Stop the Presses! Kyle is coming!!!

[klaiggeb]

Yeah, I can sleep better now. We just signed Kyle Blanks to a minor league deal.

Then again, sure would be nice to strike gold like we did when Michael Morse signed.

I don't think Blanks was on anybody's radar. I thought he was out of baseball.

He's kind of like baseball's version of Bradford, the Eagle QB. Talented, but can't stay healthy enough to stay on the field.

boly

[Rog]

I don't think Blanks was on anybody's radar. I thought he was out of baseball.

Rog -- Apparently not. Kyle posted a .960 OPS in AAA last season and .875 (limited sample) in the majors.

Kyle isn't anyone's idea of a big signing (except for his 6-foot-6, 265 pound size). But he plays three positions, is a good defender for his size, and has power potential. His .786 career OPS against southpaws is higher than either Angel Pagan or Gregor Blanco, and he would make a decent complement to Nori Aoki if the Giants wind up going that way for left field. In small samples, his major league OPS the past two seasons has been .845 and .875. If nothing else, he is another decent right-handed bat off the bench.

He could complement lefty-swinging Jarrett Parker if Jarrett makes the team, and his career minor league average of .303 shames Parker's .265 mark. Kyle strikes out a lot, but Jarrett strikes out even more. Jarrett might well benefit from more experience in which to find a way to make more frequent contact.

If Blanks gets hurt, the Giants could bring up Mac Williamson to take his place. Like Blanks, Mac is a right-handed bat with some power. Let's not forget that Mac missed almost all the 2014 season to injury and after hitting .293 at AA Richmond, hit just .249 for Sacramento and .219 with the Giants. He would likely benefit from at least part of another year in the minors. He hasn't mastered AAA pitching yet.

The Blanks signing protects the Giants just in case Parker and Williamson AREN'T ready.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3130/stop-presses-kyle-coming#ixzz3rs3ChkJb

[Islandboagie]

Rog- The Blanks signing protects the Giants just in case Parker and Williamson AREN'T ready.

Boagie- I think it has more to do with the Giants thinking that maybe Blanks has figured some things out, and has a good upside. If Parker and Williamson aren't ready then we'd probably see Blanco in LF as it sits now. Blanks is more of a "let's see what happens" player. That doesn't mean Blanks can't have a good spring and win the job, like Maxwell did last spring. Right now, Blanks is just as much of a question mark as Parker and Williamson.

[klaiggeb]

See, I'm with boagie on this one, Rog.

That is precisely what they are thinking, and frankly, it's not a bad idea.

I mean, there's virtually no downside... Very little cost up front, and at least a reasonable possibility that he HAS figured some things out and CAN stay healthy.

That is...UNLESS signing him means that Parker and Williams are shuffled off to Buffalo... but I really don't see that happening.

The title of this thread was very much tongue-in-cheek but we struck gold with Michael Morse, and HAD HE STAYED healthy, his impact would have been even bigger than it was.


But the move also shows the thinking and desire, and I believe rightly so, of the Giants to sign players who can play multiple positions.

Yeah, Blanks ISN'T a RF, or CF, but he CAN play 1B... and do it at least an average level.

With only a 4 man bench... to me, that's a huge upside.

boly

[sfgdood]

I'm shocked that Boly likes Blanks...he's a defensive liability wherever he plays. And his bat has kept him in the minors.

[klaiggeb]

Don't misunderstand me, Randy, I am NOT a Blanks supporter..

But I do understand the Giant's thinking here, and since there is virtually no downside to his signing as he costs them virtually nothing, there IS some potential upside.


Consider who we've taken flyers on that were considered BAD to poor defenders in the outfield.

Burrell, Morse, and now Blanks.

Those first 2 really did well for us in their first season with us.

Well worth the minimal risk.

Same with Blanks; minimal risk.

And from what I've been able to find, Blanks is NOT the terrible outfielder that Burrell and Morse were.

Not Blanco, for sure, but he's not a guaranteed error waiting to happen like Morse was.

boly

[Rog]

I'm shocked that Boly likes Blanks...he's a defensive liability wherever he plays. And his bat has kept him in the minors.


Rog -- What leads you to believe Blanks is a defensive liability in as a corner outfielder or first baseman? That's not what I've read. As far as his bat's keeping him in the minors, it may have been his health as well.

By the way, I'm NOT shocked that you don't like Blanks, Randy. I would have been shocked if you had.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3130/stop-presses-kyle-coming#ixzz3s4eQHQ6f

[Rog]

Consider who we've taken flyers on that were considered BAD to poor defenders in the outfield.

Burrell, Morse, and now Blanks.


Rog -- From what I've read, Blanks is indeed clearly the best fielder of this trio.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3130/stop-presses-kyle-coming?page=1#ixzz3s4fRttRl

[Rog]

If the Giants sign a couple of good starting pitchers, perhaps they'll be able to go with "only" 12 pitchers, opening up a 5th bench spot. I have posted a few strategies I think the Giants could use that would allow them to get by with a decent dozen.

It would be nice to have Blanco, Blanks, Tomlinson, Adrianza (or someone who can play shortstop and is better) and Susac.

[sfgdood]

Boly - Consider who we've taken flyers on that were considered BAD to poor defenders in the outfield.

Burrell, Morse, and now Blanks.

Those first 2 really did well for us in their first season with us.

Dood - the big difference I see between the first two and Blanks is that Morse and Pat both had achieved some measure of success at the big league level. Thus the flyers held less risk for those two and bigger potential upside.

[sfgdood]

I'm shocked that Boly likes Blanks...he's a defensive liability wherever he plays. And his bat has kept him in the minors.


Rog -- What leads you to believe Blanks is a defensive liability in as a corner outfielder or first baseman?

Dood - watching him actually play

[Rog]

Rog -- What leads you to believe Blanks is a defensive liability in as a corner outfielder or first baseman?

Dood - watching him actually play


Rog -- I haven't seen much of Kyle, and I'm guessing you haven't either. Kyle has played only 25 games against the Giants.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3130/stop-presses-kyle-coming#ixzz3s5mVsXU4

[Islandboagie]

I wouldn't consider Morse or Burrell bad, limited range yes, but not bad. Burrel was actually very good at reading the flight of the ball and positioning himself, as was Bonds at the end of his career.

Who was bad? Glenallen Hill was bad. Brandon Belt is bad, he's misjudged balls a number of times.

I don't know enough about Blanks to give an accurate judgment on his fielding, but I don't remember him being a liability out there.

[Rog]

A thought for Randy: The trend in general managers these days is Ivy Leaguers. I'm sure those guys are being hired for their playing experience. The game is leaving behind those who aren't keeping up with the statistical revolution. Actually, though, we're ALL catching a little of it. Graphics and discussions that never existed before are popping up all over the place.

[Islandboagie]

Analytics has it's part in the game, I don't think anyone is disputing that. It's been around longer than most people realize, it only became popular when people not associated with baseball were hired purely for their number crunching ability. "Money ball" the book and especially the movie made it cool to be a stat geek. Now that Texas hold 'em has run it's course, frat boys and people who like to feel relevant have swarmed towards the action. It's become a marketing ploy by major league baseball to inject betting back into the game. Why not, right? I mean it's making everyone richer. All this while Pete Rose still waits for the call from the commissioner. You might be right, Rog, it is leaving the baseball purists behind, regrettably so. That's the money part if it though.

The winning part of it is still firmly in the grasps of baseball men. The most successful GMs started out in the scouting departments, working their way up.

[Rog]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, Boagie, but what does hiring people for their smarts have to do with gambling? Here are some of the ways I think analytics have affected the game on the field:

. Better players are put on the field. Analytics give us an objective way to evaluate players to complement the scouting that has long, long been in place.

Scouting is not to be ignored. One thing analytics can't measure well yet is what scouts call "makeup." Makeup sounds more like what a women's softball team would put on after their post-game shower, but it is of course the root of team chemistry. And a scout's feel for the game can't be replaced, either.

But analytics breaks down the deposits (bases which lead to runs) and withdrawals (outs which lead to innings ending) that determine a team's bank accounts (runs). They break down the determining factors into little, tiny, objective pieces which can complement scouting to present a clearer picture of each player.

. Better hitting. Teams better know how to build bases and prevent making outs, so they put together a lineup of better hitters better positioned in the lineup.

. Better pitching. Teams now know how to better use pitchers, realizing that pitchers pitch best in short bursts.

. Better defense. Teams are positioning themselves far better than ever before. The actual importance of defense is being better measured.

. Better base running. Why do you think first base coaches use stopwatches?

. Better measurement of effort, not simply results. We now know the velocity, horizontal and vertical movement, and spin rate of pitches. We see consistency of release point. We know the velocity and angle the ball comes off the bat. We know how long a ball was in the air and how far a player traveled to catch it. We know the exact route he took.

. Better use of video analysis to help players improve and break out of slumps.


Hundreds of millions of dollars are now at stake in choosing free agents. Teams need to make the best possible measurements they can by combining scouting and analytics to help them make the best decisions.

The job can eventually get down with a nail. But having a hammer does it a lot more efficiently.

.

[Rog]

By the way, shall we call them "analyticians" (or analysts, if we wish to be mundane!) are baseball men too. Not in the traditional sense, but in the improving sense.

And another analogy has just come to me. We can see a lot with a frontal view. We can see even more if we also have a side view. More yet if we have a back view. Analytics provides us with other views.

Another analogy might be that scouts provide an eye-witness view. Analytics give us more of a dry but extensive and objective snapshot.

In order for a scout to supplement his scouting, he needs to physically go back to take another look, or at least look at film. In analytics, all the data are there. One can do three things:

. He can group them differently.

. He can better analyze them.

. He can learn what is he DOESN'T know and would like to measure better, then try to come up with a way of doing so.

If measuring things isn't important to scouting in the broader sense, why are radar guns and stopwatches used? They're used to better quantify what the scouts sees. Analytics takes that quantifying what the scout sees many, many layers deeper.

You are right on the money, Boagie, that analytics have been used longer than most realize. Don did an excellent job of pointing this out himself. One difference is that now baseball mathematics have become baseball calculus. Baseball science has become baseball chemistry and physics. Baseball surgery has become baseball arthroscopic surgery. Baseball abacuses have become baseball computers.

Scouts have gotten the job done for a century and a half. Over time, they improved their skills. That improvement reached a tipping point when it was put into overdrive by analytics.

A bad baseball decision can cost nine figures. Why WOULDN'T teams seek objective information and put the brightest into analyzing that information and making decisions based on it? Why would they simply use the subjective information provided by scouting? Teams have long agreed that combining them is the best way to make judgments.

As fans, we too should probably combine them to make our judgments.

Fans fancy themselves scouts. They know what they see, and they know what they saw. Of course, it probably makes sense to compare our own scouting with that of the experts, gathering as much in-depth scouting information as we can find. And it also makes sense to compare our own scouting to how objective analytics see things.

Analytics make us a better judge of what we see. We are all sharp baseball observers here, but despite that, we disagree. I'll see something differently than Don. Boagie will see something differently than Randy. Mark will see something differently than Boly. That's because we mostly form opinions, not facts, based on our judgments.

Statistics are important because they're facts. They're not opinions. They don't tell the entire story simply because not all things can yet be measured accurately, and they can be misinterpreted.

But statistics can take the game right down to its base -- creating bases (offense) compared to creating outs (pitching and defense). Give me the guy who can create bases without making outs, and I've got a hitter. How good he is can be measured pretty well by how the bases compare to the outs. Pitching and defense can be measured in reverse, although measuring defense is still difficult -- although not as difficult as it was before analytics.

Seriously. Take a look at how many bases a hitter or runner compiles or a pitcher gives up. Take a look at how many outs a pitcher compiles or a batter hits or runs into. Now we've got the basics of the game.

You and I may not agree on what we see. We see that just about every game day right here on this board. But we can count the bases and the outs. We may disagree on how we interpret them, but at least we all SEE them the same. Statistics give us more common, objective ground from which to judge.

When I say I saw something differently than you did and my way is better, I'm simply being pompous. When I show you a statistic, I'm simply being informative. You may say I'm pompous in how I interpret the statistic, but by merely presenting it, I'm being informative.

When we disagree, I think we should lean toward coming back to bases vs. outs. Baseball is indeed a simple game. It's bases (which turn into runs) vs. outs (which turn into innings). It's a cost (outs)/benefits (bases) analysis. It really is at least 90% that simple.

Or as Yogi might have put it, 90% that half simple.

[sfgdood]

if or when stats geeks "take over" the game or leave behind real baseball men, then it will be a sad day for the sport as I knew it and a joyous day for nerds that never played the game

[Islandboagie]

Rog- Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, Boagie, but what does hiring people for their smarts have to do with gambling?

Boagie- With the growing popularity of analytics since the movie "Moneyball" everyone who thinks they're smarter than they really are has jumped on the fantasy bandwagon. Fantasy sports started out innocently, now its a huge business, and they've already uncovered corruption.

Rog- Better players are put on the field. Analytics give us an objective way to evaluate players to complement the scouting that has long, long been in place.

Boagie- I have no problem with analytics complimenting the other avenues. What I have a problem with is number guys always turning to numbers to make an argument while discounting the opinions of others. That's not being objective.

[klaiggeb]

Boagie- I have no problem with analytics complimenting the other avenues. What I have a problem with is number guys always turning to numbers to make an argument while discounting the opinions of others. That's not being objective.

****boly says****

I loved the way you phrased that, boagie! Loved it!

Summed up perfectly what fantasy sports has done to viewers.

Now ANYONE and EVERYONE who can READ, is suddenly an expert in their sport whether they've played it or not!

And help me out here... but just how often 'HAS' Money ball actually won?

To my knowledge, only once; Boston Red Sox, I believe.

Kind of reminds me of Arm Chair Generals during a war.

EVERYONE knows what to do in the heat of battle...

Yeah.

Right.

Everyone thinks they know how to handle a combat situation because they've a hundred movies on the subject!



Loved that line from the movie when Tommy Lee Jones asks the captain prosecuting Samuel L. Jackson if he knows what the life expectancy of a 2nd lieutenant is when dropped into a hot LZ.

"10 seconds. 10 Seconds."

Things get really, really different when you're in the slop.

When the bullets, body parts, and blood start flying everywhere, it's suddenly a different story.


History has shown that 2nd lieutenants get people killed faster than any other officer.

Experience makes all the difference in the world.

Same thing in sports. You have to have played beyond Little League to have any idea about what it's really like on the field.

Theory is one thing, reality, another.

boly

[Rog]

You have to have played beyond Little League to have any idea about what it's really like on the field.


Rog -- Wake up, people! These guys HAVE played baseball beyond Little League. Do you think being bright disqualifies people from playing sports?

I'm sorry, guys, but these bright guys -- who in many cases have played MORE baseball than we have -- are just sharper than we are. In many cases they likely understand the game ON THE FIELD as well or better than we do.

The people here who most criticize analytics are the ones who often make statements that have little to back them up. Stats are facts. I am accused of relying too heavily on stats. It's bad to use facts?

We have had all this talk about how Brandon Crawford is the best fielding shortstop. He won the Gold Glove (which is often influenced by a player's bat), so he's no slouch. But he's probably not Andrelton Simmons either. The belief that Andrelton is the best FIELDER in the game is about as widespread as the belief that Brandon is the best-fielding SHORTSTOP in the game.

Which player is the better fielder? It could conceivably be Crawford. He's certainly very good, and believe it or not, metrics contributed to his winning the Gold Glove. My sense is that he would have won it anyway, but being the leader in the Sabermetric Defensive Index certainly helped him.

Brandon benefited from having a metric used that favored him, even though most of them pointed to Simmons. Simmons was the leader in most of the metrics, he was a UNANIMOUS winner of The Fielding Bible Award, and Wilson chose him as the top fielder in the game. Simmons was probably the best shortstop in the game. The more plays people watched, the more they seemed to like him.

But that isn't my point. My point is that when our posters were asked to make a scouting report on Brandon's fielding, there was only one submitted. All this talk about how Brandon is the better fielder and yet no one can take the time to make a scouting report on him? Does that make any kind of logical sense?

It's not as though there has been no discussion about why Brandon would be the best. But only one scouting report was posted here. And none have been posted on Simmons.

If we can't make a detailed scouting report on the fielding of two players, we're not truly qualified to say one is better than the others. To compile the best scouting report, we need to see the player play a lot. And we need to rely on getting as many and as varied opinions as we can to help us in our report. That's why teams have cross checkers and often use top executives to add their own judgments to the scouting reports.

Scouts see things differently. That's because they see things not necessarily as they are, but as they see them. Although a single stat doesn't see the entire picture, it does see things as they are.

With the millions of dollars at stake, do we think teams are more and more using bright guys as General Managers because they want to waste their money -- or because they want to get the most out of it that they can?

Boly freely admits he's a dinosaur. One would think that most younger observers would realize that analytics have greatly improved the game. I'm probably the second-oldest here (behind only Don), but two decades or so ago I began to realize there was a lot more to learn about baseball than I had observed as a player, coach, fan and even friend to a major league player.

My dad knew enough about baseball that he spoke to Giants owner Horace Stoneham on behalf of Chris Speier soon after the beginning of free agency. Chris wasn't getting anywhere with Horace, and my dad told Chris he would give it a try. But as my dad put it, there was too much water over the dam by the time he got involved.

In reality, the Giants simply couldn't afford Chris, much as they couldn't afford to provide the retirement for Willie Mays that they wanted to and thus did Willie a big favor by trading him to the Mets.

My point is, you don't think I learned a little about the game from my dad -- as well as from Chris, for that matter? If I rely heavily on stats, it isn't because of a lack of knowledge of the game on the field, it's because I happen to like facts.

I think people here believe I use stats too much in part because when I use them to back up a point, the person has little way of counteracting the stats, of counteracting facts.

People have different ways of making judgments. Some make them analytically (using facts and logic); others make them by feel. Yet others make them by what they see. The best way to make decisions is probably by using a combination of the three.

But if we were to pick just one, it's hard to argue against using the facts. If relying on stats too much is relying heavily on facts, well, yes, I'm guilty.

For gosh sakes pay a little attention, guys. When we discuss plays, I often go into deeper detail of what happened on the play and why it may have happened than anyone else here. I sometimes go into what a player may even have been THINKING.

I'm not tooting my own horn. I'm just an ordinary guy. Nothing special at all. What I'm saying though is that the argument against metrics is that the guys "haven't played baseball beyond Little League." Let me ask you this: How do you know this? Most of the time you're dead wrong.

Let me ask you this, as well. Why would an analytical guy become a GM as opposed to say a mutual fund manager, where he could make a lot more money? Think it is because he played and loves baseball? Almost assuredly.

My son was offered a job by a mutual fund. He was offered a 60% raise. He turned the job down because it would involve a huge commute, which he couldn't change without leaving his fiancee. But my point is, he is a bright guy who is well qualified to work in the mutual fund business. But he is in no way qualified to have an important job in baseball.

He knows the game; he even played the game a little. But he doesn't have the love of the game that, for instance, his old man does. If all it takes is a mental machine to become a GM, he'd have a shot. But it also takes a love of the game. Why else would someone go that direction?

There may be exceptions, but I'll bet most of these GM's have played the game beyond Little League, and almost all of them have a love of the game. If we're going to say a guy didn't play the game beyond Little League (and assuming that matters a huge amount), we'd better research him and know for sure that he didn't.

That's why I like facts, guys. Facts are, well, facts. Implying that someone hasn't played beyond Little League without knowing it to be true. I have indeed looked up a few of these guys. I have found that some played baseball well BEYOND Little League, but I haven't found evidence that any of them DIDN'T.

We should research things ourselves before we state or imply them. We should endeavor to be talking from FACTS, not merely perceptions.

Saying that our judgments are better than that of others is being arrogant. Stating that something is a fact when in FACT it IS, isn't.

I watched some of the top plays of 2015 on TV last night while at a Thanksgiving party. On many of the fly balls, they showed how far the player traveled. They showed his top speed in doing so. They showed how true his route was. One thing they probably should have added was how long the ball was in the air.

But the point is, do we learn more about a play when it is said that the player got a great jump and took a good route -- or from the way the MLB Network presented it, using facts and sometimes illustrations?

A scout says the fielder gets great jumps and takes good routes to the ball. Analytics measure it. A scout can be wrong in his judgment, which is why scouts sometimes disagree with each other. Analytics measure what the scout is watching, and the facts can give us insight into which scout may be more right.

Put the scout and the analytics together, and we get the better picture. Baseball is realizing this more and more as billions of dollars become at stake. We should realize it too.






Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3130/stop-presses-kyle-coming#ixzz3sE0iDTTZ

[Rog]

Something I fell into in about a minute of looking:

"Jeff Bridich, entering his second season as general manager for Colorado, is a former Harvard baseball captain, as is newly promoted Oakland GM David Forst."

Is Division 1 baseball higher than Little League? Does it take long to research the premise that these "Ivy League" guys haven't played baseball beyond Little League? Are we guilty of stereotyping?

[Rog]

Yeah, I can sleep better now. We just signed Kyle Blanks to a minor league deal.

Then again, sure would be nice to strike gold like we did when Michael Morse signed.

I don't think Blanks was on anybody's radar. I thought he was out of baseball.


Rog -- Morse was signed in the hopes he would be a good left fielder for the Giants. Blanks was signed in the hopes that he could be the Giants' 5th outfielder.

As Boagie pointed out, he was on somebody's radar and should have been on ours. We discussed his signing with the Giants a year ago, and it was mentioned when he signed elsewhere.

If a guy who put up consecutive OPS of 1.036 and .960 in the minors and .845 and .875 in the majors, he should be on our radar. That's not to say that these guys always ARE, but they should be.

Especially if we have discussed them as possible Giants within the past year. We look at Jarrett Parker as a prospect and Blanks as a suspect because Blanks has seemingly been around forever. Yet Blanks is only two years older than Parker. Parker reached the major leagues as age 26. Blanks made them at age 22.

I'm not a huge Kyle Blanks fan. He strikes out too much. But he doesn't strike out as often as Jarrett Parker does. In the minors, Blanks has hit for a better average and more power. Parker appears to enjoy the edge in the field and on the bases. Being a right-handed power hitter, Blanks is the better complement to Gregor Blanco on the bench and the better platoon candidate if things work out that way.

If the signing of Blanks makes more than a slight difference, that is a very good thing.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3130/stop-presses-kyle-coming?page=1#ixzz3sEGGhL6v

[klaiggeb]

Rog -- Wake up, people! These guys HAVE played baseball beyond Little League. Do you think being bright disqualifies people from playing sports?

****boly says****

Rog, you totally missed my point, and perhaps boagie's, too.

My comment, and I believe, boagie's, too, was directed at those millions of fans who THINK they know their sport BECAUSE they are involved in fantasy sports.

Nothing more than that.

Period.

Of course there are people who are bright AND played the game, too.

But that was not the focus, nor the point of the post.

It's the egg heads who do nothing more than look at numbers, who never played, but think THEY are smarter than everyone else.

That's it.

Nothing more.

You took it as a shot at EVERYONE who believes in sabermetrics and that wasn't the point.

boly

[sfgdood]

Rog - Although a single stat doesn't see the entire picture, it does see things as they are.

Dood - this cuts to one of my biggest problems with stats geeks as a whole. Even those who freely admit that stats don't show the entire picture have no shame in attacking those who rely less on sabermetrics to form arguments. You can't have it both ways. The reason, in my opinion, is because most of them never played and therefore understand the numbers part better than the actual playing parts.

[Islandboagie]

Rog, You still don't understand what we're saying, and I guess you never will.

You blow so much sunshine up the asses of anyone who is involved in sabremetrics. You talk about how intellectual and wonderful they are, and it's all because they think the way you do. When you're talking about how intellectually superior they are to everyone else, you're really just wishing people would see you that way. Kind of sad and disturbing at the same time.

Every time you defend sabremetrics you spew the same defense. Your dad, Chris Speier, Willie Mays and sometimes Chris Lincecum...

Rather than immediately going on the defensive, try being a little more objective. Dig deeper than the surface of what Boly, Randy or I post.

(See what I'm doing there? I'm lecturing and trying to seem intellectual, like you do to people.)

This is what I HATE about stats geeks. Most all of them act the same way too. They act intellectually superior, they act like other people just couldn't understand...when all they're doing is looking up stats on a website. We all have looked up stats on a website, that doesn't make you an intellectual.

And now you can't drop this Brandon Crawford thing. Crawford won the gold glove, get over it. You're so upset by this outcome because it proves the fielding bible isn't as precise as the stats geeks wish it was. If two stats about the same measure don't come out with the same result, then the stat is flawed, thus deeming itself useless. Defense cannot be quantified, Rog, so don't say your stats are facts because when it comes to defense they aren't.

[Rog]

My comment, and I believe, boagie's, too, was directed at those millions of fans who THINK they know their sport BECAUSE they are involved in fantasy sports.

Nothing more than that.


Rog -- You're certainly correct that I misinterpreted your statement. Sorry about that. And now that I've actually played fantasy baseball, my sense is that a lot of the players are just having fun, often with a group of friends. But most of those guys don't think they really know a lot about the game.

I agree there are likely millions out there who DO think they know the game well and who actually don't. I don't know how many millions play fantasy baseball, but it's got to be a very big number. But I'll bet we see an even higher percentage -- likely quite a bit higher -- at actual games who think they know a lot about the game and really don't.

Knowing analytics doesn't preclude one from knowing a lot about the game on the field, just as knowing the game on the field doesn't prevent others from knowing analytics. The trend in GM's and even in managers and players themselves shows that the best way is to know both -- as deeply as possible.

The good thing about the analytics side is that it deals in facts. When we're talking about the game on the field, we're mostly talking in opinions. A good opinion should be backed up with facts -- not simply other opinions.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3130/stop-presses-kyle-coming#ixzz3sFi3Jr9U

[Rog]

You blow so much sunshine up the asses of anyone who is involved in sabremetrics. You talk about how intellectual and wonderful they are, and it's all because they think the way you do.


Rog -- I don't think they -- or I -- am so intellectual and wonderful. What I do think is that most of those who use sabermetrics deal in more facts and have a broader perspective than those who simply watch the game on the field. There seems to be the misconception here that one can't do both.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3130/stop-presses-kyle-coming?page=1#ixzz3sFkMh8aE

[Rog]

Dig deeper than the surface of what Boly, Randy or I post.


Rog -- I have a pretty good understanding of what you, Boly and Randy post. Of the three, you have the best understanding of analytics, while Boly has the best understanding of anyone on this board of baseball techniques.

Let me give an example though. Boly does indeed know a lot about baseball mechanics. Yet when I posted about the changes Joe Panik had made, the guy who wrote the article I got my ideas from clearly knew more about the differences between the 2014 Joe Panik and the 2015 Joe Panik than Boly did. And that guy was an analytic guy. Obviously, he knew more about mechanics than Boly, and more about analytics than I.

I can't tell you how much baseball the guy played or how many games he has watched, but he surely knew a lot about baseball mechanics. I hole Boly in very high esteem. Yet this analytics guy knew more about Joe's mechanics than Boly did. Same with a guy who earlier analyzed the changes in Brandon Crawford in 2014.

Please get this idea that analytics and understanding the game on the field are mutually exclusive. They're not. I knew LOT about the game on the field before I even knew there was anything called analytics (which in fact it wasn't yet called I don't think). Did I suddenly forget what I knew? Or did I merely broaden my knowledge of the game?

I'm not saying I'm smarter than anyone here. I would go out on a limb and say I likely know more stuff about the game though. I study it a lot, I've studied it for a long time, and I likely study it more broadly than anyone else here. Heck, I might learn more right HERE than anyone. (Of course, some would say that's because I have so much to learn!)

I just get tired of seeing those who follow analytics being put down, even as the game itself embraces the field more.



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3130/stop-presses-kyle-coming?page=1#ixzz3sFl2CPPf

[Rog]

And now you can't drop this Brandon Crawford thing. Crawford won the gold glove, get over it. You're so upset by this outcome because it proves the fielding bible isn't as precise as the stats geeks wish it was.


Rog -- You don't know what you're talking about here, Boagie (and you usually do).

First of all, I'm GLAD Brandon won the award. He's a Giant, and he's likely a nicer and cooler guy (although I'm merely guessing on the last two).

And Brandon's winning the award over Andrelton Simmons DOESN'T prove the Fielding Bible isn't as precise as "stats geeks" think it is. Why is that?

Well, the primary reason is that The Fielding Bible DOESN'T think it is precise. It recognizes that fielding is very hard to measure, whether with the eyes, with analytics, or even with both. A better hitter gets more hits and bases. A better fielder may not get as MANY putouts and assists. He may make MORE errors.

I would venture The Fielding Bible feels it is the BEST at evaluating fielding, and it likely is. The Fielding Bible Award isn't based solely on the opinion of the book The Fielding Bible's author, John Dewan. He brings a broad group of voters into the voting -- including the fans. And he likely feels The Fielding Bible's own evaluation of fielding is about as good as it gets, because The Fielding Bible views every play by every fielder.

Who else do you know who does that? Certainly not you nor I. Not even close. Certainly not everyone on the board combined. Again, not even close.

In addition, Brandon's winning the Gold Glove doesn't PROVE The Fielding Bible isn't as precise as it thinks it is even if it THOUGHT it was extremely precise. Lot of guys have won the Gold Glove who didn't deserve it. Usually those guys are better known hitters, which certainly applies in this case.

The Fielding Bible and most of the analytics community believes that the best way to judge a fielder is to use all the measures available. Brandon was rated higher in a few of those. Simmons was rated higher in more of them.

My personal feeling is that I'm going to disagree with The Fielding Bible only when I believe I have seen enough, am objective enough and know enough to make a better judgment than they. Which is to say, almost never.

Seriously, Boagie, how do you know that Brandon is the better fielder when you haven't seen the vast majority of Simmons's plays? I certainly don't know that Simmons is better for sure, although I believe the evidence points pretty strongly in that direction.

There is probably no one here who uses words such as may, might, could, etc. than I. Most here seem to be so SURE of their opinions. I likely seem sure because I bring a lot of facts to most analyses, but I recognize I could be wrong. Boly said Crawford IS the best (fielding) shortstop. As good a baseball man as he is, he doesn't know that. He CAN'T. He hasn't seen all the plays made or not made by all the shortstops in the game. Even if he had, there could be a lack of objectivity involved, particularly if one of the players is a Giant. Or maybe others simply have better judgment.

No one can say FOR SURE that Babe Ruth was the best player in the game. There are many things that point to his being a better player compared to his era than anyone else. But how do we know for SURE? The answer is that we don't.

In the case of The Fielding Bible, we can't be sure they're right either. What I do believe though is that they make the best CASE. You tell me, Boagie, who makes a better case than they do?

Or how about this. Read the darn thing and see what you think. I'll buy the book and send it to anyone here. The only thing I would ask is that the recipient truly read the book and keep an open mind about it and its judgments. Until then, or even after, please tell me who ha a better methodology than they do. Tell me who is more objective. Tell me who puts more work into their judgment.

I don't know who the best fielder is at ANY position, Boagie. And that is why I put a lot of credence in The Fielding Bible. They don't know, either. But they put more effort and objectivity into their judgment than anyone I know.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3130/stop-presses-kyle-coming?page=1#ixzz3sFnkfuEg