More Skirmishing in the Battle of Scouts and Stats
Everyone is always ready to fight the Scouts vs Stats battle.
In the red corner, Scouts say that the only way to really build a team is to send your cigar smoking scouts and their sunburnt faces around the country (now the world) to see what a player is really all about. In the two or three days a scout sees young players, they can see, through the wispy blue curls of smoke, who that player is in his heart of hearts and what he will ultimately become. What an organization needs is good, old, experienced scouts; then they just need to trust the scouts.
In the blue corner, Stats say that all that poetic language is meaningless, and you can't tell anything from a player just from seeing him a couple of times. You need seasons worth of data that you can normalize against his scoring environment, and you need to objectively analyze the numbers, and choose the players for your team that will maximize run scoring and prevention, based on the handful of statistics that have shown themselves over time to predict runs and, therefore, wins.
According to Scouts, players are mystical beings who must be kept happy by a fatherly manager who plays the hot hand and always trusts his latest hunch and gives them all a role. The uniform soaks into their skin and the player truly embodies the team. Clubhouse chemistry is vitally important; the team spends every waking moment together for seven months and they have to be kept happy all the time.
According to Stats, players are cogs in a run producing machine. It doesn't matter who they are as long as they get on base and get extra base hits and miss bats and keep the ball on the ground. A roster that has the critical mass of these characteristics will be a successful one, and nothing else is important. Clubhouse chemistry is utterly meaningless; the team does not exist off the field.
As always, Rob Neyer jumps directly into the fray, fighting in the blue corner. He quotes the Scouts' rebuttal to Moneyball, Scouts Honor:
The Oakland A's didn't reinvent the wheel with their emphasis on statistical analysis, even though Moneyball and [Michael] Lewis want you to think they did. While it can't be called a "fad," it may be better to compare it to the Atkins diet. There might be a short-term benefit, but just like diet and exercise, the traditional scouting approach is still the best way to construct a consistent winner. Short-term success is the easy way out. It takes guts to build a team for the long haul.
Then Neyer tosses it aside with possibly the most simplistic analysis possible:
Scout's Honor was published in the spring of 2005. In the four years since, the Braves have won 325 games. The A's have won 332. While playing in a tougher league. And spending less money.
And the thrilling conclusion?
Scouting and scouts are important. I've never met anyone in baseball who said they weren't. But these days it's awfully hard to win without a fair piece of solid objective analysis, too.
At least he ends up sounding reasonable. Statistical analysis obviously isn't a fad, it's here to stay. At some point it may go too far, it's impossible to say at this point. But there's one thing I know for sure: someday, the current Stats guys will grow old and their beliefs will have crystallized. Anyone who questions the Bill James Bible will be cast out as a heretic. Then we'll all repeat the same arguments between generations, and it'll all be just as much fun. I can't wait.
Ultimately, Neyer's right that scouting is important. It gets you players, and helps you pick the ones with talent.
He's also right that analysis is important. It tells you which of those talented youngsters are actually playing well.
You can't analyze without numbers. You don't have numbers without players. You don't have players without scouts.
People need to realize that both scouting and analysis are fully necessary parts of a front office. An organization needs a balance of both. It seems to me that far too few people (and teams) realize that. (And while adherents of the Stats always claim they understand the need for balance, they never act like they do. I don't buy it. They're just as zealot-y about the ultimate .250/.380/.520 hitter as their enemies are of the perfect .300/.300/.300 hitter.)
In conclusion, this might have been Neyer's point. He just always talks like he's wearing the crucifix that came with his Bill James Bible. I think I took his tone wrong. But I felt like I should spell it out a little better. It's late, so I'll just toss this out there in case there's something decent in it. It's not like anyone'll read it.
Posted by Sean Schulte at 2008-12-17 22:58:44
blog comments powered by Disqus