Honestly, it doesn't matter what #'s you put in front of Spindoc or Crash, because they are traditionalist that like to use the "eye test." Nothing wrong with that really, but just can't ignore useful stats. There is extremely valuable information that can be given to you by looking at the numbers. There is a 'feel' to it too, but a manager or scout were to go with a 'hunch' or 'gut feeling' and rather than the numbers and be wrong then they are at much more of a risk to lose their jobs or be criticized. That's just the game today. EVERY team has someone who's only job is to analyze the numbers. Maybe multiple someones. They have people looking at their minor leagues, major leagues, other teams etc. All to get information about match-ups, how players will progress, and some advanced stuff like how they will perform in high leverage situations. These are USEFUL statistics. If you want to play the game based on hunches, then do it, but be criticized more often than not. It would be unwise not to use the technology and advancements we have. But if you want to play it that way, hey, at least we'll all get a good idea as to how they thought and managed back in the early days of baseball.

 

I don't disagree. The eye test is a big part of it and I feel stats guys discount that. The same way you guys think Spin and I only use the eye test. It's both, other seem to emphasize the importance of stats more than we do. BUT, they both are important.

If you think #s are gonna show you that Frazier's rearend goes away from the plate every swing and essentially leaves him only to flail at pitches on the outer half, well good luck with that. I have no problem analyzing stats and think they're extremely useful. I've never said anything to the contrary, but you guys are so out of whack when it comes to analyzing baseball because you think you can determine every stitch of the game with numbers and that's not true. BP is the best second baseman in the game. It's not close. Look at fielding charts, # of chances and he's not at the top. That's something you can't analyze with a stat. When you lose that, the game will become something I don't care to watch.

If you think #s are gonna show you that Frazier's rearend goes away from the plate every swing and essentially leaves him only to flail at pitches on the outer half, well good luck with that. I have no problem analyzing stats and think they're extremely useful. I've never said anything to the contrary, but you guys are so out of whack when it comes to analyzing baseball because you think you can determine every stitch of the game with numbers and that's not true. BP is the best second baseman in the game. It's not close. Look at fielding charts, # of chances and he's not at the top. That's something you can't analyze with a stat. When you lose that, the game will become something I don't care to watch.

 

 

My man!

This year, last year, and the "Moneyball" year. Point was that if it's based on statistics alone, and they make moves because of those statistics, they would be good a lot more consistently than 3 times in the last 8 years.

 

Is 74-88 good? What about 75-87?

 

Everyone uses sabermetrics now, thus, it's harder to use sabermetrics effectively, because all of the sabermetric friendly players are being signed for more money. If you remember in the Moneyball year, they signed Hatteberg for his high OBP and everyone thought that was crazy. But they paid him pennies and he had a good year. Nowadays, Hatteberg woulda made a lot more money than he did then.

If you think #s are gonna show you that Frazier's rearend goes away from the plate every swing and essentially leaves him only to flail at pitches on the outer half, well good luck with that. I have no problem analyzing stats and think they're extremely useful. I've never said anything to the contrary, but you guys are so out of whack when it comes to analyzing baseball because you think you can determine every stitch of the game with numbers and that's not true. BP is the best second baseman in the game. It's not close. Look at fielding charts, # of chances and he's not at the top. That's something you can't analyze with a stat. When you lose that, the game will become something I don't care to watch.

 

I don't disagree that BP is the best 2B in the game. As a matter of fact, fielding statistics to me aren't nearly as valuable as offensive statistics. You can use range factor all you want but you have to see fielding.

 

So if you don't want Frazier in the two hole who do you want? Votto? Basically move everyone up a spot in the order?

How did Frazier hit .270 something last year and end up 3rd in ROY voting if he's such a bum at the plate?

How did Frazier hit .270 something last year and end up 3rd in ROY voting if he's such a bum at the plate?

 

Lack of a scouting report...

I think it would be fun to talk about Spindoc's favorite WBP aka Bronson Arroyo. How does he shape up in the "eyeball test" and the sabermetrics?

I don't disagree that BP is the best 2B in the game. As a matter of fact, fielding statistics to me aren't nearly as valuable as offensive statistics. You can use range factor all you want but you have to see fielding.

 

So if you don't want Frazier in the two hole who do you want? Votto? Basically move everyone up a spot in the order?

YES

Lack of a scouting report...

This. Damned eyeball test.

I think it would be fun to talk about Spindoc's favorite WBP aka Bronson Arroyo. How does he shape up in the "eyeball test" and the sabermetrics?

Soft crap never wins in the post season. Purely eyeball on that one.

This. Damned eyeball test.

 

Guess they don't do scouting reports in the minors... By this logic, everyone that comes up should hit .270 their rookie season.

Guess they don't do scouting reports in the minors... By this logic, everyone that comes up should hit .270 their rookie season.

 

The minors are more worried about working on what the pitcher needs to do rather than what the hitter can't do. Have you ever heard them say that they will find your holes in the show? That's the difference between the show and any other level of baseball. Some guys learn to fix those holes while others do not. If it was simple everyone would do it.

Guess they don't do scouting reports in the minors... By this logic, everyone that comes up should hit .270 their rookie season.

Is it a sophomore slump or that fact that they can continue to get him out on the outer half? Can you answer a straighforward question without the benefit of baseballreference.com? Serious question deux. Just answer it, you watch the games don't you?

Is it a sophomore slump or that fact that they can continue to get him out on the outer half? Can you answer a straighforward question without the benefit of baseballreference.com? Serious question deux. Just answer it, you watch the games don't you?

 

Haven't used baseball reference once. I just pay attention and listen when announcers share relevant stats/tv shows relevant stats. And I'm a partial season ticket holder. So yes. I watch many games. Thanks for asking. I know good baseball when I see it. I also know relevant stats.