User Name

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

I knew there was a reason I liked you.

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.

Chart please.

Assuming equality in technique, yes. You're also making the incorrect assumption that all of Panda's weight gain is fat.

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

You "think" but don't know. Assuming makes an ass of u and me. Also, by your logic David Eckstein should have been able to make contact with the same amount of force as Matt Stairs. Think about it for just a second.

I don't think physics is in your realm either. Stick to getting malpractice lawsuits. I'd like to see you explain your theory to a hitting coach. They'd smack you over the head with a physics book.

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.

More mass= more strength, so we're back at square one. You just spouted a whole bunch of mumbo jumbo when that's the simple answer. That's why they have weight categories in powerlifting.

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.

How exactly does more abdominal mass impede torque? You are contradicting the existence of every fat guy with mammoth power (Mo Vaughn and the Fielders immediately come to mind) that has played in MLB.

Does that take away at all from the fact that whatever tools may help you improve your W-L record are tools you should be looking into?

How do you know this? This is pure conjecture. You don't know the process they use to hire scouts or essentially anything about the subject. Correct, yes. Your company is not an MLB team, and your experience does not reflect the Operations area of a Major League Baseball team. It's comparing apples to airplanes. It's not even close.

Who here has said he's not? And there's no rationalizing numbers. They made him lose weight, and he was having the most miserable stretch of his career until he started putting it back. There's also no denying the laws of physics: More mass= more force. Defensively, of course being fat hampers him, and that's an argument everyone agrees with, but otherwise, he is what he is.

That was just last year.

I see what you did there.

This is rationalization. I have seen Ortiz in person over the years. He's big and strong NOW. He used to be just fat.

We're not talking about his defense, we're talking about his hitting. His defense is what it is. He's never had above average range and likely never will because he's fat. But he's always been a known quantity regardless of his body weight. The problems start when he hits the big 3-4 which is usually when fat guys' knees start giving out.

See: Vaughn, Mo. Ortiz, David. More mass does mean more strength. (I get the joke, but this is SCIENCE i'm spouting here)

But if it's true, then what? He showed up to camp 40 pounds lighter last year and sucked ass.

Pandas are fat. Let this Panda be fat. It's in their nature.

Just let him be fat.

....but is not going to get.

What they could offer are prospects who could be flipped in another deal.