You never know who's watching

quote:

Originally posted by Swampboy:
...You lose a lot of credibility when you take your hyper-objective Spock-like rationality to extremes and pretend people can't tell when a player isn't giving full effort...

I agree. It's kinda like the definition of offensive - I know it when I see it.

(On a side note...boy, this thread blew up in different directions)

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:
Here’s the problem with that premise. For HS players, how many scouts bother to even look at the stats, other than just in a glancing way? So in the case of scouts, either college or pro, I’d say they were going 95% esoteric and subjective things and 5% factual. So what’s being said isn’t that stats aren’t important, its that they don’t exist.

I can't say it any better than Swampboy did. I'll try to add some stuff anyway. You would call it subjective but I would call it factual that a good baseball person could take a look at a player in a competitive environment and determine how good the player is and how far in the game they may go. To them, seeing the swing, the athleticism, the arm strength and action, the way the player carries himself, etc. are facts. To you, subjective.
On the other hand, if that same baseball person had only the player's HS stats to go by, no matter how detailed, he would have no idea whatsoever. Some HS players play at really small schools with really weak programs and put up ridiculous numbers. Some of those same players couldn't smell a college field. That's an easy explanation as to why stats may "not exist" to college and MLB scouts.

quote:

Why would you care as an evaluator of talent? ...if you’re looking purely for the talent, why should you care if he beats his dog and smokes a joint or two? Now there are some colleges and pro programs that care, but judging by some of the fine citizen athletes we produced in this country, I’d say talent trumped all.

Again, not a scout, but I'm sure they are responsible for identifying everything about a prospect and how they will behave in the dugout and off the field are certainly things they would pay attention to.

I must say, this thread seems to be a microcosm of your position on things. As a HS coach, I want to see stats of the opposition (particularly if I don't know them) and I want to be aware of my own players' stats. They are valuable. But if I'm doing my job well, stats are a relatively small aspect, proportionately, of what I base my decisions on. I know what my players can do based on what I see in their play, efforts and attitude at practice and in games. I'm getting better at knowing my league opponents and know their tendancies more than stats may show. I get this right a vast majority of the time. Stats are far less reliable in telling me what I need to know. I know that you will strongly disagree with that. I understand that coming from your position. Sort of.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:
Here’s the problem with that premise. For HS players, how many scouts bother to even look at the stats, other than just in a glancing way? So in the case of scouts, either college or pro, I’d say they were going 95% esoteric and subjective things and 5% factual. So what’s being said isn’t that stats aren’t important, its that they don’t exist.

Stats are relative to the level of competition. If a hitter is hitting .500 off pitchers throwing 80mph, I don't care. If he were to play against higher level competition, he will see sliders at 80mph or harder. How can you compare the two?

Stats are irrelevant.

I was at my son's fall ball game last week. Not a high profile game, not in a big city. There was a coach from a minor league baseball team (he's also a former MLB player) who stayed for the entire game. I'm sure most players weren't aware of who he is. My son, who knows the coach, didn't notice him. I would like to think it wouldn't change how he played.

You might not like what the scout said, but you can't deny the truth of it. You don't know who is watching. You just don't.

quote:

Originally posted by cabbagedad:
I can't say it any better than Swampboy did. I'll try to add some stuff anyway. You would call it subjective but I would call it factual that a good baseball person could take a look at a player in a competitive environment and determine how good the player is and how far in the game they may go. To them, seeing the swing, the athleticism, the arm strength and action, the way the player carries himself, etc. are facts. To you, subjective.

On the other hand, if that same baseball person had only the player's HS stats to go by, no matter how detailed, he would have no idea whatsoever. Some HS players play at really small schools with really weak programs and put up ridiculous numbers. Some of those same players couldn't smell a college field. That's an easy explanation as to why stats may "not exist" to college and MLB scouts.

I’m trying to keep this all on the light side, so please don’t get offended.

I agree that a good baseball person is a far better judge than I, but to say they CAN determine how far in the game they may go, can be seen a couple of ways. If you’re saying they would have a better shot at it because they were making an educated guess, I’ll agree. But if you’re saying they can do any more than that, I’d say you were strrreeeeccctttccchhhinnng things just a bit.

What makes it subjective is, you could line up every scout in the country, and while it would be pretty simple to tell some things, others would cause different evaluations. Now if everyone came up with the same evaluation, that would be different, but I can tell you that that will never happen outside of some guy like Strausberg, and even with him there were a few guys who questioned how long it would be before he broke down. Those few guys were right.

quote:

Again, not a scout, but I'm sure they are responsible for identifying everything about a prospect and how they will behave in the dugout and off the field are certainly things they would pay attention to.

Of course those are things they’d try to evaluate too, but again, how accurately can someone possibly be about guessing how someone’s gonna act 2 or 3 years down the road. Its an educated guess which is a lot better than throwing darts at a dartboard to pick players, but its still a guess all the same.

quote:

I must say, this thread seems to be a microcosm of your position on things. As a HS coach, I want to see stats of the opposition (particularly if I don't know them) and I want to be aware of my own players' stats. They are valuable. But if I'm doing my job well, stats are a relatively small aspect, proportionately, of what I base my decisions on. I know what my players can do based on what I see in their play, efforts and attitude at practice and in games. I'm getting better at knowing my league opponents and know their tendancies more than stats may show. I get this right a vast majority of the time. Stats are far less reliable in telling me what I need to know. I know that you will strongly disagree with that. I understand that coming from your position. Sort of.

I really wish we could sit down and talk over a cold adult beverage, because I know you come away with a completely different idea about my “position on things”. If you could, please indulge me on this. As a HS coach, what stats of the opposition and your players do you want to see, and where do you get your information?

I do understand why most HS coaches believe stats are pretty much inconsequential compared to their own knowledge, but I have yet to see many HS coaches who have access the kinds of stats the pros have. Its like 1+1=2 compared to Celestial Mechanics. I understand that most coaches don’t have some kind of nut like me at their service, but its really rare for me find one who even tries.

The problem is, you don’t trust the numbers, and for good reason I might add. But I’ll tell ya, cdad, you’ve never had my numbers to use. Its not that I’m any smarter than any other HS SK, but I’ll spend hours checking and double checking the data to make sure its valid. Can you tell what hits follow for either your pitchers or your hitters, and do you care. If you call the pitches you sure better because no matter how hard people try not fall into patterns, they do. They may not recognize the pattern, but if you study the number enough, you’ll find them.

So you see, it isn’t that I believe solely in stats, but I sure don’t believe they’re inconsequential either. I always go back to one of my favorite truths. “What you don’t measure well, you can’t manage well.” And then there’s the truth my old friend like to hit me with. “As soon as you think you know it all, you find out how foolish you are.

It’s a process that differs from person to person, and from one point in time to the next, and there’s always something new to learn.

Well I've tried to get caught up on this thread since I've missed most of it due to practice. This thread has truly taken some turns and twists since the opening post. Given the new information about how the coach couldn't be there and the guys were disrespecting the parent filling in would have totally changed my first post. That's just wrong and sends a really wrong image that they should not want. If I'm the coach we're having a "come to coach" meeting that I'm going to do all the talking while they do all the running.

As for the numbers debate that's going on it can't come down to just numbers because you can't quantify everything. You can try and try but overall it's just not going to happen because it's impossible. That's why scouting is just as much art as it is science. You have to use numbers to get a baseline but at some point you just have to know if a guy has "IT" or not.

If scouting was all science we could take a guy off the street and teach them the numbers and they would be successful but that's not the case. I may be way off here but I think I read something somewhere that the best scouts are only right about 10% of the time when it comes to picking guys who make it. That shows it's mainly all about the art instead of the numbers.

What redbird and the others have said about stats being irrelevant is true. You can twist and turn stats to make them whatever you want. For example - last season when our guy was being scouted there was this team we play in our conference that is very, very bad. We told the scouts to not even bother coming because our guy would probably go 4 - 4 against them with all rocket shots. He did but in the grand scheme of things he will NEVER in his life see pitching that bad again. So there's nothing good about being 4 - 4 against that team. We played a team who was the 4A state champion (we're 1A) the year before and the scouts were lined up elbow to ******** deep to watch that game. Our guy only had one hit but he had four great at bats. So which was the more impressive outing to have scouts judge? I'm going to say the 1 - 4 game was better for him.

Thing is you can't quantify the impression our guy made with the 1 - 4 because that is the art of scouting.

This is what's tough about scouting - what if a team only plays teams like the one our guy went 4 - 4 on? The sad thing is this happens and it makes it tough for a scout to judge talent. He now has to best guess if this guy has the talent to play against better teams. This is all art and no numbers in the world can help him make this determination.

Now there are some numbers that are beneficial because they are the standards all are judged by. A 60 yard dash, home to first out of the box, catcher's pop time, pitcher's delivery to the plate and several others. This is why you see scouts with stopwatches at games - to hopefully be able to measure these numbers against the baseline standard. But there is still an art to it - can someone work with this guy to shave a little off the time they have established?

It's a tough job and not many can do it.

Now maybe as I've read through this rather quickly I've missed out on something that makes all what I put sound pointless. I've already established I'm not thinking all that clearly today LOL.

quote:

With that info, I see the situation in a different light, why didn't you provide us with that info from the beginning?

I didn't have all the details with my original post.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:
I really wish we could sit down and talk over a cold adult beverage, because I know you come away with a completely different idea about my “position on things”. If you could, please indulge me on this. As a HS coach, what stats of the opposition and your players do you want to see, and where do you get your information?

I do understand why most HS coaches believe stats are pretty much inconsequential compared to their own knowledge, but I have yet to see many HS coaches who have access the kinds of stats the pros have.... The problem is, you don’t trust the numbers, and for good reason I might add. But I’ll tell ya, cdad, you’ve never had my numbers to use. Its not that I’m any smarter than any other HS SK, but I’ll spend hours checking and double checking the data to make sure its valid. Can you tell what hits follow for either your pitchers or your hitters, and do you care. If you call the pitches you sure better because no matter how hard people try not fall into patterns, they do. They may not recognize the pattern, but if you study the number enough, you’ll find them.

It’s a process that differs from person to person, and from one point in time to the next, and there’s always something new to learn.

Cold beverage sounds good.

We only play our league opponents twice a year. HS teams and even returning players change from year to year. No matter how good SK is, you're not going to get much on opponents via stats other than Maxpreps and, as you know, those are just the basics.
The HS season is short - 20+ games, give or take. With that small of a sample, a HS coach is generally going to know far more about his players' abilities and tendancies by seeing him every day in practice, simulated hitting, situational drills, bullpens, scrimmages, cage work, observed year-to-year adjustments and improvements, etc., than he will know from game stats. By the time the stats start amounting to something, season over. And then, many seasoned opponents pull their Maxpreps stats. Even when I do see end-of-season stats, I can usually can pick up more from watching an opposing player's practice swing, warmup throws, in/outs, etc. than I can from the numbers.
So you are right, we don't rely on them because we don't have the stats the pros have on opponents. And we already know more than what they would tell us about our own players. Additionally, my efforts are much more focused on the improvement and progression of our players instead of assuming they will perform at the same stagnant level as what last year numbers may indicate. It's the reality of HS ball. If it were a higher level with more relevant info available, I'd be all over it.

I do, however, totally agree with the statement that there's always something new to learn.
Cheers.

Stats- The stats a high school coach wants has nothing to do with what a professional scout wants. I believe that's the main point here, and why everyone is seemingly confused at what you're getting at.

As a coach I definitely want those figures you provide. As a scout, I couldn't care less about them.

Great thread.

Whether you are a youth player, h.s. player, college player or MLB player, there is only ONE way to play the game.

Balls to the wall.

I don't know how a thread regarding "you never know who's watching" can turn into a debate on the importance of HS statistics? However, I do know that I've agreed with the majority of the responses on this thread that dispute HS stats, especially as it pertains to schools in different divisions/sections.

Bsbl247-son played with a young man this past summer that was being compared to Bryce Harper after his junior year of high school by the HS sports writers in his area. This kid is a very good player that will be attending an excellent D1 school with one of our esteemed HSBBWebster's son. There's no doubt that he has some tools, but he's not in Harper's class. Anyway, he had an incredible high school season his junior year, statistically his numbers were off the charts. But he was playing in a very small league in a neighboring state. His family moved to Southern California for his senior year of HS to get more exposure, and although he had a good season, his stats were no where near what they were in the much weaker league he had previously played in.

It just goes to show that you can't compare a player's statistics in one area compared to another.

Digressing back to the original post, I have no problem with kids attending their Homecoming Dance, the kids should participate in their school's events. But have some respect for your team, the coach (parent), and yourselves...and show up in the morning prepared to play the game.

quote:

Originally posted by cabbagedad:
We only play our league opponents twice a year. HS teams and even returning players change from year to year. No matter how good SK is, you're not going to get much on opponents via stats other than Maxpreps and, as you know, those are just the basics.
The HS season is short - 20+ games, give or take. With that small of a sample, a HS coach is generally going to know far more about his players' abilities and tendancies by seeing him every day in practice, simulated hitting, situational drills, bullpens, scrimmages, cage work, observed year-to-year adjustments and improvements, etc., than he will know from game stats. By the time the stats start amounting to something, season over. And then, many seasoned opponents pull their Maxpreps stats. Even when I do see end-of-season stats, I can usually can pick up more from watching an opposing player's practice swing, warmup throws, in/outs, etc. than I can from the numbers.
So you are right, we don't rely on them because we don't have the stats the pros have on opponents. And we already know more than what they would tell us about our own players. Additionally, my efforts are much more focused on the improvement and progression of our players instead of assuming they will perform at the same stagnant level as what last year numbers may indicate. It's the reality of HS ball. If it were a higher level with more relevant info available, I'd be all over it.

I do, however, totally agree with the statement that there's always something new to learn.
Cheers.

I agree that there are certain things numbers don’t represent well, but that doesn’t mean they represent nothing well. I’ve found that most of the time it isn’t so much that a coach, or for that matter anyone making a judgment about players is wrong, but rather its more that they aren’t as right as they think they are. IOW, we’re back to perspectives again. And that’s why I try very hard to get people to define what it is they base their decisions on.

Last year I went through an exercise in what I knew was futility. A thread got going on some forum about something as simple as how to set up a batting order. For over a decade I’ve attempted to come up with an algorithm that will allow a coach to run his player’s stats into it and have it spit out the most “logical” batting order. From there that coach could then make adjustments based on his own knowledge that there was no way to program into a computer.

What I’ve done is use what various coaches SAY they use as their template, and have the computer use them to spit out lineups. It may sound easy, but I assure you it isn’t. For instance, let’s look at choosing the 1st batter in the lineup. If you have 15 players, how do you pick the guy who leads off the game? He has to be fast, a contact hitter, good base runner, good OPB, whatever. But how can a computer make those evaluations?

Let’s look at speed, since I think everyone would agree that speed is essential in a leadoff man. How does one evaluate speed? Me, I got stupid and entered the 40 times for all the players. Then I started tracking home to 1st times. And believe me, that’s a real eye opener folks. When you see how much a player will vary going from home to 1st, you’ll find out that it’s a very difficult thing to use as an accurate evaluation tool. But that wasn’t enough because pure running times are about as useless as a pure gun time to me, without something to measure it relative to. So, I incorporated stolen bases, then later included SBPct.

That left me with a few likely candidates, so next I incorporated OPS to try to whittle the list down a little more. I also took into account strikeouts, because you don’t want the guy getting the most ABs to strike out a lot. I next incorporated “disruptions” in the form of how many throws the player drew as a runner, and of course how many times he may have been picked. Once I had all that, it took the computer about 1 microsecond to pick the most likely candidate for the leadoff spot, and I went through a similar process for each of the other spots in the lineup.

Funny thing was, the computer and the coach disagreed on about 7 of the 9 spots every game, but 1 was almost always agreed on. Our coach likes to have the best hitter on the team as he defines best, batting 3rd, and 9 times out of 10 the computer picked the same player for that spot.

I never offered what the computer came up with, but I kept track. And I don’t know if we’d have been more successful or less if we’d used the computer’s lineup rather than one coming from the coach’s head, but when you go back and look closely at what took place, its not too difficult to see where a change here or there would likely have made a difference. Its still 2nd guessing, but the difference is, the guess is a lot more educated coming from good numbers.

quote:

Originally posted by J H:
Stats- The stats a high school coach wants has nothing to do with what a professional scout wants. I believe that's the main point here, and why everyone is seemingly confused at what you're getting at.

As a coach I definitely want those figures you provide. As a scout, I couldn't care less about them.

At the risk of sounding condescending, I’ll offer this. Most HS coaches, and for that matter coaches at any level are hardly trained statistical analysts. But it doesn’t make them stupid any more than it makes someone who’s used to analyzing numbers stupid for not knowing much about bunt coverage or rotational hitting.

Most managers/coaches don’t have the 2-3 hours a day it takes to actually study the numbers in a meaningful way, and that’s why ML teams pay people like Bill James to do it for them, then offer the results to the managers/coaches to use as input into the process. I seriously doubt that many HS coaches have several grand in the budget they could spend on a statistical analyst, and the main reason is, there’s not enough riding on the games to warrant it, and the 2nd reason is, HS coaches don’t generally have a big scouting program.

Since you brought it up, which stats does a HS coach want? I’m asking because I’m always looking for ways to help, and if there’s something I’m missing that I could provide, I want to do it.

Hi Stats! I remember you and I had a discussion earlier this year. iirc, it was along these same lines. The main issue I have with stats, is that one can "lie" with them. I've seen games where a ss made 4 errors in one book, but none in the other. That is one reason recruiters/scouts take a look for them themselves. Stats are useful, but perhaps not vital, when a high schooler is trying to make it to the next level.

Anyway... the original post... Harper has been bbq'ed for leaving high school early. He was missing the hs experience. My big question is why this coach even played the Saturday after homecoming? Obviously it was important to many of the players. Sometimes the kids need to be kids. otoh, I am not dismissing the players lack of readiness... they should have made the "sacrifice" and got some sleep.

quote:

Originally posted by bsbl247:
I don't know how a thread regarding "you never know who's watching" can turn into a debate on the importance of HS statistics? However, I do know that I've agreed with the majority of the responses on this thread that dispute HS stats, especially as it pertains to schools in different divisions/sections.

Bsbl247-son played with a young man this past summer that was being compared to Bryce Harper after his junior year of high school by the HS sports writers in his area. This kid is a very good player that will be attending an excellent D1 school with one of our esteemed HSBBWebster's son. There's no doubt that he has some tools, but he's not in Harper's class. Anyway, he had an incredible high school season his junior year, statistically his numbers were off the charts. But he was playing in a very small league in a neighboring state. His family moved to Southern California for his senior year of HS to get more exposure, and although he had a good season, his stats were no where near what they were in the much weaker league he had previously played in.

It just goes to show that you can't compare a player's statistics in one area compared to another. …

Actually, its quite easy to compare players from different divisions/sections. Things like that are done all the time everywhere. All it involves, is using factors to adjust the numbers, much like MLB stats use Ball Park Factors. The difficulty is in finding a factor that can be used that will provide acceptable results, and in the case of HSB even the desire to do that. All it takes is enough valid data points, and someone to work out the algorithm the 1st time, but its much easier to say it can’t be done.

For years I’ve factored both hitting and pitching data, using the opponents W/L record as a factor. FI, a player go 4x4 against a team with a WPct of .500, only gets credit for 2 hits, while if the opponents was playing at a .750 clip, he’d get credit for 3 hits. Its surely not a perfect system, but it does have the effect on the final numbers of making them more “reliable”.

Can you give me an idea of what you think a good factor would be given the 7 divisions and 10 sections in Ca? Is a D1 school in the Southern section 1.2 times better than a D1 school in the Central section? Is a DII school in the San Francisco section 1.5 times better than a DII school in the Oakland section? Give me the numbers in a matrix, and I’ll give you a way to make the numbers take those factors into account.

But here’s the problem. While everyone THINKS DI schools are “better” than all levels below it, or teams in the Southern Section are better than the teams in all of the other sections, it just isn’t true. We have plenty of stinko D1 teams up here in the SJS, and I imaging y’all have a number of them down there as well. And, we have a DIII team up here that’s almost always ranked very high in the state, and often in the country that has produced more than its share of D1 and pro players.

I'm not trying to argue, I'm just saying that a lot of things are possible if there's a willingness to try them.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:

quote:

Originally posted by J H:
Stats- The stats a high school coach wants has nothing to do with what a professional scout wants. I believe that's the main point here, and why everyone is seemingly confused at what you're getting at.

As a coach I definitely want those figures you provide. As a scout, I couldn't care less about them.

At the risk of sounding condescending, I’ll offer this. Most HS coaches, and for that matter coaches at any level are hardly trained statistical analysts. But it doesn’t make them stupid any more than it makes someone who’s used to analyzing numbers stupid for not knowing much about bunt coverage or rotational hitting.

Most managers/coaches don’t have the 2-3 hours a day it takes to actually study the numbers in a meaningful way, and that’s why ML teams pay people like Bill James to do it for them, then offer the results to the managers/coaches to use as input into the process. I seriously doubt that many HS coaches have several grand in the budget they could spend on a statistical analyst, and the main reason is, there’s not enough riding on the games to warrant it, and the 2nd reason is, HS coaches don’t generally have a big scouting program.

Since you brought it up, which stats does a HS coach want? I’m asking because I’m always looking for ways to help, and if there’s something I’m missing that I could provide, I want to do it.

Been lurking on this one, so here is my 2 cents. Statistics are fine if all things are fairly equal. In HS baseball for most teams there is a wide disparity in ability across the batting order. Guys hitting in the 1-5 hole are seeing different pitches than the guys at the 6-9 hole. Guys with speed are more likely to attempt steals than guys with lessor speed. As you get to the college and Pro level talent level starts to get a little tighter and stats become a little more relevant. Stats are just another tool to help the coaches evaluate his players. Agree with what most of the other posters are saying. They see their players day in and day out and know them well. Coaches usually always go with the guys they have the most trust and confidence in regardless of the numbers.

Stats.

I love your approach and belive that given good data you are correct in that it may be possible to get a view of performance using good high school stats with one problem.

Garbage in gargage out....

quote:

Originally posted by standballdad:
Been lurking on this one, so here is my 2 cents. Statistics are fine if all things are fairly equal. In HS baseball for most teams there is a wide disparity in ability across the batting order. Guys hitting in the 1-5 hole are seeing different pitches than the guys at the 6-9 hole. Guys with speed are more likely to attempt steals than guys with lessor speed.

Isn’t that true for every level?

quote:

As you get to the college and Pro level talent level starts to get a little tighter and stats become a little more relevant. Stats are just another tool to help the coaches evaluate his players. Agree with what most of the other posters are saying. They see their players day in and day out and know them well. Coaches usually always go with the guys they have the most trust and confidence in regardless of the numbers.

Completely understand that mentality, but too many times I’ve seen where that trust and confidence is refuted by the numbers, and there’s absolutely no arguing with most coaches no matter how lopsided the numbers are.

In most cases its really not much of a big deal, but there are times when bias for or against a player causes lots of problems, and its obvious to almost everyone. In lower levels its often seen as “daddyball” or seeing a pitcher or batter of large stature constantly put into positions normally reserved for the best players on the team, but failing more often than other players.

quote:

Originally posted by BOF:
Stats.

I love your approach and belive that given good data you are correct in that it may be possible to get a view of performance using good high school stats with one problem.

Garbage in gargage out....

Which is why its imperative to get someone who takes his role seriously. How many coaches hand the book to some benchwarmer in the dugout, or some mom because no one else wants to do it, then says the numbers are no good?

quote:

Originally posted by Swampboy:
It's a fools errand to over-analyze high school stats in most situations.

MLB is a game of small differences over the long haul, so statistical sophistication has an important role. Lots of games and lots of reps in lots of situations against consistently excellent opposition on consistently excellent fields.

High school baseball? Not so much. Big differences over a short haul.

There aren't enough games or reps to overcome the huge variations in talent, field quality, scorekeeper competence, and other factors. In our area, they play a 20 game regular season with no more than two games against the same opponent.

And then there's the problem that every high school data point comes with at least two or three question marks. Against whom? According to whom? Where?

You're just not going to have enough clean data to analyze.

What possible relevance is it to know, for example, that a batter is hitting .333 with RISP against LHP's when he has only had three such chances and the one hit came against a guy who can't break 75? Does that help a coach decide who to let bat against the college-bound closer from "Big Walnut Tech" (remember Funky Winkerbean?)?

Highly unlikely that advanced analysis of the numbers will help a high school coach increase his chance of winning by making statistically informed decisions. Maybe in some elite leagues in Florida or California where they play a lot more games and the competition is stronger, but even there, I'm skeptical.

All good points, but I wonder how many people have actually tried to see if some kind of advantage could be found.

I’d be much more persuaded if I was sure that HS coaches didn’t use stats in any way shape or form, but I find more often than not that those who claim they don’t use stats, use them just as much if not more than “normal”. Its just that they use different stats.

I’d really like to see the team where the coach makes a lineup based on nothing but his opinion of the players. No runs, no BA, no OBP, no ERA, no K’s, no nothing other than the coach believing Joe should be the leadoff guy, and Bill in the #4 spot. People need reasons to make such decisions.

But enough of this stuff. I’ll never be convinced that there’s no value in statistics, and I’ll never convince most of y’all that there is because you don’t want to believe there could be. But that’s ok, that’s what makes the world an interesting place.

Here’s an attempt to get back to the player evaluation part of the thread.

Assume for the purposes of this question that suddenly radar guns were banned from use other than by the police and scientists. How would it change player evaluations to have to go back to how they were evaluated prior to the advent of radar guns in baseball? Would the caliber of pitcher moving to higher levels suddenly fall through the floor?

Swampboy summarized it perfectly again...

A few more common "for examples"...

In pre-league games, our non-starters typically get a good chance to prove themselves with a fair amount of play time. This usually comes later in the game where opponents are throwing lesser arms and the game may be already decided. So, it is fairly common for some of those non-starters to come out of pre-league with better numbers than some of the better starters who spent all pre-league getting ab's exclusively against #1 or #2 guys. Perfect example of BOF's garbage in-garbage out. If we used those stats to determine to start those guys over the better starters going into league, we'd be quickly run out of town.

As far as grading the divisions of HS ball with a formula, our league is division 5 (out of 7), but this year, the teams in our league will likely beat out the teams in the neighboring division 2 league. We have a team in the league with three pitchers - one an Aflac starter who tops at 94 (already verballed to a major D1), another a likely D1 recruit at 87 with a nasty slider and another who I think hits 86 and had an ERA under 1.00 last year. There are three or four other schools in the league who will be competing right along with them, all with a couple guys in the low 80's who know how to pitch. Not your typical D5, although it can change significantly year by year.

Sorry Stats, it is NOT feasible for your typical HS scorekeep to adjust algorithms annually.
I'm not saying I don't use stats, I absolutely do. I think it is safe to say that most coaches would be open to using more stats if it gives them an advantage. But as Swamp says so eloquently, "It's a fools errand to over-analyze high school stats in most situations."

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:
Assume for the purposes of this question that suddenly radar guns were banned from use other than by the police and scientists. How would it change player evaluations to have to go back to how they were evaluated prior to the advent of radar guns in baseball? Would the caliber of pitcher moving to higher levels suddenly fall through the floor?

Watching scout ball and showcases, I can almost always come within 1-2 mph when I guess and then peek at a gun and I am not a trained eye. The only thing that messes me up is a short backstop.

Most measurements and statistics are relative. Anyone remember a child asking "is it bigger/ faster/ better?" and asking the child "bigger/ faster / better than WHAT?" While I agree that radar guns are not the final answer for deciding who are the "best" pitchers - MPH is not relative. It is ONE way to objectively compare players from different schools - leagues - ages - etc.

If I tell you that your son tops out at 87mph and lives at 84-85 that is one thing I can compare to your neighbor or a pitcher 8 states away. If I know that your son averaged 1.5k's per inning and 2 walks per inning I have a hard time comparing that to other pitchers even in same school depending on competition - inning pitched - etc.

Did you ever have to listen to the parents of the kid who started against the worst team in the league tell you over and over how their son was the only one that threw a 1 hitter this year? The statistic is not very valuable. I believe college and pro scouts are QUITE aware of the relative value of statistics.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:

quote:

Originally posted by BOF:
Stats.

I love your approach and belive that given good data you are correct in that it may be possible to get a view of performance using good high school stats with one problem.

Garbage in gargage out....

Which is why its imperative to get someone who takes his role seriously. How many coaches hand the book to some benchwarmer in the dugout, or some mom because no one else wants to do it, then says the numbers are no good?

...or some dad...

geez, or maybe you men are the only ones who understand the game? This is the second thread recently (that I've read) to bring up mom in a negative way.

quote:

Assume for the purposes of this question that suddenly radar guns were banned from use other than by the police and scientists. How would it change player evaluations to have to go back to how they were evaluated prior to the advent of radar guns in baseball? Would the caliber of pitcher moving to higher levels suddenly fall through the floor?

Velocity is very important, always has been, but it is just one bit of information. It is not the only important thing.

With no radar guns a scouts would "guess" at the actual velocity. It would just add another subjective area for scouts to determine ability. They would separate one pitcher from another based on their eyes. Actually evaluating pitchers is already done that way, the gun only provides a velocity reading. It doesn't provide data like movement, command, etc. For some reason there are people who believe scouting reports and decisions on pitchers end with the radar gun reading. That is really kind of disrespectful to those involved in scouting. A fastball alone has several factors in addition to velocity.

Eliminating the radar gun might take some of the exactness out, but nearly anyone who has seen thousands of pitchers can easily see the difference between 85 and 90 or 90 and 95. I doubt any experienced scout will mistake 80 for 90.

It might create some interest in certain pitchers that normally would not create a lot of interest, but the hard throwers have always been the big prize. It should be very obvious why that is what they are most interested in.

Maddux threw 90s as a skinny HS kid with a great arm. Over time he mastered the art of pitching on the way to a hall of fame career. Sometimes he would throw mid 80s fastballs in the Major Leagues. I believe it is much easier when the pitcher is "subtracting" velocity from a very live arm to master the art of pitching... Than an 80 mph pitcher "adding" velocity and also mastering the art of pitching.

Bottom line... On one hand you have an 85 mph pitcher on the other hand you have a 95 mph pitcher. Which one is more likely to have the best 90 mph fastball? One can subtract velocity to improve movement and command (i.e. Maddux). The other needs to add velocity and also develop the other stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:

quote:

Originally posted by bsbl247:
I don't know how a thread regarding "you never know who's watching" can turn into a debate on the importance of HS statistics? However, I do know that I've agreed with the majority of the responses on this thread that dispute HS stats, especially as it pertains to schools in different divisions/sections.

Bsbl247-son played with a young man this past summer that was being compared to Bryce Harper after his junior year of high school by the HS sports writers in his area. This kid is a very good player that will be attending an excellent D1 school with one of our esteemed HSBBWebster's son. There's no doubt that he has some tools, but he's not in Harper's class. Anyway, he had an incredible high school season his junior year, statistically his numbers were off the charts. But he was playing in a very small league in a neighboring state. His family moved to Southern California for his senior year of HS to get more exposure, and although he had a good season, his stats were no where near what they were in the much weaker league he had previously played in.

It just goes to show that you can't compare a player's statistics in one area compared to another. …

Actually, its quite easy to compare players from different divisions/sections. Things like that are done all the time everywhere. All it involves, is using factors to adjust the numbers, much like MLB stats use Ball Park Factors. The difficulty is in finding a factor that can be used that will provide acceptable results, and in the case of HSB even the desire to do that. All it takes is enough valid data points, and someone to work out the algorithm the 1st time, but its much easier to say it can’t be done.

For years I’ve factored both hitting and pitching data, using the opponents W/L record as a factor. FI, a player go 4x4 against a team with a WPct of .500, only gets credit for 2 hits, while if the opponents was playing at a .750 clip, he’d get credit for 3 hits. Its surely not a perfect system, but it does have the effect on the final numbers of making them more “reliable”.

Can you give me an idea of what you think a good factor would be given the 7 divisions and 10 sections in Ca? Is a D1 school in the Southern section 1.2 times better than a D1 school in the Central section? Is a DII school in the San Francisco section 1.5 times better than a DII school in the Oakland section? Give me the numbers in a matrix, and I’ll give you a way to make the numbers take those factors into account.

But here’s the problem. While everyone THINKS DI schools are “better” than all levels below it, or teams in the Southern Section are better than the teams in all of the other sections, it just isn’t true. We have plenty of stinko D1 teams up here in the SJS, and I imaging y’all have a number of them down there as well. And, we have a DIII team up here that’s almost always ranked very high in the state, and often in the country that has produced more than its share of D1 and pro players.

I'm not trying to argue, I'm just saying that a lot of things are possible if there's a willingness to try them.

Stats,

I believe that cabbagedad's post on page 3 sums it up the best regarding the changes in a HS program from one year to another, and the difficulty associated with comparing stats when the turnover is so high with graduation and other factors.

I'm curious as to where in my above post did I reference D1 high schools? Where did I compare Nor Cal schools to southern section schools? I agree that there are several strong D3 programs, and even a handful of D4's. With that said, there is absolutely NO WAY you can analyze/compare a player's stats in a small school division facing pitchers throwing in the 70's to a player facing pitchers in the mid-80's to low-90's in another division (D1, 2, 3, or 4). If Johnny Baseballplayer hits .750 at XYZ City School in a weaker section, how would he do if he's competing against much stronger competition? Does he still hit .750? My answer is No...not even close.

hmmm... this reminds me of the national HS team rankings.

quote:

Originally posted by cabbagedad:
Swampboy summarized it perfectly again...

A few more common "for examples"...

In pre-league games, our non-starters typically get a good chance to prove themselves with a fair amount of play time. This usually comes later in the game where opponents are throwing lesser arms and the game may be already decided. So, it is fairly common for some of those non-starters to come out of pre-league with better numbers than some of the better starters who spent all pre-league getting ab's exclusively against #1 or #2 guys. Perfect example of BOF's garbage in-garbage out. If we used those stats to determine to start those guys over the better starters going into league, we'd be quickly run out of town.

I know that’s what common sense might seem to dictate, but its one of those impossible to prove things because no one will ever try it to see what actually happens. Its like the deep rotted belief that if some 70mph pus thrower pitches against the #1 team in the state, the score will be 9-0 after 9 batters. Its what common sense might dictate, but the chances of it being true are very long indeed.

quote:

As far as grading the divisions of HS ball with a formula, our league is division 5 (out of 7), but this year, the teams in our league will likely beat out the teams in the neighboring division 2 league. We have a team in the league with three pitchers - one an Aflac starter who tops at 94 (already verballed to a major D1), another a likely D1 recruit at 87 with a nasty slider and another who I think hits 86 and had an ERA under 1.00 last year. There are three or four other schools in the league who will be competing right along with them, all with a couple guys in the low 80's who know how to pitch. Not your typical D5, although it can change significantly year by year.

But what does that have to do with the price of eggs in China? All you’re saying is, its pretty much impossible to make a judgment as to a team’s being stiff competition no matter what the size of the school or its locale. But people use that as an example all the time, don’t they? Well, if locale or school size can’t be counted on, how about quality of the opponent, by using a formula similar to what’s used for ranking teams in state and/or national polls? All I’m saying is, if there was truly the will to find that magic factor, it could and would be done.

quote:

Sorry Stats, it is NOT feasible for your typical HS scorekeep to adjust algorithms annually.
I'm not saying I don't use stats, I absolutely do. I think it is safe to say that most coaches would be open to using more stats if it gives them an advantage. But as Swamp says so eloquently, "It's a fools errand to over-analyze high school stats in most situations."

I guess there is a lot more misunderstanding about how factors work than I thought. No one has to adjust anything. All anyone has to do is put in the data points and the computer could/would take care of any adjustments.

As I’m trying to point out, I’m not advocating going to the exclusive use of stats for managing a baseball team at any level, but I am advocating that people at least make an effort to prove me wrong, rather than just saying that’s the way it’s always been, and that’s the way it always will be. I wouldn’t be so adamant in my thinking, but when I can’t get anyone to answer something as straightforward as, “what stats do you think are important”, I have to wonder if all the resistance to me or my thinking based on factor belief.

The only fool’s errand in my book is one that doesn’t take place because of a resistance to changing one’s thinking. Its all good though. I’ve found the thread very mind stimulating, if not enlightening. TTFN

quote:

If Johnny Baseballplayer hits .750 at XYZ City School in a weaker section, how would he do if he's competing against much stronger competition? Does he still hit .750? My answer is No...not even close.

I don't understand why 'big school' guys get there shorts all in a wad over 'small school' stats. My son played small HS baseball. I never met anyone that thought we would have had the same success at a higher level. We actually know our place...

quote:

Originally posted by Hawk19:

quote:

If Johnny Baseballplayer hits .750 at XYZ City School in a weaker section, how would he do if he's competing against much stronger competition? Does he still hit .750? My answer is No...not even close.

I don't understand why 'big school' guys get there shorts all in a wad over 'small school' stats. My son played small HS baseball. I never met anyone that thought we would have had the same success at a higher level. We actually know our place...

We "Big School" guys only get our shorts all in a wad when people use "Stats" to compare one player to another when they're not facing the same level of competition; BIG, MeDiUm, or small schools...simple as that.

quote:

We "Big School" guys only get our shorts all in a wad when people use "Stats" to compare one player to another when they're not facing the same level of competition; BIG, MeDiUm, or small schools...simple as that.

People that use absolute stats to compare players are ignorant and you should just ignore them....

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:
I know that’s what common sense might seem to dictate

Yup, I'm big on that.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:

... For over a decade I’ve attempted to come up with an algorithm that will allow a coach to run his player’s stats into it and have it spit out the most “logical” batting order.

Takes me about five minutes.

So, anyway, what do you think about the suicide squeeze with no outs?

Just kidding. Don't answer that. Time for me to bow out of this one (I'm learning).

quote:

Originally posted by cabbagedad:
So, anyway, what do you think about the suicide squeeze with no outs?

You funny.

I've seen pro scouts at many HS baseball games over the last few years. The comment about an eye for velocity resonates here as I've seen a pitcher on one side throw with 10+ guns up. When the next kid goes out there, he receives nothing more than a casual glance and then banter among the scouts, "hey did you see that kid over at *** yesterday? what did you think? What about that play in the Yankee / Red Sox game last night? What were they thinking? You wouldn't believe my fantasy draft. Does US Air still have a direct flight to Sacramento?"

Me, I'm watching the other kid (usually the other team) thinking, what an insult! This kid can throw and he's holding us down... They don't even waste a click. Later, I'll see a college guy and ask about it and he'll say, "Your guy was 88-90, their guy topped at 82".

Sometimes, their guy wins but gets no respect.

My 2 cents:

I don't think the scout was out of line. He gave HS players some good advice. Don't disrespect the game; you never know who is watching! I'm all for a player attending HS activities but baseball the next day also has to be a priority. If you're too tired or hung over or whatever the next day, you obviously didn't take into account that you had a game the next day.

That's disrespectful, selfish and shows poor judgment. Is it a hanging offense? Depends how severe the lack of effort in a scouts eyes. MLB and Minor league players are men, they go out after games, some get very little sleep, but very rarely will you see a player show up for the next day's game and give poor effort. They prepare for each game the same way. HS players need to strive to do the same.

Remember this...in the world of scouting there are 1000's of players eligible for the draft every year. Each team only gets 50 picks (or so). It takes a lot to get you name on a scouts list. It may only take one bad day for him to move on.

Area scouts have large areas (some have 6-8 states) and a finite amount of time to see all the players they have interest in. My advice is don't ever give a scout a reason to put a line through you name. Most times they don't have time to come back. They don't owe you the benefit of the doubt. They're not parents. They are prospective employers and first impressions may be the only impression. Effort and preparation the player can always control...talent not so much. But it takes no talent to hustle.

As for the other question about why do scouts care about anything other than talent. To some degree that is true, talent will always rule the day. But in a system that has many imperfections and is based on someone's opinion, how does a scout decide between 2 players with similar talent? Usually that goes to all that other "stuff", which is known as a player’s make-up. All things being equal, players with good make-up will get chances over those with questionable make-up every time.

quote:

Originally posted by JMoff:
...Later, I'll see a college guy and ask about it and he'll say, "Your guy was 88-90, their guy topped at 82".

Sometimes, their guy wins but gets no respect.

The reason is simple...over the long haul, it is less likely for the 82 guy to beat better teams consistently because his margin for error is MUCH smaller than the 90 guy.

quote:

Originally posted by 55mom:
...or some dad...

geez, or maybe you men are the only ones who understand the game? This is the second thread recently (that I've read) to bring up mom in a negative way.

I completely apologize.

That’s a great example of the kind of unwarranted dogmatic bias in the game that creeps in. Lord knows how many times I’ve had to correct a coach or a player because of their ignorance of the scoring rules, so its not as though the male of the species comes down the chute with some special baseball knowledge gene set.

I did the same thing there that bothers me when coaches automatically assume that if you don’t coach, you’re obviously unable to understand many things about the game. The difference is, I recognize that what I did was wrong and will attempt to correct it.

quote:

Originally posted by Hawk19:
I don't understand why 'big school' guys get there shorts all in a wad over 'small school' stats. My son played small HS baseball. I never met anyone that thought we would have had the same success at a higher level. We actually know our place...

It’s a testosterone thing that gives them an excuse for not performing as well, and its basically because of the metrics people have been accustomed to using, and the way they use them. Baseball is a game very much dependent on one player, the pitcher. So any team that happens to get some knuckle-dragging-super-stud who throws strawberries through the side of battleships, and has a CU like a yo-yo, they’re gonna do well.

The only true difference is the size of the talent pool, and in general, a larger pool means more depth of talent. But sometimes a school finds 9 kids who are pretty darn good and match up well with just about anyone, and could easily win against anyone. The difficulties come when they have to face top competition game after game without having at least 3 really good pitchers and some bench strength.

But that’s why the teams are generally grouped in such a way that they play most of their games against teams with talent pools much the same. And for sure that’s how leagues are set up, at least out here. Its why I don’t often look outside of our league on MaxPreps to compare players to ours. I’ll look out of curiosity, but I know how unlikely it is that a team has a BA over .450, or a player over .600. when I see those kinds of things my mind makes automatic adjustments down, right after I laugh.

quote:

Originally posted by JMoff:
I've seen pro scouts at many HS baseball games over the last few years. The comment about an eye for velocity resonates here as I've seen a pitcher on one side throw with 10+ guns up. When the next kid goes out there, he receives nothing more than a casual glance and then banter among the scouts, "hey did you see that kid over at *** yesterday? what did you think? What about that play in the Yankee / Red Sox game last night? What were they thinking? You wouldn't believe my fantasy draft. Does US Air still have a direct flight to Sacramento?"

Me, I'm watching the other kid (usually the other team) thinking, what an insult! This kid can throw and he's holding us down... They don't even waste a click. Later, I'll see a college guy and ask about it and he'll say, "Your guy was 88-90, their guy topped at 82".

Sometimes, their guy wins but gets no respect.

Have seen the same thing hundreds of times over the years. But here’s an example of what’s just as bad. Last season we had our super-stud 90+ thrower on the mound against the worst team in our league, and there were no less than 10 guns behind the backstop to see the devastation he was gonna wreak.

Well, he got beat like drum, when he wasn’t throwing the ball in the dirt or over the catcher’s head for a WP, walking batters, hitting batters, and watching balls put over the plate sail very long distances at very high rates of speed. But did anyone care? Nosireesir! I remember one particular point in the game where they had runners on 1st and 2nd, and he cut a pitch loose that hit the backstop like a bullet. Of course the runners advanced, but the talk was, “I got that one at 91”. The very next pitch hit the dirt in front of the plate, bounced up and off the catcher’s shin guard, allowing the runners to move up again, and of course a run to score. This time the talk was, “I got that one at 92!”.

It never got quite that bad again, but it was pretty horrible overall, with him having a terrible season by any standard. But, he got drafted in the 3rd round!

quote:

Originally posted by bsbl247:

quote:

Originally posted by Hawk19:

quote:

If Johnny Baseballplayer hits .750 at XYZ City School in a weaker section, how would he do if he's competing against much stronger competition? Does he still hit .750? My answer is No...not even close.

I don't understand why 'big school' guys get there shorts all in a wad over 'small school' stats. My son played small HS baseball. I never met anyone that thought we would have had the same success at a higher level. We actually know our place...

We "Big School" guys only get our shorts all in a wad when people use "Stats" to compare one player to another when they're not facing the same level of competition; BIG, MeDiUm, or small schools...simple as that.

The difference I see in big schools vs. small schools here in Georgia is that the small schools may have one or two teams in their region that are basically stud teams. The rest of the teams range from OK to flat out rec teams. In the biggest classifications, you are playing a tough team every time out. Even the team in last place has the potential to beat the top team.

I would never say that the small classification teams all stink. Top team or two could compete with the big classification teams. They may not dominate, but they could compete. I would just say - top to bottom - the competition is not the same.