The all inclusive "2015 Predictions" thread

[a700hitter]

I think upgrading the quality of scouts at the expense of technology/analytics, would do more harm than good. IMO, most good scouts tend to see the same qualities/talents in players. It's the analytics that give a scout the advantage over another scout, not a better eye.

I fundamentally disagree. Technology and analytics are for the most part "off the shelf" commodities that can be purchased at any time. The Harvard/Wharton MBA consultants will always take your call and show up to train your people. The human talent pool is limited and is not an "off the shelf" commodity. Get the best people with the best skillset for the jobs. The analytics and technologies are not part of the skillset. They are tools like an instrument is to a musician. It's the musician that is more valuable.

 

People tend to be very black and white. I am not at all saying don't use the modern day analytics. Of course, you have to use the tools necessary to do the job. It's a question of emphasis. Not every new business analytic is a winner. Far from it. Once a new method starts to get publicity, it has already been producing some level of success. You don't hear or read about the numerous failures, because organizations don't publicize their failures. That is just a fact. My Company had an investment that was hemorrhaging money -- piling up millions in losses. When the executives went on their traveling road show Town Hall they handed out a nice glossy brochure with bios for each of them including their areas of responsibility for the Company. Curiously, none listed the the losing investment as a responsibility. I guess that business purchased and ran itself.

 

Human capital is the most important and most expensive.

Edited February 21, 2015 by a700hitter

[cp176]

The two last place seasons warrant skepticism for sure. That is fair. Considering that the team won 179 games in the two other seasons they missed the playoffs it is hard to get THAT fired up about it. Specifically there are legitimate questions about the current regime's ability to handle kids at the major league level. The last two seasons in Cleveland have shown strong evidence that handling young players (or managing a staff doing so) is something Tito is just very good at. The prior GM/Manager seemed to be better at avoiding excessive reactiveness.

 

Put another way - if the Red Sox choose their starting outfield based on spring training stats again I will scream

 

My only question will come when I think that they are basing their starting outfield on the size of a player's contract. Personally, all things being equal, Castillo would have to be the one coming off the bench in my mind.

[iortiz]

I fundamentally disagree. Technology and analytics are for the most part "off the shelf" commodities that can be purchased at any time. The Harvard/Wharton MBA consultants will always take your call and show up to train your people. The human talent pool is limited and is not an "off the shelf" commodity. Get the best people with the best skillset for the jobs. The analytics and technologies are not part of the skillset. They are tools like an instrument is to a musician. It's the musician that is more valuable.

 

People tend to be very black and white. I am not at all saying don't use the modern day analytics. Of course, you have to use the tools necessary to do the job. It's a question of emphasis. Not every new business analytic is a winner. Far from it. Once a new method starts to get publicity, it has already been producing some level of success. You don't hear or read about the numerous failures, because organizations don't publicize their failures. That is just a fact. My Company had an investment that was hemorrhaging money -- piling up millions in losses. When the executives went on their traveling road show Town Hall they handed out a nice glossy brochure with bios for each of them including their areas of responsibility for the Company. Curiously, none listed the the losing investment as a responsibility. I guess that business purchased and ran itself.

 

Human capital is the most important and most expensive.

I'm not sure about this debate but this statement is absolutely true. Unfortunately some companies do not see their people as the most important resource. Regarding Scouts I think as any profession, out there are good and bad and while tech/stats help them to develop their jobs, their eyes, talent,knowledge of the game, experience, etc. is what make them different and unique from other proffesions or good or bad from other scouts.

[Kimmi]

One of the reasons 2015 will be so interesting, to me, is that Ben and the FO have done some against-the-grain things and really put themselves out there, so to speak. They cut loose Lackey and Lester and assembled a rotation with some very suspect historical numbers. They spent big on adding offense and went well over the tax threshold even with a cut-rate rotation. Very interesting indeed.

 

 

It will be an interesting year. Unfortunately, I think the FO is in a no-win situation from the viewpoint of some people. If the team fails, they will be endlessly bashed for not having a strong pitching staff. If the team is successful, it will be because the stars aligned perfectly or some voodoo magic like that, not because the FO actually did a good job.

 

Truth be told, the way they built this team would not be my preferred method of building teams. That said, I am happy with the overall job that they did.

[Kimmi]

I'm not complaining about our FO at all. They have made me a happy Sox fan.

 

However, we also can't overlook the fact that the team has missed the playoffs 4 of the last 5 years, and turned in 2 of the worst W-L records since the dark days. There are reasons to question whether we've been trending in the right direction.

 

The Bobby Valentine year does not count. As for last year, I challenge anyone to tell me truthfully that they knew the offense was going to be as bad as it was. We knew there would be a dropoff from 2013, but it should have been good enough to keep the team in contention. The team that was assembled was good. The abysmal offense was something nobody could have foreseen.

[Kimmi]

I fundamentally disagree. Technology and analytics are for the most part "off the shelf" commodities that can be purchased at any time. The Harvard/Wharton MBA consultants will always take your call and show up to train your people. The human talent pool is limited and is not an "off the shelf" commodity. Get the best people with the best skillset for the jobs. The analytics and technologies are not part of the skillset. They are tools like an instrument is to a musician. It's the musician that is more valuable.

 

People tend to be very black and white. I am not at all saying don't use the modern day analytics. Of course, you have to use the tools necessary to do the job. It's a question of emphasis. Not every new business analytic is a winner. Far from it. Once a new method starts to get publicity, it has already been producing some level of success. You don't hear or read about the numerous failures, because organizations don't publicize their failures. That is just a fact. My Company had an investment that was hemorrhaging money -- piling up millions in losses. When the executives went on their traveling road show Town Hall they handed out a nice glossy brochure with bios for each of them including their areas of responsibility for the Company. Curiously, none listed the the losing investment as a responsibility. I guess that business purchased and ran itself.

 

Human capital is the most important and most expensive.

 

 

The use of analytics and technology is most definitely a part of the skillset in scouting. A scout equipped with the knowledge of the analytics and technology and knows how to use this information to enhance his scouting will do a better job than a scout who doesn't. Although we agree that both are important and have their places in baseball, we are obviously never going to agree on the relative importance of scouting versus analytics.

[a700hitter]

The Bobby Valentine year does not count. As for last year, I challenge anyone to tell me truthfully that they knew the offense was going to be as bad as it was. We knew there would be a dropoff from 2013, but it should have been good enough to keep the team in contention. The team that was assembled was good. The abysmal offense was something nobody could have foreseen.

Anytime you hand over 3 starting positions to untested rookies, you are asking for trouble. I think a 4th place finish was very foreseeable. The utter futility of the offense was probably beyond most expectations, because in addition to the failure of the rookies, Napoli and Victorino also had terrible seasons.

[Kimmi]

Anytime you hand over 3 starting positions to untested rookies, you are asking for trouble. I think a 4th place finish was very foreseeable. The utter futility of the offense was probably beyond most expectations, because in addition to the failure of the rookies, Napoli and Victorino also had terrible seasons.

 

 

I agree with your first statement, to an extent. I think the bigger problem was not having a plan B, should those youngsters struggle, which they obviously did.

 

Even so, the likelihood of all 3 of them struggling as badly as they did was small. Add to that, the struggles of most of the rest of the line up, and it's almost a perfect storm of what could go wrong.

[a700hitter]

I agree with your first statement, to an extent. I think the bigger problem was not having a plan B, should those youngsters struggle, which they obviously did.

 

Even so, the likelihood of all 3 of them struggling as badly as they did was small. Add to that, the struggles of most of the rest of the line up, and it's almost a perfect storm of what could go wrong.

Everything that could have gone wrong went wrong in 2014. I really didn't expect the 2014 Sox to be strong contenders for the division title, but I didn't expect the level of futility. Edited February 22, 2015 by a700hitter

[Spitball]

The use of analytics and technology is most definitely a part of the skillset in scouting. A scout equipped with the knowledge of the analytics and technology and knows how to use this information to enhance his scouting will do a better job than a scout who doesn't. Although we agree that both are important and have their places in baseball, we are obviously never going to agree on the relative importance of scouting versus analytics.

 

Exactly! Statistical analysis is simply quantifiable information to support visual observations. I am not going to believe a weather forecaster who doesn't use statistical analysis. I am not going to trust a doctor who distrusts statistical analysis. A farmer who distrusts statistical analysis is less likely to be as successful as one who does. Analytics and technology simply enhance and support a professional's opinion. If the statistics disagree with the observation, a new look is needed.

[User Name]

Exactly! Statistical analysis is simply quantifiable information to support visual observations. I am not going to believe a weather forecaster who doesn't use statistical analysis. I am not going to trust a doctor who distrusts statistical analysis. A farmer who distrusts statistical analysis is less likely to be as successful as one who does. Analytics and technology simply enhance and support a professional's opinion. If the statistics disagree with the observation, a new look is needed.

 

You know what is the most expensive type of human capital? Human capital with the ability to use the latest technological advancements.

 

Also, I vehemently disagree with most of a700's take on the use of analytics to enhance efficiency and effectiveness in a business environment. He has the experience of one business, but not me. I consider myself an expert on the topic, because it's what I do for a living. I own a business consulting office, and most of our clients are embracing the idea of human capital evaluation, strategic planning, data analysis, etc. as part of their bag of tricks if you want to call it that.

 

While it's true that a lot of people are selling snake oil when it comes to business consulting in any and all ends of the spectrum, using your personal experience on one or two businesses to attempt to peg an entire industry which is in the midst of booming shows the fundamental bias of someone who really can't substantiate his opinion on the subject. This isn't meant as a personal attack, but it's clear that anecdotal evidence is not a good source of analysis in this instance, and the "companies don't publicize their failures" excuse is a cop-out. Companies are embracing analysis and planning because it works.

[a700hitter]

If the statistics disagree with the observation, a new look is needed.

Yep, another look is needed, because in the end the visual scouting makes the final confirmation. You said it yourself without using those exact words.

[Spitball]

... it's clear that anecdotal evidence is not a good source of analysis in this instance, and the "companies don't publicize their failures" excuse is a cop-out. Companies are embracing analysis and planning because it works.

 

Anecdotal evidence is surely the most popular way to support a weak argument.

[User Name]

Anecdotal evidence is surely the most popular way to support a weak argument.

 

Our main clients are startups as well as micro, small and medium companies. They're looking for an edge, and that edge is usually supplied in the form of improved efficiency. It's almost impossible to improve a business process without the best available technology unless the product being offered by the company is extremely simple. Baseball is the ultimate complex product. Every little bit of information helps. While you can't quite quantify the impact of the statistical revolution in baseball, there's something to be said about the way it's been widely embraced across the league, specially by teams who have been to do so much more with less. This is why FO types get the big bucks while we're discussing their moves on a forum. It's not something anyone with a little bit of business acumen can do. It's become a specialized field full of brilliant minds that, by its very nature, is extremely competitive.

[Spitball]

Yep, another look is needed, because in the end the visual scouting makes the final confirmation. You said it yourself without using those exact words.

 

No, the new look is most reliable when it involves analytics and technology.

[Kimmi]

+2 each to Spitball and User Name.

[User Name]

No, the new look is most reliable when it involves analytics and technology.

 

Scouts nowadays use analytics and technology almost as much as FO types.

[a700hitter]

No, the new look is most reliable when it involves analytics and technology.

If the analytics which disprove the scouting are the second look, there never would be a need for scouting. Scouting is labor intensive and costly. Analytics are are cost controlled. Edited February 22, 2015 by a700hitter

[a700hitter]

+2 each to Spitball and User Name.

I have been working for 30 years as an attorney for a Company that was a NY institution for more than 130 years before the U.S. government declared it to be a Systemically Important Financial Institution (aka Too Big to Fail). Of course, you would give more weight to the Juggernaut from a third world country who works out of an internet cafe. LOL!!

 

What I have shared is not merely anecdotal. Of course, we use business analytics, and they are necessary to compete, but the differentiating factor for successful companies is human capital. I"ll paraphrase the statement of our past chairman and CEO who took us public in 2000 after coming to us from Paine Webber. When asked what he knew about running a life insurance company, he said "you need a sales force and an actuary, .... and you can rent the actuary." In our business, the actuary is the epitome of analytics. When that CEO retired from our Company, he was hired by the U.S. Government to save AIG -- the failure of which would have devastated many European banks and economies.

Edited February 22, 2015 by a700hitter

[a700hitter]

The use of analytics and technology is most definitely a part of the skillset in scouting. A scout equipped with the knowledge of the analytics and technology and knows how to use this information to enhance his scouting will do a better job than a scout who doesn't. Although we agree that both are important and have their places in baseball, we are obviously never going to agree on the relative importance of scouting versus analytics.

 

We are just talking about relative importance. You would emphasize a different aspect than I would, but both things are necessary to run a successful team or any business. Unlike yourself, others mistakenly think I am making an either/or argument. I am not, but yet they do. Lol!

[kreinbihl34]

While I can see where you're coming from I don't agree with all your points.

 

The most expensive human capital is the one with the most experience. Like in my line of work, I'm the more technological of the two, but he has 45 years of experience and the know how. He's being paid for the past and I'm there to show him the new tricks. But he also gets paid twice my salary.

 

Analytics are great but they don't replace an eye for talent. I see analytics as a supporting tool or a wake up call for what we see. They can only give us what we tell them to. Data received could be useless, statistically insignificant, have no correlation or flat out wrong depending on the system being used. Whole other data can shed light on something no one knew. But that's up to the person to decide.

 

Things boom and bust all the time, just because people are buying the hot cocoa today doesn't mean it's the best thing. Analytics has a place in this sport, it's just not the top of the mountain.

[User Name]

Assuming equal experience, the person with the most varied technological skillset will be paid more. I should have made the "all things being equal" thing clear. I know this because we literally sort through candidates for some businesses and it's specifically what they ask for. Depending on the company, even more so than experience past a certain point.

 

Who here has said that analytics are supposed to replace an eye for talent? That's a mischaracterization of essentially everyone's argument here. What's being said is that analytics are supposed to go hand-in-hand with human capital that can actually interpret data, in the sport or any sort of business. The other part of the argument is that scouts are using analytics almost as much as FO types. Read an advanced scouting report and you'll see mentions of UZR, projected WAR, spray charts, etc.

 

And again, no one has said they're supposed to be at "the top of the mountain" in this sport, but rather the other half of the evaluation scale along with scouting, and you can't just sit here and tell me after around 25 years of increased usage (FO's started using advanced metrics way before we even knew what they were) that analytics is just a fad in the sport. It's like trying to deny the existence of global warming by putting your hands over your ears and screaming "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"

 

I get some of the stuff you're saying, but you're also making an argument I never made, and trying to make a point that's literally impossible to defend.

[cp176]

I 've been following this thread and man do I ever feel stupid. Can't imagine how I made it in the real world without the copious amount of analytical technical data that gets used today. I'm not even sure why anyone ever listened to me or my opinion when it came to preparing athletes for competition. Sometimes people still listen. I feel sorry for them.

[User Name]

The sarcasm sure adds a lot to the discussion. Please, give us more of your infinite athlete-building wisdom.

[sk7326]

I agree with your first statement, to an extent. I think the bigger problem was not having a plan B, should those youngsters struggle, which they obviously did.

 

Even so, the likelihood of all 3 of them struggling as badly as they did was small. Add to that, the struggles of most of the rest of the line up, and it's almost a perfect storm of what could go wrong.

 

And if you look at the marginal drop off it still did not drive most of the 26 game drop off. SS was a mild drop off. CF was bad but not enough to do on its own. 3B was bad in 2013 too. The drop-offs at catcher, right field and left field were much more difficult to get past. The failure of platoon magic in LF, Victorino's injuries, the gaping hole at catcher. If Bradley had just hit a little better, most likely he would have only been a light drop off from the regression which Ellsbury would have delivered himself.

[sk7326]

One known case of the new stuff and scouting going hand in hand is the idea of batting eye - which was less emphasized in scouting because it was seen as a coachable skill. But now that is an important part of the package that is scouted because it is so hard to change.

 

But moreover - the analytics, the technical analysis of results - can't exist in a vacuum. All of the orgs use it to some degree or another, but what separates teams is how you take the information and turn it into actionable stuff, how it comes out in your scouting philosophy and the instructions those guys. It also comes out in on-field tactics. How would it not? It would be waste of money if it didn't.

[User Name]

Very good example SK.

[kreinbihl34]

Assuming equal experience, the person with the most varied technological skillset will be paid more. I should have made the "all things being equal" thing clear. I know this because we literally sort through candidates for some businesses and it's specifically what they ask for. Depending on the company, even more so than experience past a certain point.

 

Who here has said that analytics are supposed to replace an eye for talent? That's a mischaracterization of essentially everyone's argument here. What's being said is that analytics are supposed to go hand-in-hand with human capital that can actually interpret data, in the sport or any sort of business. The other part of the argument is that scouts are using analytics almost as much as FO types. Read an advanced scouting report and you'll see mentions of UZR, projected WAR, spray charts, etc.

 

And again, no one has said they're supposed to be at "the top of the mountain" in this sport, but rather the other half of the evaluation scale along with scouting, and you can't just sit here and tell me after around 25 years of increased usage (FO's started using advanced metrics way before we even knew what they were) that analytics is just a fad in the sport. It's like trying to deny the existence of global warming by putting your hands over your ears and screaming "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"

 

I get some of the stuff you're saying, but you're also making an argument I never made, and trying to make a point that's literally impossible to defend.

 

I'll somewhat agree with you on the first part, but still from what I have heard and what I have seen in my field, experience trumps all.

 

My position wasn't saying that statistics are a fad. Just that you can get data drunk. Some stats are a wonderful tool, some are not. The problem is so many younger individuals like myself at times, in the sports world and business alike, take stats as absolute gold and look at nothing else. Stats like UZR are nice but have their flaws, just like scouting.

 

Also some posters have stated that cutting resources for analytics for better scouting would be wrong. From that I understand that they view analytics as a way of replacing "an eye for talent".

 

My point being that analytics are not an end all and that some in the sports world have gone too far with it (see 76ers for an example) is not impossible to defend. You may think so because you don't agree.

[Spudboy]

Assuming equal experience, the person with the most varied technological skillset will be paid more. I should have made the "all things being equal" thing clear. I know this because we literally sort through candidates for some businesses and it's specifically what they ask for. Depending on the company, even more so than experience past a certain point.

 

Who here has said that analytics are supposed to replace an eye for talent? That's a mischaracterization of essentially everyone's argument here. What's being said is that analytics are supposed to go hand-in-hand with human capital that can actually interpret data, in the sport or any sort of business. The other part of the argument is that scouts are using analytics almost as much as FO types. Read an advanced scouting report and you'll see mentions of UZR, projected WAR, spray charts, etc.

 

And again, no one has said they're supposed to be at "the top of the mountain" in this sport, but rather the other half of the evaluation scale along with scouting, and you can't just sit here and tell me after around 25 years of increased usage (FO's started using advanced metrics way before we even knew what they were) that analytics is just a fad in the sport. It's like trying to deny the existence of global warming by putting your hands over your ears and screaming "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"

I get some of the stuff you're saying, but you're also making an argument I never made, and trying to make a point that's literally impossible to defend.

 

Got that wrong there. It's "I'm not a scientist, I'm not a scientist."

 

And it is preferable to use the phrase "Global Climate Change" especially now when it is so cold. The deniers struggle with science as it is. No way they could ever comprehend how it could be so cold when the climate is warming.

[User Name]

I actually agree with your main point, and I've gone on record several times here stating the obvious: Analytics and scouting are meant to go hand in hand. And remember that not just particular stats and scouting but rather everything (particularly in baseball evaluation) has its flaws. UZR is a great example, as it's just terrible at evaluating SS's and has no real way to measure catcher defense. But the main difference between data and scouting (hence why they compliment each other) is that data can help account for some of the inherent biases present in the human element.

 

Anyways, we agree on the core of the argument, so no reason to keep debating.