

Surely that was pointed at me! Perhaps I'm a bit sensitive, but what are your really so surprised about?  Because I have stated numerous times that the game is and will continue to change. Every MLB club is involved in analytics in a big way. I just added they haven't forgotten the old fashion way and IMO they never will.  Someone will always need to grade players on the things the statistics and the numbers don't cover. Someone still will need to "see" players and give opinions.

Anyway, I'm not angry, but I saw your comments as a personal slam.  Not sure you meant it that way. You could have simply disagreed with out adding this last comment.

"I'm really surprised that someone whose business depends so much on statistics can't see how they've changed the game forever."

Originally Posted by PGStaff:

Stats,

Above is what you posted. 

First of all, you replied to my post directly.  Where did I say that anyone was refusing to change from the old fashioned way of evaluating and predicting? I simply said there will always be room for the old fashioned way of evaluating and predicting, using people that rely on experience and instinct.  In other words there is more to it than simply looking at numbers.  That said the numbers continue to reveal more as we evolve.  Human experience will never become irrelevant, so these people will never be out of the game.  When predicting the future you need to analyze the numbers, understand the things the numbers don't tell you, combine those things to come up with the best possible GUESS at what might happen over the next few years. 

And for absolutely sure the game has changed and it will continue to change, just like everything else in our lives.  I'm not very smart, but I'm not dead yet and can see that very clearly.

Then we agree completely.

Surely that was pointed at me! Perhaps I'm a bit sensitive, but what are your really so surprised about?  Because I have stated numerous times that the game is and will continue to change. Every MLB club is involved in analytics in a big way. I just added they haven't forgotten the old fashion way and IMO they never will.  Someone will always need to grade players on the things the statistics and the numbers don't cover. Someone still will need to "see" players and give opinions.

Anyway, I'm not angry, but I saw your comments as a personal slam.  Not sure you meant it that way. You could have simply disagreed with out adding this last comment.

"I'm really surprised that someone whose business depends so much on statistics can't see how they've changed the game forever."

The comment was aimed at you, but was NOT intended as any kind of “slam”, and I’m sorry you took it that way. The reason I made it was because of how I interpreted what you said. There will always be room for the old fashion way of evaluating and predicting, using the people that rely on experience and instinct.

The “old fashioned” way has changed forever and it’s been directly a result of technology. The simple addition of the cell phone has changed the world, including how baseball players are scouted. And let’s not forget the WWW! How many parts of the entire scouting “system” have been totally overhauled in the last 30 years because of it? Do you not believe something as mundane as the radar gun hasn’t completely change that scouting system?

Those changes among others have changed the way players are evaluated and predictions about their futures made, but a heck of a lot of people, you among them, sure seem to want to keep alive the vision of the old cigar smoking scout driving hundreds of miles a day to see some kid no one’s ever noticed before, wearing some scruffy ill-fitting uniform and playing on some decrepit field.

Scouting has changed. The way the players are chosen for more investigation and the way they’re filtered has changed! Sure someone will always show up in person to evaluate players. But instead of carrying around a bunch of 4x9 cards and notes, then sitting in a room with a bunch of others like him trying to convince someone that the guys he saw were worth more of a gamble than the guys the others saw, what he sees will be entered into some kind of database. It’s not as though that information wasn’t available before. It’s that it wasn’t as accessible.

Again, what I said was NOT intended as any kind of “slam”. It was a statement of incredulity that someone who’s been able to do what you’ve done doesn’t recognize just how much the whole process has changed, and in most ways for the better I might add.

Peace.

Once again I recognize all the changes and understand things will continue to change.  That said my point is they will never be able to replace everything the scout sees with his own eyes. Things like how the player carries himself, how he acts, how instinctive, how coachable, how tough, and hundreds of other things that separate one player from another.

It would be unbelievable if being in our business I didn't recognize change.  In fact we have created some of the change.  Still not sure where you got the idea I didn't know that.

Anyway, it's really not that big of a deal.  I'm sure no one cared other than me.  

Originally Posted by PGStaff:

Once again I recognize all the changes and understand things will continue to change.  That said my point is they will never be able to replace everything the scout sees with his own eyes. Things like how the player carries himself, how he acts, how instinctive, how coachable, how tough, and hundreds of other things that separate one player from another.

It would be unbelievable if being in our business I didn't recognize change.  In fact we have created some of the change.  Still not sure where you got the idea I didn't know that.

Anyway, it's really not that big of a deal.  I'm sure no one cared other than me.  

I’m glad it’s no big deal because we completely agree on everything other than you seem to believe that everything the scout sees aren’t statistics. They may not tell anything about past performance in the same manner as say OBP does, but they do definitely measure the player. If those things are considered, they are statistics.