Charles Barkley declares war with SABR nerds/quants

[caulfield12]

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12308938...ets-stats-idiot

 

 

Later this can be merged with the "advanced stats" discussion or put elsewhere on the site...we should all be waiting for Hawk Harrelson to come out in support, or at least Ozzie Guillen.

 

The thing is, though, until a team wins a championship with this "new" approach, and I don't mean the Red Sox...but a team like the Astros, Rays or A's, then you're not going to see the majority of coaching personnel buy into it.

 

The battle is seemingly 50% won.

 

I know from personal experience that the "old school" guys were disdainful of these statistical discussions twenty years ago.

 

But they evolved. Jeff Bannister was as traditional as you get and yet he was heavily involved in the Pirates shifting their organizational philosophy throughout the organization to the advanced metrics/shifts approach, as well as pitchers pitching to infield contact and not being as concerned with elevating their K totals. Clint Hurdle, same type, very traditional guy who's evolved and adapted with the changing times.

 

One can only hope Robin Ventura and Cooper can start to come on board even more in the next 2-3 seasons. There's not a whole lot of supporting/anecdotal evidence out there supporting the White Sox as being a team that relies more than 25% on technology in their decision-making.

 

 

Final note: I know Greg's taken some flak for using the term "nerds" or "Sabes," but his viewpoint isn't very different at all from that being expressed here, it's the view of most athletes who came of age in the 70's and 80's, or earlier

Edited February 11, 2015 by caulfield12

[Dick Allen]

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12308938...ets-stats-idiot

 

 

Later this can be merged with the "advanced stats" discussion or put elsewhere on the site...we should all be waiting for Hawk Harrelson to come out in support, or at least Ozzie Guillen.

 

The thing is, though, until a team wins a championship with this "new" approach, and I don't mean the Red Sox...but a team like the Astros, Rays or A's, then you're not going to see the majority of coaching personnel buy into it.

 

The battle is seemingly 50% won.

 

I know from personal experience that the "old school" guys were disdainful of these statistical discussions twenty years ago.

 

But they evolved. Jeff Bannister was as traditional as you get and yet he was heavily involved in the Pirates shifting their organizational philosophy throughout the organization to the advanced metrics/shifts approach, as well as pitchers pitching to infield contact and not being as concerned with elevating their K totals. Clint Hurdle, same type, very traditional guy who's evolved and adapted with the changing times.

 

One can only hope Robin Ventura and Cooper can start to come on board even more in the next 2-3 seasons. There's not a whole lot of supporting/anecdotal evidence out there supporting the White Sox as being a team that relies more than 25% on technology in their decision-making.

 

 

Final note: I know Greg's taken some flak for using the term "nerds" or "Sabes," but his viewpoint isn't very different at all from that being expressed here, it's the view of most athletes who came of age in the 70's and 80's, or earlier

What would "coming on board" entail. The White Sox used more shifts than most last year. They bunt fewer times than most. Hasn't Cooper been one to preach lowering pitch counts by getting guys early in the count even though he isn't a pitch count guy?

[caulfield12]

http://www.houstonsportstalk.net/2014/03/1...hind-analytics/

 

 

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/ast...64963d413b47#/0

 

 

One of these links SHOULD work. Building something like this is what I'm talking about...and it's interesting that Houston has become the epicenter of the debate, with the Astros, Rockets, Brady Aiken last year, NASA, haha.

 

I guess it's also cool a Quad-Cities/Augustana graduate is so heavily-involved.

 

Surely the White Sox could find a Sox fan from Northwestern, Univ of Illinois, Univ of Chicago, etc., to do something similar.

 

 

 

As far as the White Sox go, in all the articles you read, the mentions you get about computer analysis are more in the area of contract negotiation/s, but it could be they're deliberately tight-lipped on orders of Hahn.

 

 

Edited February 11, 2015 by caulfield12

[Dick Allen]

http://www.houstonsportstalk.net/2014/03/1...hind-analytics/

 

 

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/ast...64963d413b47#/0

 

 

One of these links SHOULD work. Building something like this is what I'm talking about...and it's interesting that Houston has become the epicenter of the debate, with the Astros, Rockets, Brady Aiken last year, NASA, haha.

 

I guess it's also cool a Quad-Cities/Augustana graduate is so heavily-involved.

 

Surely the White Sox could find a Sox fan from Northwestern, Univ of Illinois, Univ of Chicago, etc., to do something similar.

 

 

 

As far as the White Sox go, in all the articles you read, the mentions you get about computer analysis are more in the area of contract negotiation/s, but it could be they're deliberately tight-lipped on orders of Hahn.

Hahn did say they rely on recent trends rather than overall when getting ready for a series. The example he used was you don't use information for a 28 year old Paul Konerko to get him out at 37. So how they pitch guys, position their defense, is based on information compiled the previous couple of weeks vs. couple of months or even years.

[Balta1701]

As far as the White Sox go, in all the articles you read, the mentions you get about computer analysis are more in the area of contract negotiation/s, but it could be they're deliberately tight-lipped on orders of Hahn.

I actually interviewed Mike Gellinger 1.5 years ago (he was managing Bristol at the time) who was the White Sox director of computer scouting from 1999 on. He talked a bit about how the Sox had set up one of the earliest versions of a computerized system allowing them to determine player value & piece together a sabermetric roster, he said it was the White Sox and the Indians that were particularly out in front on that in the early 2000s.

[asindc]

I think Barkley's view is more valid when it come to basketball, as opposed to baseball. I'm mostly agnostic when it comes to sabrmetrics, as I think it is a valuable tool in baseball to enhance traditional scouting but I don't like over-reliance on it. I think it is much less valuable in basketball, especially the NBA in which talent reigns supreme and rarely does a team without enough elite talent win a championship. In other words, it is easier to identify the talent needed to win in the NBA than it is in MLB, especially when it comes to pitching, and even more so when it comes to younger players. To paraphrase Barkley, no one needed to crunch any numbers to see that acquiring Dwight Howard, James Harden, and Trevor Ariza the way they did was to Houston's advantage, so it is pointless to cite the numbers in evaluating Houston's GM's performance is this regard.

[Jerksticks]

I actually interviewed Mike Gellinger 1.5 years ago (he was managing Bristol at the time) who was the White Sox director of computer scouting from 1999 on. He talked a bit about how the Sox had set up one of the earliest versions of a computerized system allowing them to determine player value & piece together a sabermetric roster, he said it was the White Sox and the Indians that were particularly out in front on that in the early 2000s.

That's interesting Balta. I think most people feel that Robin is antisabe due to his use of the bullpen. Watching the 45min Soxfest video of RH, RV & SS really shed some light on it for me. Nate & Lidstrom went down last year, we didn't really have a lefty option at all & our rotation wasn't helping matters. So we used a lot of young guys. An overlooked part of managing a bullpen of young guys is protecting their health for future years. So it wasn't as simple as "Why isn't Robin pitching so and so". He had young guys getting a taste & short SP outings. I think many will be pleased with the matchups we use this year.

[Eminor3rd]

What would "coming on board" entail. The White Sox used more shifts than most last year. They bunt fewer times than most. Hasn't Cooper been one to preach lowering pitch counts by getting guys early in the count even though he isn't a pitch count guy?

 

I think you're illustrating the key point here, which is that this isn't a matter of a team choosing GOING SABR or STAYING OLD SCHOOL. The reality is that sabermetric research has already infiltrated the game, in that it affects every team in some way. There are certainly teams that rely more on it than others, but the best concepts have risen to the top. And this was never really about the stats themselves, but rather about the ideas that the math is uncovering. This stuff has been adopted; it has not replaced anything.

 

Billy Beane didn't fire all his scouts. This was never about rigidly employing a mutually exclusive approach, it was just about looking to the fringes to find new ideas to integrate into the system. The "us vs. them" civil war that has ensued in the public sphere can be attributed ENTIRELY to the media, the center of which was Michael Lewis' "based on a true story" Moneyball effort.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Eminor3rd

[chw42]

Charles' argument doesn't hold a lot of water. He gave examples like the current Spurs, 90s Bulls, and 00s Lakers as arguments against analytics.

 

Charles, those teams had efficient star players. That's why they won. That's how you win in basketball.

 

Morey takes it a bit too far since all he wants are guys who either shoot 3s, draw fouls, or hit layups, but if you want to win, you need players who can do that in basketball. Shooting long 2 point shots isn't efficient and teams who rely on that type of game aren't successful.

Edited February 11, 2015 by chw42

[caulfield12]

Charles' argument doesn't hold a lot of water. He gave examples like the current Spurs, 90s Bulls, and 00s Lakers as arguments against analytics.

 

Charles, those teams had efficient star players. That's why they won. That's how you win in basketball.

 

Morey takes it a bit too far since all he wants are guys who either shoot 3s, draw fouls, or hit layups, but if you want to win, you need players who can do that in basketball. Shooting long 2 point shots isn't efficient and teams who rely on that type of game aren't successful.

 

 

Taking it one step further, how do college programs identify players who will succeed the most at the next level shooting 3's?

 

There's tons of players in the country who excel in this area in high school, but, for example...Wisconsin and Michigan have excelled in recent years finding players for their systems, whereas Michigan State seemingly has fallen behind the times a bit.

 

 

[asindc]

Charles' argument doesn't hold a lot of water. He gave examples like the current Spurs, 90s Bulls, and 00s Lakers as arguments against analytics.

 

Charles, those teams had efficient star players. That's why they won. That's how you win in basketball.

 

Morey takes it a bit too far since all he wants are guys who either shoot 3s, draw fouls, or hit layups, but if you want to win, you need players who can do that in basketball. Shooting long 2 point shots isn't efficient and teams who rely on that type of game aren't successful.

 

I see two points to Barkley's argument:

 

1) Advanced metrics are not needed at all to identify efficient star players; and

 

2) advanced metrics cannot be used to identify which efficient star players will work well with each other.

 

On point one, I agree only to a point. Advanced metrics can be used in conjunction with scouting to identify efficient basketball players, but... on point two, I wholeheartedly agree. That's why I said earlier that advanced metrics are more useful in baseball than basketball.

 

The plays in basketball are fluid in nature and cannot be isolated to the extent that plays are in baseball (pitcher vs. batter, batter vs. fielder, base runner vs. pitcher/catcher, etc.). If a shooting guard plays with a crappy point guard, his numbers won't look as good as they probably would with an average point guard. A hitter cannot make any claims as to his teammates possibly dragging his performance down.

Edited February 12, 2015 by asindc

[chw42]

I see two points to Barkley's argument:

 

1) Advanced metrics are not needed at all to identify efficient star players; and

 

2) advanced metrics cannot be used to identify which efficient star players will work well with each other.

 

On point one, I agree only to a point. Advanced metrics can be used in conjunction with scouting to identify efficient basketball players, but... on point two, I wholeheartedly agree.

That's why I said earlier that advanced metrics are more useful in baseball than basketball. The plays in basketball are fluid in nature and cannot be isolated to the extent that play is

in baseball (pitcher vs. batter, batter vs. fielder, base running vs. pitcher/catcher, etc.). If a shooting guard plays with a crappy point guard, his numbers won't look as good as they

probably would with an average point guard. A hitter cannot make any claims as to his teammates possibly dragging his performance down.

 

I can agree with point 2 in basketball. Look what Josh Smith did in his first few games with Houston.

 

But Charles' crusade against analytics is stupid. Yes, Morey takes it too seriously and he's done some weird things and he doesn't have a whole lot to show for it. But that doesn't mean the idea behind it isn't effective.

[Vance Law]

The reality is that The "us vs. them" civil war that has ensued in the public sphere can be attributed ENTIRELY to the media, the center of which was Michael Lewis' "based on a true story" Moneyball effort.

 

Michael Lewis wrote a book that was a true story.

 

Hollywood made the fictionalized version.

[witesoxfan]

Michael Lewis wrote a book that was a true story.

 

Hollywood made the fictionalized version.

 

I'm guessing there was a bit of fabrication to it though.

[Vance Law]

I'm guessing there was a bit of fabrication to it though.

 

The book?

[Eminor3rd]

Michael Lewis wrote a book that was a true story.

 

Hollywood made the fictionalized version.

 

The book is well known to have been highly "sensationalized." It's been a criticism since its release, long before the movie was even a thought.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

Heard Barkley's rant last night . Wondered if there would be something on here but I fail to see how it stays in PHT . Are all sabremetric discussions now required reading ? I mean, I try ,I really do, to understand some of the more frequently used new terms to stay abreast of things. Can't say I enjoy reading sooooooooo much about it though. I enjoy my sports which mostly consists of watching and drawing my own conclusions on players.

 

Around here or any forum where younger people gather I'm thankful for the broadening of my horizons. However, I can definitely say it hasn't enhanced my enjoyment level of sports , probably has even lowered it a little bit to be honest. My math education stopped at Algebra 2 so everytime someone starts in with coeffeicients and variables yada yada yada, I get bored to tears. Is this math class or the place to discuss White Sox baseball.

 

I see people ask what is FIP or something else. I'm like are you kidding me ? You're on a computer ! You have the world at your fingertips ! Stick it in a search engine and you can find all the stuff on it your little heart ever desired.

 

You get rants like Hawk and Barkley and now me I guess because you guys never give it a rest . We have a permanently pinned section on it for whatever reason .All the offseason acquisitions should be pinned till at least opening day because thats what interests Sox fans who might wander into this place infrequently. What do they see pinned? FAQ's about advanced physics. We rant because we sucked at math and we feel dumb again, but even sucking it was still simple to understand ERA and fielding percentage and batting average. Now I need a degree from MIT.

Edited February 12, 2015 by CaliSoxFanViaSWside

[Reddy]

That's interesting Balta. I think most people feel that Robin is antisabe due to his use of the bullpen. Watching the 45min Soxfest video of RH, RV & SS really shed some light on it for me. Nate & Lidstrom went down last year, we didn't really have a lefty option at all & our rotation wasn't helping matters. So we used a lot of young guys. An overlooked part of managing a bullpen of young guys is protecting their health for future years. So it wasn't as simple as "Why isn't Robin pitching so and so". He had young guys getting a taste & short SP outings. I think many will be pleased with the matchups we use this year.

Robin had the best bullpen management in baseball in 2014. We've been down this road.

 

ETA: in terms of getting the most out of what he had. statistically speaking.

Edited February 12, 2015 by Reddy

[iamshack]

The book is well known to have been highly "sensationalized." It's been a criticism since its release, long before the movie was even a thought.

I've heard the same criticisms of Flash Boys.

[caulfield12]

I've heard the same criticisms of Flash Boys.

 

 

Yet no movie there unless Brad Pitt can play a Chinese-Canadian.

 

 

I do believe one thing, firmly. Arguing/discussing baseball has become even more frustrating, because you can take a stat like VORP or FIP and say, for example, Ronald Belisario was the 3rd most valuable pitcher/player on the White Sox last season. Something that nobody who watched him pitch even a handful of times would agree with...and yet someone who hasn't watched him (especially as a closer) will argue vehemently that he was more valuable than Putnam or Petricka, and then a bunch of numbers will get bandied back and forth and a substantive discussion of actual performance gets lost in the numbers, the forest for the trees, so to speak.

 

Now this isn't that common...but it's been extended to "team WAR" and then you lose the individual contributors to a team and so-called chemistry (which some will argue doesn't exist, the team is only the sum of the individual pieces) isn't taken into account in any way, shape or form. For example, how Dave Schoenfeld could rank the Sox in the #22-23 area (preseason) is just astounding to me, after all the additional talent they've brought on board. For the majority of last year, with the worst bullpen in the game, they were a #15-20 team, at worst. But the Cubs add Lester and Maddon and a team that almost anyone would argue is even or behind the White Sox at the major league level is #13? In the end, part of being a White Sox fan is knowing that no matter what the numbers say, your team will always have to fight twice as hard to earn respect on a national basis. I guess if we lose that chip on our shoulders (like was beginning to happen in 2006), things tend to get too complacent.

Edited February 12, 2015 by caulfield12

[LittleHurt05]

I think you're illustrating the key point here, which is that this isn't a matter of a team choosing GOING SABR or STAYING OLD SCHOOL. The reality is that sabermetric research has already infiltrated the game, in that it affects every team in some way. There are certainly teams that rely more on it than others, but the best concepts have risen to the top. And this was never really about the stats themselves, but rather about the ideas that the math is uncovering. This stuff has been adopted; it has not replaced anything.

 

Billy Beane didn't fire all his scouts. This was never about rigidly employing a mutually exclusive approach, it was just about looking to the fringes to find new ideas to integrate into the system. The "us vs. them" civil war that has ensued in the public sphere can be attributed ENTIRELY to the media, the center of which was Michael Lewis' "based on a true story" Moneyball effort.

 

The new Dodgers GM that Freidman hired, he was a MIT grad with zero baseball experience, your ultimate "Sabr" guy. Now as time has passed and he has spent more time in baseball, I read he recently admitted that he has been trusting scouts just as much, if not more than the numbers. It's not about one way or the other, it's about making the baseball team possible using every available resource.

[caulfield12]

The new Dodgers GM that Freidman hired, he was a MIT grad with zero baseball experience, your ultimate "Sabr" guy. Now as time has passed and he has spent more time in baseball, I read he recently admitted that he has been trusting scouts just as much, if not more than the numbers. It's not about one way or the other, it's about making the baseball team possible using every available resource.

 

https://slice.mit.edu/2014/11/18/mit-alumnu...ngeles-dodgers/

Farhan Zaidi, the first Asian-American GM (many thought it was going to be Kim Ng ten years ago).

First Muslim. First of Pakistani/Filipino descent.

 

Morey (Rockets) graduated with an MBA from MIT in 2000, fwiw.

 

Interestingly, the Cespedes acquisition was more of a non-SABR projection than pretty much any move you can imagine...and required a lot of input from the scouting side.

 

With the A’s, Zaidi was widely credited for his part in the signing of Yoenis Cespedes, the Cuban defector who became a star from the time he arrived in 2012.

 

“He’s absolutely brilliant,” Beane said of Zaidi in an interview with The San Francisco Chronicle this year. “He has a great qualitative mind, but also a creative mind. The ability to look at things both micro and macro is unique, and Farhan could do whatever he wants to do, not just in this game, but in any sport or any business. I’m more worried about losing him to Apple or Google than I am to another team.”

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/06/sports/b...as-gm.html?_r=0

 

Edited February 12, 2015 by caulfield12

[greg775]

What some of you Sabes people must realize is a lot of us, including Barkley, do not give a s*** about advanced stats. I mean some of it is interesting, but I think what Charles is saying is a ballplayer knows a good ballplayer when he sees one.

 

Believe me, I don't need advanced stats to tell me Rios or Dunn are good players. I happen to SEE them play and can tell you they are not. I'm not a big WAR guy obviously.

When I see Adam Dunn whiff as much as he did as a Sox, and the fact he as our big gun never sniffed a postseason, tells me a lot. I don't need advanced stats telling me he was good or some such.

 

Again, if you watch your favorite team all year, you know who is good and who is bad.

That's my take. The Sabes people should be more tolerant of us Sabes haters or Sabes dislikers.

[Reddy]

What some of you Sabes people must realize is a lot of us, including Barkley, do not give a s*** about advanced stats. I mean some of it is interesting, but I think what Charles is saying is a ballplayer knows a good ballplayer when he sees one.

 

Believe me, I don't need advanced stats to tell me Rios or Dunn are good players. I happen to SEE them play and can tell you they are not. I'm not a big WAR guy obviously.

When I see Adam Dunn whiff as much as he did as a Sox, and the fact he as our big gun never sniffed a postseason, tells me a lot. I don't need advanced stats telling me he was good or some such.

 

Again, if you watch your favorite team all year, you know who is good and who is bad.

That's my take. The Sabes people should be more tolerant of us Sabes haters or Sabes dislikers.

 

but you'd be wrong.

[caulfield12]

What some of you Sabes people must realize is a lot of us, including Barkley, do not give a s*** about advanced stats. I mean some of it is interesting, but I think what Charles is saying is a ballplayer knows a good ballplayer when he sees one.

 

Believe me, I don't need advanced stats to tell me Rios or Dunn are good players. I happen to SEE them play and can tell you they are not. I'm not a big WAR guy obviously.

When I see Adam Dunn whiff as much as he did as a Sox, and the fact he as our big gun never sniffed a postseason, tells me a lot. I don't need advanced stats telling me he was good or some such.

 

Again, if you watch your favorite team all year, you know who is good and who is bad.

That's my take. The Sabes people should be more tolerant of us Sabes haters or Sabes dislikers.

 

 

This is my favorite SoxTalk soliloquy of the year so far.