Comments on: The Cubs get a little more stat-friendly

By: Joey B

Joey B — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 13:45:03 +0000

A lot of scary stuff out.
1-The writer doesn’t know the proper abbreviation is OPS? Is there anyone here that didn’t know that?
2-The writer mentions the fact that Bradley led the league OBSP, but conveniently left out every other negative stats, like a .797 career OPS prior to his FA year, or an average of 95 games played for the previous 5 years, or the annual suspensions. Even the stat heads without access to scouting will review ALL the available data.
The artice sounds like an attempt to curry favor with Hendry by defending either the signings or the lack of statistical input.

By: Craig Calcaterra

Craig Calcaterra — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 13:27:08 +0000

So what you’re saying, DD, is that you didn’t read the rest of the post where I said that the smart approach — which no one but the most extreme stat guys disputes — is a combination of both the subjective (scouting) and objective (stats).
It doesn’t take a formula to see that the Bradley was a head case who can’t really play defense anymore, yet somehow it was the decidedly non-statty Cubs who signed him. It

By: Jonny5

Jonny5 — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 13:20:08 +0000

I meant “runner up to the rookie of the year 09′”

By: Jonny5

Jonny5 — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 13:19:06 +0000

Here's some interesting Sabermetrics controversy in regards to pitching.... The runner up to the NL Cy young award 09. http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/phillies/20100303_Phillies_pitcher_Happ_would_love_to_rattle_sabermetricians.html

By: DiamondDuq

DiamondDuq — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 12:56:14 +0000

“Smart sabermetricians were extremely wary of the Cubs signing Bradley due to the fact that he had played so little in the field while in Texas…they also acknowledged the extreme risk he represented from both a health and character perspective and thought that the Cubs massively overpaid for his services.”
Funny, that sounds like an awful lot of “subjectivity” and “a person’s opinion, an informed one…but an opinion all the same.” Where’s their constructed formula or metric to measure that? I’m sure someone can come up with some random combination of suspensions, games thrown out of, umpire arguments, injuries, etc. and concoct some metric so we have a “definitively objective measure” of a player’s “health and character”. It would be just as credible as using sabermetrics to determine the value of a player.

By: Rays fan

Rays fan — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 12:18:08 +0000

1908 and Tinker to Evers to Chance seem like just yesterday. None can question a front office with such a track record of success.

By: Charles Gates

Charles Gates — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 11:21:54 +0000

The biggest problem I have with Cubbies management is their apparent ignorance of stats. If they came out and said something to the effect of, “Yea, we did a full statistical breakdown on Player X, but honestly, it doesn’t match with what the scouts say and we’re going with our scouts on this one,” I’d be okay with that.
At least that way, they’re taking all information into account and making a decision with all the relevant facts in front of them. If they decide scouting knowledge is better than statistical knowledge, that’s their choice. But to completely ignore numerical information while running a multi million (billion?) dollar business is truly mind boggling.

By: themarksmith

themarksmith — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 11:15:05 +0000

I was going to make a comment about the ridiculousness of the Miles comment, but you guys have done a nice job. One more thing, though. If you’re going to bash sabermetrics, don’t act as if BATTING AVERAGE is what they care about. If anything, that’s an insult to traditional stats.
Unfortunately, what this continues to show is a lack of understanding between the two worlds. Sullivan and Hendry clearly fail to understand even though they give it lip service. Not, maybe if they gave it a chance …

By: Grant

Grant — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 10:25:20 +0000

Seriously. How big could that sample size have possibly been?

By: Jamie

Jamie — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 10:09:49 +0000

That Aaron Miles thing is insane, and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Paul Sullivan is a fat wad of fail. Hit .392 in Cardinals day games? Like all twenty of them? You don’t need a statistician to see that Aaron Miles has never had an OPS+ over 100. You just need the Google and one working eyeball.

By: Levi Stahl

Levi Stahl — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 10:07:10 +0000

Pointing to Miles’s batting average in day games as an indication that the decision to sign him was sensible “according to the numbers”? That’s just being silly.