On Stats and the Scouting Director

by Charlie on Nov 8, 2007 6:43 PM EST in News Comment 10 comments

Yesterday Ian sent me this link to a blog entry at Fire Joe Morgan, which is basically FJM expressing orgasmic joy about the litany of sabermetric statistics Neil Huntington named in a recent Q+A at Pirates.com. Anyway, here's what FJM has to say:

As a statistically-minded baseball fan, allow me to say: holy f***ing s***.

I mean no disrespect to FJM, which is a funny site that has deservedly won notoriety for its righteous takedowns of baseball's most ridiculous writers. But as a baseball fan who most people would also call statistically-minded, I have to say: really? This is what wets your whistle?

This stats-versus-scouts thing is pretty much dead. Among major-league GMs, it's only really relevant at one extreme. Dodgers GM Ned Colletti on VORP:

''Do I use VORP?" Colletti said, referring to one such sabermetric tool, Value Over Replacement Player. ''I may be using it and not even know it, and if I am, it's nobody's business. There are a lot of different criteria in judging players. I think I use, um, esoteric qualitative mathematical review times five. That's one of them."

That's ignorance, and if Huntington had said something like what Colletti said, I'd be seriously concerned.

Colletti looks poised to run a promising Dodger franchise into the ground by playing old has-beens like Nomar Garciaparra and Luis Gonzalez instead of promising youngsters like Andy LaRoche and Matt Kemp, paying zillions of dollars to Juan Pierre, trading prospects for Mark Hendrickson, and so on.

Again, though, Colletti's an extreme case, and anyway his main problem isn't aversion to statistics - it's idiocy. You don't need a statistics degree to notice that, hey, Kemp's batting .342, so it's probably time to tell the manager he needs to be in the lineup every day.

In other cases, the stats-versus-scouts thing just doesn't matter when comparing big-league GMs. All organizations use stats, and most now at least have someone in their front office who knows how to use them properly. Beyond reassuing us that Huntington's not going to be another Colletti, there's nothing especially interesting about the fact that he knows what VORP is.

You know what is interesting? The fact that the Pirates just hired a new scouting director with a pretty dubious background. That's the kind of move that can make - or break - a franchise. And arcane statistics really have nothing to do with it.

0 recs | Comment 10 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

out of curiosity,

who would you have hired?

by puget sound pirate on Nov 8, 2007 6:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

You mean...

as the scouting director? I don't know, and I hope it's not too evasive to say that it's really not possible to expect me to provide alternatives. I don't know who was available and I'm sure it's not easy to get someone good to do that job. I do know that, all other things being equal, I'd want someone new rather than someone who's had that job before and done badly.

My point here is not to bash Huntington for picking Smith. Maybe he has good reasons for choosing him that I don't know about. But I'm not impressed so far, and I don't really know how anyone could be.

by Charlie on Nov 8, 2007 7:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Evaluating....

Charlie, I think that's a fair response. You and I and virtually everyone else is too far removed from the process. And the position, though vitally important, flies below the media's radar so it's hard to evaluate candidates and individuals other than very superficially by how their drafts turn out.

Having said that we have repeatedly seen how individuals, be it managers, coaches or scouting directors may fail or not appear to do a good job in their first go round and then be great in their next. Bill Belichik being the prime example.

So, while you may not be impressed, you have to think that there was a reason the guy was hired. And I don't by into the thinking that nobody wants to work for the Pirates. It's very unfortunate that John Farrell didin't want to interview. But, few people ever have the luxury to turn down such opportunities. The offensive coordinator at USC this year turned down the Oakland Raiders head coaching job. I'll be interested to see when he finally lands one.

There are plenty of smart, talented, ambitious people who want these jobs whether they are in Cincinnati, Kansas City, Pittsburgh or New York.

by dtoddwin on Nov 8, 2007 7:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Disagree

I'll admit I don't have my finger on the pulse of most of the rest of the major leagues, but I don't hear much mention at all of OBP or OPS, let alone to wear advanced stat analysis on his sleeve like NH did in answering that question. I have to think if most GMs leaned heavily that way, the media would be parroting them, and I just don't see it (see caveat, above).

As for just reading that one paragraph of alphabet soup, yeah, I think that's worth a "holy f/s". I'm only vaguely familiar with some of those stats, and I hang out... well, here. There may be more modern thinkers than there was just a few years ago, but they aren't advertising it like this.

by azibuck on Nov 8, 2007 8:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Stats

Here's a non-exhaustive list of major-league franchises you could categorize as "stat-oriented" in one way or another:

Boston (Bill James, Voros McCracken), Tampa, Toronto, Cleveland, Oakland, Milwaukee, St. Louis (Mitchel Lichtman, inventor of UZR, works there), Arizona, Colorado, San Diego (Paul DePodesta). Even Dave Littlefield mentioned OBP pretty frequently, and he also used computer simulations.

Several other teams - actually, probably most other teams - have someone running stats for them, and all the people mentioned above (except Littlefield, of course) are innovators, not even people wh just USE stats. I think that if more teams don't talk like this publicly, it's because they assume no one is interested.

Check out this article in USS Mariner:

http://ussmariner.com/2007/10/09/the-seeds-of-success/

by Charlie on Nov 8, 2007 9:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Probably just about everybody

I don't think the Pirates have had a stats guy, though. Seems like we would have heard of one somewhere along the line.

Mike Emeigh (of Primer and the Pirate listserv) said the other day that the Mets and Nats have stats guys on staff. Daniels (Tex) used to work for Theo, so he probably does, too.

Hendry and the Cubs are openly hostile on the subject (and clearly don't think anything of OBP), so they're probably one of the holdouts.

by WTM on Nov 8, 2007 9:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My point

FJM's reaction is because they're not talking about it. The reasons they don't, such as they think no one is interested, are neither here nor there. I really don't think the fact teams are employing stats people matters. There would be no FJM, or it would have run its course, if there weren't alot of material for them to riff on. So Huntington's public statement is different and refreshing, thus, the reaction.

Huntington's answer deserved a holy f/s, that's all I'm saying.

by azibuck on Nov 9, 2007 11:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I see...

I interpreted what they said entirely differently, but I can see what you're saying.

by Charlie on Nov 11, 2007 1:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Credibility

I think Huntington and Connoley have to establish credibility with their fan base and also with their peers. I think they have to do this through the media discussing their objectives and by hiring talented, repected people.

I think Huntington's response was designed to show he uses all the analytical tools that are available to people in his industry, he "gets it". And he also relies on scouting and visual evaluation. You can have it both ways and it placates those who think one side is the "right" way to do it.

I'm willing to give a complete pass on the hires until I learn more. I can't believe these guys would go out and hire people who weren't viewed as quality, respected people by their peers. And, if they did, we are in for another tough five years. But, until proven otherwise, I won't view them as good or bad. I'll try to remain open-minded about it.

by dtoddwin on Nov 8, 2007 9:34 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

We pretty much

have no choice but to be open minded and hope for the best, but I'm with Charlie. I just don't see anything in these hires to be the least bit excited about.

by RichieHebner on Nov 9, 2007 9:51 AM EST reply actions 0 recs