Moneyball/Sabermetrics

First, I reccomend reading the book...or atleast skimming the book. If you have a copy and dont want to read the whole thing, I can tell you which chapters are most important.

Generally:
Sabermetricians argue that a college baseball player's chance of MLB success is far and away higher than a traditional high school draft pick. Additionally, sabermetricians maintain that high draft picks spent on high school prospects, regardless of talent or physical potential as evaluated by traditional scouting, are as good as wasted.

Also, sabermetric practicioners like Billy Beane or J.P. Riccardi give much less credence to body-type, general athleticism etc. etc.

Offense:
- On Base % is more important than Batting Average
- Steals generally are useless because the risk outweighs the reward.

Pitching:
I can exactly remember the exact principle, but I'll re-post after I re-read it. Whatever it is, Chad Bradford the reliever is the poster-boy for it..I remember that.

Myth:
That sabermetrics is the end-all and be-all...and there is only one way to do it.

Or as Theo Epstein showed, it is a lot easier to be successful with the moneyball approach when you have a big payroll.

I think Bradford is noted for low WHIP, especially low ratio of walks.

Another stat that evaluates pitchers that Bradford had, was lack of HR's against.

Some of the main stats about pitchers were walks, strikeouts, and extra base hits against them

quote:

Originally posted by Estone28:

Offense:
- On Base % is more important than Batting Average
- Steals generally are useless because the risk outweighs the reward.

Myth:
That sabermetrics is the end-all and be-all...and there is only one way to do it.

I have read it front to back a few times.

Interesting stuff - but if you steal over 95% of the bases attempted - they might want to re-evaluate the risk thing.

It can turn a nothing inning - into a something inning.

IMO.

A couple of other points:

The sac bunt is considered a waste because it gives away an out. Outs are considered precious due to the finite number.

Hitting is a lot more important the fielding. Take the average fielder with the high OBP and OPS over the slick fielder with average OBP and OPS.

Or you could take the slick fielder with the high obp and ops over the average fielder with the high obp and ops.

You dont hit into dbl plays when you sac with no outs. All this computer geek baseball is just that.

Ive read the book. Means nothing to me. Guys that can get on base and guys that can get outs. That about covers it for me.

Sabermetrics is the study of large numbers over time. The trends are real. They're based on real events. It's why you see MLB managers with charts in the dugout. This doesn't mean the short odds event won't take place from time to time.

High school sports don't have large enough numbers combined with the ever changing physical development of players to take advantage of long term statistical trends.

Charts probably wont help you when the guy gets a hit - steals second - steals third - smiles at you.

And then scores on a weak grounder to the second baseman.

quote:

Originally posted by itsinthegame:
Charts probably wont help you when the guy gets a hit - steals second - steals third - smiles at you.

And then scores on a weak grounder to the second baseman.

The chart would provide the trend it's what they do in those situations.

I just want to clarify that I'm not saying it is right or wrong...you still have to have ballplayers to make any philosophy work.

Because everyone is using the same numbers. Is it working out for the Royals? Is it working out for the O's?

The managers that take their personel and game plan according their team strengths will be successfull. Not by going by numbers on a chart.

If I have speed Im going to use that speed. Im going to bunt alot , steal alot and play to MY teams strengths. Im not going to look at a chart that everyone else is going by. Im going to game plan according to what my team strengths are.

quote:

Originally posted by RJM:
The chart would provide the trend it's what they do in those situations.

In the example I just gave - the chart would indicate a trend of getting your *** skunked by a really good baserunner.

LOL

I still recall Reggie Jackson when asked about all his K's---his answer was very simple--"It's better than hitting into a double play"


By the way, as ITS knows all too well--I think the stolen base is an offensive weapon as well as being as a great exciting play---hate to tell how many times the runner stealing second ended up on third base when the throw to second went sailing into the outfield


The new thinkers are making the game too difficult--it ain't that difficult folks

It's wrong to assume that everybody goes by the same chart. There are many different philosphies and many different means of determining it. I think there's only a few teams that actually use sabermetrics in their decision making processes, whether that be for players or game situations.

I don't know if the Royals use the sabermetrics system, or your system. Even if they used your system and lost, that wouldn't be a condemnation of your total system, it would be a single example. I would counter that the A's, Toronto, and the BoSox use sabermetrics and have shown positive results.

When I look out on the field in a high school game I'm coaching (or youth) I don't see too many major league fielders that will have to field that bunt and make a good throw.... that's why at the amatuer level all the Sabermetrics are just interesting reading and in no way good strategy.

T-S, Point well taken. Would you consider it good strategy for College?