How good is Anthony Rizzo?

[Rice Cube]

Of that, I hold no doubt!

...and I guess that means you just called me an asshole too :lol:

 

[2SeamHeat]

...and I guess that means you just called me an asshole too :lol:

[video=dailymotion;x2k3wp]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2k3wp_denis-leary-asshole_fun[/video]

 

[Rice Cube]

[video=youtube;PNcDI_uBGUo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNcDI_uBGUo[/video]

 

[poodski]

OK, let's simplify this. Point out a single GM, executive, scout, manager, or coach in baseball that hasn't played the game at the high school level at the very least. You know, where you actually begin to learn what it takes to be an exceptional baseball player. Don't bother... as the answer is NONE, and each and every GM in the MLB points to their playing experience as granting them much of the fundamental basics of knowledge and skills in assessing players. But hey, playing experience means nothing in terms of knowledge, right?

Saying that a GM played baseball at at least the high school level is kind of silly. I would bet the majority of baseball fans have played at least high school ball. This doesnt mean they have the baseball knowledge to be a GM or president. I mean Theo didnt play baseball in college I don't know if he even played in high school. I would assume, but the ability to play baseball at a decently high level has little to do with your ability to be a baseball GM or anything. A scout probably as well as a manager but I would imagine some managers like Joe Madden do things the exact opposite of how they were taught via his baseball playing.

Billy Beane has made it pretty clear that he learned the exact opposite of what he was in baseball to be a good GM. You can say that he got his knowledge from playing, but more he learned that what he was or how players were perceived was well wrong.

Experience is never a bad thing, but baseball playing experience is a very small attribute to your ability to be a successful executive. Joe Morgan played in 2649 major league games, and I wouldn't trust him to construct a t-ball team.

Someone doesn't watch a lot of baseball games, does he? Oh that's right, all you need are stats and boxscores to analyze a game. So what if the boxscore only tells you about 1/10 of the story and stats NEVER do full justice, especially those faulty ones you love to spew out.

Boxscores tell you a hell of a lot more than 10% of the story. They honestly tell about 95% of it 95% of the time. No its not going to tell you if there was a bad call or a lucky bounce or bad baserunning, but it will tell you the majority of the story. No one can watch every game. No one can watch a game and see everything. Your eyes are biased. Numbers are not. A game is a small sample size and stats are worth basically nothing for one game, but so is watching one game. You could go to a game or even a series and see Ryan Theriot hit 2 homeruns, and think he has lots of power. Stats can easily show that. You don't have to watch every at bat he has to tell that. The only thing scouts are good for in short term is to see if a pitcher is injured. A team sending up a scout to see Dempster pitch is not going to really change what they think about him. He is there to just make sure and to make sure he doesn't look hurt.

Boxscores and modern stats do a lot more than you think they do. Are they faulty? Of course no stat will ever be exact but its WAY closer than ANYTHING else out there.

That's quite evident. Such a shame that baseball mirrors life in many ways. Oh, I know you won't get that... because there isn't a website full of faulty stats to prove it to you, and you don't actually think that experience means anything... or that visual observation means anything (yet is the #1 means of scouting and figuring out if a player is actually worth a damn, and something that EVERY SINGLE team has done since the beginning of baseball and continues to do today).

Scouting is important especially for the draft, but I think that even the most scout friendly GM will admit that modern stats are used a lot more now. It is hard to use stats on high school and college players because the playing field is not the same. In the minors and majors that is very different. You know the competition is at the very least comparable to your team. When you go to look at how lets say Brett Jackson is doing. Are you trying to find what the scouts are saying about him hoping to get a snippet or are you just going to go to a website and see that he is striking out 33% of the time to know that he is struggling.

Are stats wrong sometimes? Sure, but so are scouts. Scouts are wrong a lot of the time, if they werent we wouldnt need 1000 rounds in the draft, we would just need 5 or so because everyone would get the good players in those rounds.

Scouting is useful and has been around forever, but its no better than stats.

 

[Capt. Serious]

Alright, CO & poodski are back. Rock & roll time with Dews now. :jackson:

 

[2SeamHeat]

Saying that a GM played baseball at at least the high school level is kind of silly. I would bet the majority of baseball fans have played at least high school ball. This doesnt mean they have the baseball knowledge to be a GM or president. I mean Theo didnt play baseball in college I don't know if he even played in high school. I would assume, but the ability to play baseball at a decently high level has little to do with your ability to be a baseball GM or anything. A scout probably as well as a manager but I would imagine some managers like Joe Madden do things the exact opposite of how they were taught via his baseball playing.

Billy Beane has made it pretty clear that he learned the exact opposite of what he was in baseball to be a good GM. You can say that he got his knowledge from playing, but more he learned that what he was or how players were perceived was well wrong.

Actually... Beane has stated that his playing experience and the perceptions around it and those he was playing with taught him to look closer at players when he began working in the FO. That was something he learned while playing the game. Theo said that he learned to not buy into certain kinds of hype through his playing experience, as he watched guys he played with and against get hyped up far beyond what he saw on a routine basis with them.

However, Maddon, since you bring him up, has stated he manages and coaches in the same manner he was coached and managed in his minor league days, with his own bit of style here and there. There are other examples out there as well. Piniella forged his managerial tactics from observations of guys like Bob Lemon and Billy Martin. Bobby Cox, who as a GM was the guy who started to build the Braves' empire of the 90s and led it as a manager.... has said that everything he learned about baseball, he learned from playing and paying attention to the guys in management. Nolan Ryan, current chairman of the Rangers, has been extremely active with how his team makes moves. Seems to have worked, as his team has been the best in the AL for the past 2.5 years. Guess where he obtained his knowledge of the game in general. That's right, from his playing days and observing the differences between good and bad players. He only mentions this each and every time he's asked about it.

Experience is never a bad thing, but baseball playing experience is a very small attribute to your ability to be a successful executive. Joe Morgan played in 2649 major league games, and I wouldn't trust him to construct a t-ball team.

I wouldn't trust that particular example very much either, as he's shown he's pretty much an idiot when it comes to these things. However, if I had no experienced candidates out there to chose from and had to chose a GM, I'd take a flyer on guys like Greg Maddux, Chipper Jones, possibly Derrek Jeter. Why? They've all made statements befitting that of someone who knows the game well and can make strong analysis of players. Plus, they've all dealt with their own ends of negotiating... as well as dealing with agents. As it is, the white Sox are playing well above their level this year with a manager who had 0 coaching experience in the past. However, he was an active mentor-type player in his days in the majors. Where did he gain his skills and knowledge from? His playing days.

Boxscores tell you a hell of a lot more than 10% of the story. They honestly tell about 95% of it 95% of the time. No its not going to tell you if there was a bad call or a lucky bounce or bad baserunning, but it will tell you the majority of the story. No one can watch every game. No one can watch a game and see everything. Your eyes are biased. Numbers are not. A game is a small sample size and stats are worth basically nothing for one game, but so is watching one game. You could go to a game or even a series and see Ryan Theriot hit 2 homeruns, and think he has lots of power. Stats can easily show that. You don't have to watch every at bat he has to tell that. The only thing scouts are good for in short term is to see if a pitcher is injured. A team sending up a scout to see Dempster pitch is not going to really change what they think about him. He is there to just make sure and to make sure he doesn't look hurt.

Boxscores and modern stats do a lot more than you think they do. Are they faulty? Of course no stat will ever be exact but its WAY closer than ANYTHING else out there.

Really? Really? Seriously... really?

Ok, Castro goes 0/4 0 R 0RBI 0K 0SO 0E.... it shows up as 0/4 in the boxscore. What does this tell you? It tells you he got to bat 4 times and did nothing. It also tells you he didn't strike out. What does it not tell you? That he hit the ball particularly well three times. In his second AB, he got robbed by an excellent defensive play by the opposing SS. In his fourth AB, he hit the ball to the wall, but the wind knocked it down. It also doesn't tell you that he made a dazzling play in the 3rd to end a possible rally. It also doesn't tell you that he bobbled a ball in the 5th, but the scorer ruled it as a hit rather than a borderline error.

The boxscore shows the Cubs gave up 5 SBs in the game to the Marlins' #1 and 2 hitters and another 2 to other players without netting a CS the entire game. What does this tell you? It tells you that the Marlins are fast and that Soto can't throw runners out. What does it not tell you? That the pitching staff during that game failed on 4 different occasions to so much as check the runners at all. It also doesn't tell you that one of those runners got the benefit of a close call. Also, it does not show that the Cubs pitchers were terrible at holding those runners whatsoever. It also fails to state that one of those SB was rewarded to a guy who took off before the pitch, and the pitch went wild enough to bounce off of Soto's chest pad.

Like I said, boxscores show about 10% of the game... maybe as much as 30% if nothing of significance happened beyond the obvious.

Scouting is important especially for the draft, but I think that even the most scout friendly GM will admit that modern stats are used a lot more now. It is hard to use stats on high school and college players because the playing field is not the same. In the minors and majors that is very different. You know the competition is at the very least comparable to your team. When you go to look at how lets say Brett Jackson is doing. Are you trying to find what the scouts are saying about him hoping to get a snippet or are you just going to go to a website and see that he is striking out 33% of the time to know that he is struggling.

Hmmm, I wonder.... do scouts use stats to create their analysis? I think so. But scouting only has its uses for the draft, right? So, when a 19 year-old kid puts up a 5.89 ERA in 70 IP and 12 starts in the rookie leagues... why isn't he dumped right away? If stats show everything, then why is this kid given more chances? It's obvious he stinks, right? Maybe it's because the team's coaching staff at that level, scouts, and even the minor league player coordinator see that he's more than the numbers show. So, when he turns around and pitches lights out two years later in low A ball, and continues this through his minor league career... then struggles early in his MLB career, then puts together a HoF campaign for the rest of it (see Randy Johnson, Sandy Koufax, Roy Halladay, Tom Glavine, John Smoltz), you can probably thank a few scouts and coaches for them never being thrown away... because they saw more than the stats indicated. By the way, this isn't anything rare either... it's quite common, as the majority of players struggle early on. But stats tell us everything, right?

Are stats wrong sometimes? Sure, but so are scouts. Scouts are wrong a lot of the time, if they werent we wouldnt need 1000 rounds in the draft, we would just need 5 or so because everyone would get the good players in those rounds.

Scouting is useful and has been around forever, but its no better than stats.

We don't have 100 rounds in the draft. It's only 40 now.... but I get your point. Stats aren't everything, boxscores aren't even half of anything. No, you can't watch every game. No, you can't tell enough about a player with just one or two viewings of him. Stats can tell you certain things, that's for certain. However, they can't tell you how good the guy is in the field. Even the best defensive metrics fall far short and are deeply flawed. They don't tend to tell you how selective a guy is at the plate. Sure, you might get an average pitches per AB, but that only tells you how many pitches he generally sees and what you should expect. It doesn't tell you how often he lays off balls outside of the zone. It doesn't tell you which pitches he tends to chase. It doesn't tell you how often he fouls off borderline pitches. Yet, scouting reports do. Stats also don't tell you the potential of a guy just starting up either. How do you figure that out? You watch the guys. You see their mechanics, athleticism, raw power, range in the field, strength of their arm, movement on their pitches, control of their pitches, etc. There are some places are making advancements in showing eFX of pitches, but even that isn't accurate, nor is it the entire picture. It's more of the picture frame than the picture.

Speaking of scouting reports, how do you think the league learns to adjust to a particular player or pitcher? Could it be that teams have those pesky scouts running out there to observe them days before the team shows up to play them? Could that possibly be from observance? Could those observing skills have come from experience both on and off the field? I wonder... You do know that 30-40% of a team's scouting crew watches MLB teams and reports back to their own team, right?

We've had this stats v scouts discussion on here before... My position then is the same it is now. You need both, and you need to know how to analyze both.

 

[2SeamHeat]

Oh, and as far as looking up Brett Jackson's issues... I know he's striking out a ton. Everyone by now that's at least paying some small amount of attention does. When I see something like this, especially when it's something way out of the normal for him, I do try to find scouting reports or coaching statements as to why this is going on. I also try to watch those games as much as I can to see if I can figure it out for myself to some degree. I'm not scout, but I can make a pretty solid amateur assessment. And viola, you find the information quite readily. The word on Jackson has been an inability to recognize breaking balls early enough to adjust to them. Apparently, he's had this issue since being drafted. Do the stats show you this? Nope, only that he's struck out at a fairly, but not alarmingly, high rate prior to reaching the PCL. What's the difference in the PCL? More borderline MLB-capable pitching. Thus, more breaking stuff being thrown... and much more effective overall.

Scouts have been talking about his pitch recognition issues for years. It's been mostly ignored by those hoping he was going to turn out to be the next savior for the team. He's also very selective, but you won't see that in his stats. But, you know... stats tell 95% of the story, right?

 

[poodski]

Actually... Beane has stated that his playing experience and the perceptions around it and those he was playing with taught him to look closer at players when he began working in the FO. That was something he learned while playing the game. Theo said that he learned to not buy into certain kinds of hype through his playing experience, as he watched guys he played with and against get hyped up far beyond what he saw on a routine basis with them.

However, Maddon, since you bring him up, has stated he manages and coaches in the same manner he was coached and managed in his minor league days, with his own bit of style here and there. There are other examples out there as well. Piniella forged his managerial tactics from observations of guys like Bob Lemon and Billy Martin. Bobby Cox, who as a GM was the guy who started to build the Braves' empire of the 90s and led it as a manager.... has said that everything he learned about baseball, he learned from playing and paying attention to the guys in management. Nolan Ryan, current chairman of the Rangers, has been extremely active with how his team makes moves. Seems to have worked, as his team has been the best in the AL for the past 2.5 years. Guess where he obtained his knowledge of the game in general. That's right, from his playing days and observing the differences between good and bad players. He only mentions this each and every time he's asked about it.

I am sure they do, but from readying Moneyball and The Extra Two Percent I know most of that to just be pandering to the fan base, but thats kinda pointless in this.

Really? Really? Seriously... really?

Ok, Castro goes 0/4 0 R 0RBI 0K 0SO 0E.... it shows up as 0/4 in the boxscore. What does this tell you? It tells you he got to bat 4 times and did nothing. It also tells you he didn't strike out. What does it not tell you? That he hit the ball particularly well three times. In his second AB, he got robbed by an excellent defensive play by the opposing SS. In his fourth AB, he hit the ball to the wall, but the wind knocked it down. It also doesn't tell you that he made a dazzling play in the 3rd to end a possible rally. It also doesn't tell you that he bobbled a ball in the 5th, but the scorer ruled it as a hit rather than a borderline error.

The boxscore shows the Cubs gave up 5 SBs in the game to the Marlins' #1 and 2 hitters and another 2 to other players without netting a CS the entire game. What does this tell you? It tells you that the Marlins are fast and that Soto can't throw runners out. What does it not tell you? That the pitching staff during that game failed on 4 different occasions to so much as check the runners at all. It also doesn't tell you that one of those runners got the benefit of a close call. Also, it does not show that the Cubs pitchers were terrible at holding those runners whatsoever. It also fails to state that one of those SB was rewarded to a guy who took off before the pitch, and the pitch went wild enough to bounce off of Soto's chest pad.

Like I said, boxscores show about 10% of the game... maybe as much as 30% if nothing of significance happened beyond the obvious.

So basically it showed 95%. Were the plays really great plays? Or is that just your eyes? Regardless it showed what happend. Great plays or not he still went 0-4. Poor pitching or not they still had 5 SB's.

While a single boxscore may not show all of the intricacies it showed what happened. Castro went 0-4. The Marlins had 5 SB's. Does it matter how it happened? Nope it happened. Looking at the what ifs and what nots then you basically are just trying to add the luck stats of sabermetrics into a single game. Regardless it shows 95% of the game in the instance you can't watch it, which lets be honest, you cant watch 15 games a night. That's a fact.

Hmmm, I wonder.... do scouts use stats to create their analysis? I think so. But scouting only has its uses for the draft, right? So, when a 19 year-old kid puts up a 5.89 ERA in 70 IP and 12 starts in the rookie leagues... why isn't he dumped right away? If stats show everything, then why is this kid given more chances? It's obvious he stinks, right? Maybe it's because the team's coaching staff at that level, scouts, and even the minor league player coordinator see that he's more than the numbers show. So, when he turns around and pitches lights out two years later in low A ball, and continues this through his minor league career... then struggles early in his MLB career, then puts together a HoF campaign for the rest of it (see Randy Johnson, Sandy Koufax, Roy Halladay, Tom Glavine, John Smoltz), you can probably thank a few scouts and coaches for them never being thrown away... because they saw more than the stats indicated. By the way, this isn't anything rare either... it's quite common, as the majority of players struggle early on. But stats tell us everything, right?

Or perhaps his defense is terrible and his DIPS stats are good. Perhaps the team is having him work on a curveball? Lots of reasons it could be bad.

Stats can tell you certain things, that's for certain. However, they can't tell you how good the guy is in the field. Even the best defensive metrics fall far short and are deeply flawed.

This I disagree with. Perfect? No. Better than the typical eye? Yes/

They don't tend to tell you how selective a guy is at the plate.

Yes, actually stats do tell you this now.

It's more of the picture frame than the picture.

I completely disagree with this. To me scouting is a painting, but stats are more of a polaroid picture. Neither perfect but stats definitely tell more once you get to the professional level.

Speaking of scouting reports, how do you think the league learns to adjust to a particular player or pitcher? Could it be that teams have those pesky scouts running out there to observe them days before the team shows up to play them?

And now adays those scouting reports are probably from stats. Hell I can tell how often a player hits a GB, FB, pulls the ball and what not from a simple public webpage. You don't think the pros have something better?

We've had this stats v scouts discussion on here before... My position then is the same it is now. You need both, and you need to know how to analyze both.

Scouting is still important IMO for drafts and acquiring IFO's, but for American professional baseball, I pretty much disagree. Its useful for a one game look at if a player is hurt or what not, but for long term results stats are much much better.

 

[poodski]

Oh, and as far as looking up Brett Jackson's issues... I know he's striking out a ton. Everyone by now that's at least paying some small amount of attention does. When I see something like this, especially when it's something way out of the normal for him, I do try to find scouting reports or coaching statements as to why this is going on. I also try to watch those games as much as I can to see if I can figure it out for myself to some degree. I'm not scout, but I can make a pretty solid amateur assessment. And viola, you find the information quite readily. The word on Jackson has been an inability to recognize breaking balls early enough to adjust to them. Apparently, he's had this issue since being drafted. Do the stats show you this? Nope, only that he's struck out at a fairly, but not alarmingly, high rate prior to reaching the PCL. What's the difference in the PCL? More borderline MLB-capable pitching. Thus, more breaking stuff being thrown... and much more effective overall.

Scouts have been talking about his pitch recognition issues for years. It's been mostly ignored by those hoping he was going to turn out to be the next savior for the team. He's also very selective, but you won't see that in his stats. But, you know... stats tell 95% of the story, right?

We have pitch recognition now.

Soriano sucks at sliders right? Well I can look at a stat and see he was worth -16 runs against them last year. See what stats can be good for? I don't need to watch 1000's of games to know that.

 

[DewsSox79]

We have pitch recognition now.

Soriano sucks at sliders right? Well I can look at a stat and see he was worth -16 runs against them last year. See what stats can be good for? I don't need to watch 1000's of games to know that.

hey youre back! fukudome is better than carlos quentin right? lol. i see co called in his reinforcement of the stupid.


Sent from my Fischs grocery store using Tapatalk

 

[FirstTimer]

With the amount of poop being pushed in here by 2seam this place is starting to resemble a Roman bathhouse.

 

[whitesoxman77]

Don't call 2seam an asshole :fist:

no like CO got his asshole ripped by 2seam not 2seam is an asshole

 

[FirstTimer]

no like CO got his asshole ripped by 2seam not 2seam is an asshole

Sarcasm brah