My opinion is that money spent is more important than sabermetricism. Now, I put less stock into consecutive 90 win seasons than you do so I'm not impressed that he won a lot of regular season games with an organization that in recent memory was going to World Series all the time.

As for me proving who is a sabermetrician who isn't successful, I'll say I don't know. I don't see why that matters. I'm asking for the evidence that Sabermetrics is more successful than normal statistical methods which even the dumbest GM uses. Don't take that as me saying that they aren't. I'm just wondering why you have accepted it.

As for Kenny Williams, I believe that Epstein is a better GM than Kenny, even with the advantages that Epstein has, so I don't know what your point is there.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Is there any front office in the country that doesn't use sabermetrics in some capacity at this point?

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

The Cubs

_________________

I can't see how there could be, though there is still obvious resistance to the numbers. You can see that on display every time morons like Guillen and Scioscia bunt runners to second to third.

Also, Bill James has been agitating for years that the best reliver should be used in the highest leverage situations rather than just pitching a clean ninth. Even a "SABRmetric organization" like the Red Sox hasn't accepted that idea.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

JP Ricciardi was also run out of Toronto. Ricciardi and DePodesta were both Billy Beane's right hand men in Oakland.

Interesting that they are now both assistants in the Mets organization with Sandy Alderson who was Billy Beane's mentor.

JORR is right about DePodesta. Its just not something you can pin to one guy. You asked for proof it works so the most prominent saber guy being so successful came to mind.

I guess Im just not sure of what you mean by proof then Rick.

Slugging percentage is obviously a better stat to look at for run production than RBI. It takes away variables. Its just a better representation of who and what should get credit for the production.

K/9 is obviously better than E.R.A. for relief pitchers. Some stats are just better representations.

The teams that score the most runs usually have the highest OPS, not always the highest batting average would be the proof I guess.

As far as Epstein, you were saying I praise him and dont give KW credit. Just pointing out why.


FF Im not so sure Epstein couldnt have done it in a weak division with 3 teams that spend very little money.

You keep saying they recently won WS like it matters. They had different ownership and operated on a completely different level. The Beane A's have absolutely nothing to do with the pre 95 A's.

He won 90 games with a 45 million dollar payroll. I dont know how you can say thats not impressive.



]

To be fair to Depodesta, Im pretty sure most of the that team that swept your hated Cubs were guys he acquired right?

But there are guys like Javier Vazquez who continually defy their peripherals. The numbers suggest that they should put up great seasons at some point. They just really never do. Those numbers got him several big contracts but his best season was 15-8.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

I'm not sure either. However, I'm not the one saying that sabermetrics is a better level of analysis or worthy of being something you can cite of proof of anything. It's pretty simple. I see a post on here that says "This guys WAR is higher than this guys" and I wonder why that is accepted as a valid metric. It seems to be a pretty simple question. If someone feels that it's valid evidence then they should be able to explain why.

Notice that I've never said that any of this stuff is wrong. It's probably more accurate than most other ways of analyzing data. Then again, 600 years ago they had maps that were more accurate than anything else but they still weren't anywhere close to right.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Yes there are always going to be guys who defy the numbers.

The majority dont though.

I don't think so. Anyway, why don't you go through the vaunted Moneyball draft. Now, with enough time to look back at the results, was it a better draft than the ones based upon more traditional methods?

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

I dont know, that just happens to be a draft that a book was being written around. Do you think that one draft represents the value of SABER stats?

Do you think traditional stats are better? (I know you dont)

I think traditional scouting of non-professional players trumps numbers scouting in every way. You have to see guys. A guy like DePodesta says, "Look Billy, this kid has a .550 OBP!" What his spreadsheet doesn't show is that he was leading off for bigfan's team at Hamlin Park. Of course that's an exaggeration. But the main problem is that the numbers aren't equal. You can mock the stereotypical baseball lifer scout with tobacco juice on his shirt all you want but when some Harvard know-it-all is insisting that some goof with a tiny ERA must be great, that scout has been in the ballpark where the kid pitched 60% of his games and he knows it's as vast as the Grand Canyon with acres of foul territory. The spreadsheet won't show that. It's why DePodesta got shitcanned.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

Actually DePodesta was fired in 05. And some argue he was very successful in L.A.

This article does if you care to read it.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-best-out-of-work-gm-in-baseball/



Im sorry but to say traditional scouting trumps numbers in every way is ridiculous.

They go hand in hand. One is worthless without the other.


And your story doesnt even work. You know there are park adjusted numbers. The saber guy knows the low ERA guy plays in a Huge park. Its in his numbers. The Scout isnt breaking any news there. Same with the hitter. Thats the whole point of advanced numbers. To define that 550 opb and compare and contrast it and find out what it truly means in that situation.

I disagree completely. I'm talking about the scouting of non-professionals. Obviously, Badger Brown had "better" numbers than many other guys who scouts saw weren't fat as shit. How did that work out?

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

Okay, can you define and contrast a guy who got on 45% of the time at Brother Rice with a guy who got on 38% of the time in the SEC? One thing I know, Paul DePodesta and Billy Beane couldn't. I could make a case that Jeremy Bonderman, the guy Beane didn't want, had a better career than any of the guys he did.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

If all the info was available, then certainly that could be determined.

Can you expand on that? Pure numbers scouting of amateur players has been a collosal failure.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

Do you disagree with the logic (high school pitchers have the lowest success rate of draft picks )behind not wanting Bonderman?

I don't think they have the lowest success rate. I think it's just more difficult to know what they might be. Obviously, a 22 year old should be a more polished product than an 18 year old. But I'll take Bob Feller over Jeff Samardzija every time.

Anyway, you've hit on Beane's answer to that question: just ignore the high school players as if they didn't exist. I'm not sure whether that's a good philosophy or not.

And your contention that the Moneyball philsophy is not about OBP is right and wrong. The big picture is about exploiting an inefficient market, but the specific methodology as it relates to the scouting and signing of amatuer baseball players is that controlling the strikezone is not something that can be taught- at least not very easily- and that it will carry across various levels of play.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

I don't know I think I rather have Smardzija pitching next year.

_________________

I'll have to check with Irish Boy regarding the definition of "current".

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

I dont have much of an opinion on this topic, but Ive heard this quite often enough where I feel its true.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

No one has said Pure numbers scouting. Obviously you need eyes.

If all the info was available, meaning a bunch of advanced stats about the SEC and the Catholic League blue going back like 20 years, then you could absolutely assign a value to OPB from SEC vs. the high school kids obp.


Can you expand on what you mean by Pure numbers scouting and how you've found the conclusion that its been a collossal player?


Also, self scouting and scouting of other professional players is a big part of it.

The numbers are meaningless without context and the samples aren't large enough to really tell you anything.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

Thats what I mean by if they were available.

They are available for MLB and they are useful

Interesting thread. I'll read up on it when i'm not in the middle of work, and probably post up a manifesto-like rant later.

_________________
1926-1931-1934-1942-1944-1946-1964-1967-1982-2006-2011

But I still don't think they're very useful for amateurs. You could have two high school batters that played the season in the same league and got 80 at-bats each but only had two pitchers in common. And the potential for the disparity of talent is so great and the sample so small that the numbers become nearly meaningless. That's why one of those scouts that were so reviled in Moneyball have to go out and actually see the players. Otherwise you end up drafting David Beck and Badger Brown.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

Just a quick thought: Felix Hernandez won the CY last year with basically a .500 record and as the ace of a historically horrific offensive team. (it definitely offended my sensibilities... I'm fairly certain Milton Bradley hit third for a large portion of the year ).

Evidence of a greater acceptance of SABR and advanced metrics within the game's cognoscenti.

_________________
1926-1931-1934-1942-1944-1946-1964-1967-1982-2006-2011