Maybe I was wrong.

[Will James]

The sabermetric community has bunting all wrong. It's the ultimate teammate move, giving your at bat up in name of the TEAM. Bunting teaches a great lesson in humility. The most effective time to bunt is early in the game. Going up one run early completely changes the game in your favor. Harold Reynolds and Hawk Harrelson on MLB Now have enlightened me on probably the most important statistical in baseball: TWTW. The Will To Win.

You can throw all those numbers out there but what they cannot measure is guts and the internal will to win a baseball game. Again this is a teamwide phenomenon. 9 players working as one.

The will to win directly correlates to pitchers in the stat known as WINS. This is definitely the most important pitching stat, as the pitcher who can pitch for wins is better than pitchers who rack up ND's and L's. These pitchers inspire the greater will to win when they are on the mound. Harold Reynolds told me so.

Scouts today get a bum rap with all the new fancy computers. Tell me, what computer on earth can replace a scout's eye for toughness, twtw, leadership, and other team oriented attributes? Sure it will spit out the on base percentages, but will it show how successful a player is after giving the team a motivational speech? Hell no

[ScoobaDawg]

Can make for a hell of a end of a game too...

http://blog.pac-12.com/ducks-walk-off-suicide-squeeze-seals-series-sweep/

[engie]

Scouts today get a bum rap with all the new fancy computers. Tell me, what computer on earth can replace a scout's eye for toughness, twtw, leadership, and other team oriented attributes? Sure it will spit out the on base percentages, but will it show how successful a player is after giving the team a motivational speech? Hell no

http://my.jetscreenshot.com/12222/m_20130430-swsr-44kb.jpg

[Todd4State]

Did you lose a bet or something?

I will say this on the last paragraph about scouts. When I was in college, I would hang out with my uncle for a week when I was on spring break, and I was pretty much a go-fer. I've been around MLB players and clubhouses some and I've been around some guys that made it to the Major Leagues, and I've also been around some that obviously didn't make it as well. Mostly, I would hang out with the coaches because that was what my uncle was at the time and he was the only one I really knew well.

Anyway, I would hear them talk about players, and I would say the one thing that they valued more than anything even over tools is work ethic. The guys that I was around that made it, had an unbelievable work ethic- Carlos Beltran stood out to me. You could tell even then that he was going to make it and be an All-Star, it was just very obvious. He is an example of someone having tools and work ethic. The vast majority of the players in MLB- I would say 98%- have that kind of work ethic. You don't make it that far without it.

Scouts on the other hand, they seem to value tools and potential more than work ethic. And to me, that always seemed like there was some kind of a disconnect between evaluation and what the coaches placed value on.

I'm not sure if Harold Reynolds and Hawk Harrelson were specifically talking about bunting or not- but I will say that as far as the actual game goes there is a human element that does come into play. My favorite example is David Freese in the 2011 World Series- and certainly that was non-bunting situation. But he was able to elevate his level of play when the stakes were high. So, I do agree that the "will to win" element exists, and I don't think you can capture that in a stat. It's very hard to describe- but every once in awhile someone for whatever reason is able to play to their completely full potential at the highest moment. Like Don Larsen throwing a perfect game in the World Series. With Hawk and Harold being former players, I'm sure they've seen it, and it's not surprising to me that they seem to agree on that.

I can tell you that every MLB team uses computers to help them make informed in game decisions. In fact, I have several huge books which are print outs from the KC Royals on every hitter in MLB at that time and how they matched up against the Royals pitchers and in certain situations. But they don't use stats broadly- like you shouldn't bunt because you lose runs. They use it to determine individual match-ups and then make an informed decision off of that. So, it's very cut and dried and down to the point. This guy is hitting .500 with 7 home runs off of this pitcher, so we're going to bring in this relief pitcher that he is hitting .050 off of. Or in the case of a hitter, our guy is hitting .150 against the pitcher, so maybe we're better off bunting here or maybe we should pinch hit here. You get the idea.

There is value in scouting and watching a player- because that's how you pick up flaws in swings and weaknesses.

If those guys are talking about bunting and humility and teamwork- that's pretty funny to me. All you're trying to do when you're bunting is you are playing for one run which might win you the game. That's it. You're trying to win a game. It's a PLAY. It's like a stolen base or a ground out. Nothing more, nothing less. But I do agree with them on this- winning is the most important stat out there when you get down to it. And hell, if I have to win a game like Oregon did, you better believe I'm going to do it.

Here's an interesting article on bunting and it actually shows that the old bunting studies skew their data and it talks about bunting based off of the batter in the batting order and the correlation between that. I think it's a little more up to date than the 1984 sabermetric studies against bunting.

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2006/07/empirical_analy_1.php

[swdawg]

I was about to ask if he had left the computer in the library logged in to Elitedawgs...or if he had been hacked. Or did I detect sarcasm in there?


Did you lose a bet or something?

[Will James]

It's been up for a few responses.

Now somebody fill my VCash coffers back up, the humiliation is complete.

[gravedigger]

It's been up for a few responses.

Now somebody fill my VCash coffers back up, the humiliation is complete.

Funny. So you meant none of that?

[CadaverDawg]

Ha, I had a feeling it was the VCash refill.

+1 though.

[Will James]

Work ethic is HUGE in projecting a future player. Gotta throw out most players with red flags on work ethic, decision making off the field, etc, and then evaluate the players left.

I was ribbing Hawk because he is the worst announcer in baseball and Harold because he ignores facts placed in front of him routinely on MLB Now. Brian has to stop himself sometimes on the show to try not to make him look outwardly stupid in an argument on the numbers. And Brian is by no means a savant or always right, he calls for 20 game suspensions for charging the mound and computerized strike zones.

Winning is the most important aspect, but it's not a stat, it's a result. You get wins by doing x y and z.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXYvc1JGcgo

[Todd4State]

Hawk is a big homer as an announcer. He was also probably the worst GM in baseball history- he fired Tony LaRussa, who was picked up by the A's about two weeks later.

I think that show you are talking about- I haven't watched it- but it looks like and from what you are saying it sounds like it's one of those shows where the two guys argue just to argue to make people talk. I doubt either side believes more than 60% of what is coming out of their mouth.

[Will James]

Hawk is a big homer as an announcer. He was also probably the worst GM in baseball history- he fired Tony LaRussa, who was picked up by the A's about two weeks later.

I think that show you are talking about- I haven't watched it- but it looks like and from what you are saying it sounds like it's one of those shows where the two guys argue just to argue to make people talk. I doubt either side believes more than 60% of what is coming out of their mouth.

Its really not that bad of a show and you can tell they both believe what they say and have passion in what they believe in. It's not some Skip Bayless bullshit. Here's a review from Beyond The Boxscore. http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2013/4/2/4172356/mlb-now-review-brian-kenny-harold-reynolds

[Todd4State]

Work ethic is HUGE in projecting a future player. Gotta throw out most players with red flags on work ethic, decision making off the field, etc, and then evaluate the players left.

I was ribbing Hawk because he is the worst announcer in baseball and Harold because he ignores facts placed in front of him routinely on MLB Now. Brian has to stop himself sometimes on the show to try not to make him look outwardly stupid in an argument on the numbers. And Brian is by no means a savant or always right, he calls for 20 game suspensions for charging the mound and computerized strike zones.

Winning is the most important aspect, but it's not a stat, it's a result. You get wins by doing x y and z.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXYvc1JGcgo

I'm not talking about things off the field. I'm talking about being purely focused on baseball itself. It's almost to an OCD level. I saw a lot of good players that were good people and big time Christian guys that didn't have that focus and didn't make it because they lacked that high level intensity to make themselves great.

All stats are results of some action. Statistics is the study of the collection, organization, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of data.

I actually think both sides had some good points. You do win with pitching and defense in baseball, and there are some intangibles that can't be captured with statistics. However, I do think that statistics has gotten to the point where you can pretty much capture just about everything and a player gets some credit for what he does. Notice that when they were talking about statistics, they were talking about statistics comparing a player to player in a situation- and that's where statistics are the most valuable in baseball.

[Will James]

I'm not talking about things off the field. I'm talking about being purely focused on baseball itself. It's almost to an OCD level. I saw a lot of good players that were good people and big time Christian guys that didn't have that focus and didn't make it because they lacked that high level intensity to make themselves great.

Absolutely this is the case and that's where team scouts could help the big club. You can watch guys practice and talk to guys about their future and get a sense of can this player be successful or not. Teams have to take those successful types to lessen the risk of not panning out talent wise. The "tools" are quantifiable statistically but the makeup is where scouts should focus more. That Clint Eastwood movie could have been made a hell of a lot more realistic (a 1st overall pick cannot hit a curveball? Gimme a break) but it was kind of the anti-Moneyball I reckon. But again, this was a movie theoretically about one player. What the A's did, not theoretically but in reality, as an entire organization is amazing and it has changed the game of professional baseball.

[Todd4State]

Absolutely this is the case and that's where team scouts could help the big club. You can watch guys practice and talk to guys about their future and get a sense of can this player be successful or not. Teams have to take those successful types to lessen the risk of not panning out talent wise. The "tools" are quantifiable statistically but the makeup is where scouts should focus more. That Clint Eastwood movie could have been made a hell of a lot more realistic (a 1st overall pick cannot hit a curveball? Gimme a break) but it was kind of the anti-Moneyball I reckon. But again, this was a movie theoretically about one player. What the A's did, not theoretically but in reality, as an entire organization is amazing and it has changed the game of professional baseball.

In their defense, there are so many players that those guys have to scout, it's impossible to get a good read on that. Scouts do talk to players, and they talk to their coaches as well. Of course, most coaches are not going to say anything bad about their player for obvious reasons.

Some sabermetric people seem to think that MLB is totally anti-sabermetrics, but that's not really the case. And honestly, I don't really understand that. Sure, you may have a few old codgers out there like Hawk Harrelson, but I can tell you that is the vast minority. They sure find those stats valuable when negotiating contracts at the very least. Tony LaRussa was really the first guy to collect large amounts of data and apply it- that's why he has had several books written about him. Some of the stuff he did was stuff that the sabermetric people wouldn't like though- but I think that's where understanding players and individual situations comes into play, and LaRussa was really good at that. He did a good job of putting people in situations where they could succeed- he understood that a player that is comfortable, performs better. If you can put together the numbers element with the human element, you will be successful. Sometimes, I think the sabermetric people don't understand the human element and just look at the black and white numbers.

I think Beane did some very good things obviously. Really, the most revolutionary thing he did was show people how to compete with limited resources. Ideally, if he had the resources he would build his team conventionally. Actually, believe it or not MLB likes that idea because if I'm say, the Cardinals and I lose Albert Pujols, now I can lose him to free agency and replace him, and SAVE money as well as justifying it to our fans. From what I have heard about Billy Beane, the "problem" most people in baseball have with him is not his ideas at all- it's the fact that he likes to toot his own horn about how great he is. That, and he likes to portray himself as a "victim"- you know, "No one like my idea and I was "right" the whole time!" Art Howe has pretty much called him a liar about how he was portrayed in the movie.

Back to LaRussa- Beane got his start in the A's organization when LaRussa was there as a scout and it was LaRussa and Sandy Alderson who taught him about using statistics like OBP.

[Will James]

BUMP

Because nobody has filled my vcash coffers yet