Cardly wrote: ↑17 Feb 2026 20:09 pm
For the past 2 seasons we were told Gorman had runway and we had to see what he had. What’s different this season? He is not good
For the last 2 seasons we were told Walker had a runway and we had to see what he had. What’s different this season? He is not good
For the past 2 seasons we have known Saggese needs to play second because his arm is best suited there.
Etc etc etc
Why did they not improve their big league roster during this past winter? This season is a wasted year with a PR joke telling us they have to see what they have. We already did that. It is not good!
My guess is that the record will be 62 wins and 100 loses.
You will most be likely be wrong
This is why people calling Walker a bust was a joke. They gave up on him far too quickly.
Baseball is funny that way. It can make so many of us self-anointed experts look silly. I try to avoid the small sample size, the short attention span, the bumper sticker, and the “hot take”.
Sound advice Brock. Or unsustainable stats. Also, that jump from aaa to the show is a big one. Most don't make it smoothly.
Perhaps what people should internalize is that the staff of the organization - the instructors, coaches, scouts, front office personnel, etc. - know vastly more about any particular player/prospect than we do - they have to know vastly more because they are around these guys every day.
If the organization isn't "giving up" on Walker, Gorman, Svanson, whoever - there is almost certainly a reason for it. When these guys struggle at the ML level, they can see that as well as we can. But they must have some reasons based on what they know to give them "more runway" to try to sort it out.
The staff of the organization won't be right 100% of the time - some of these guys will still fail no matter how much "runway" they are given. But they will be right, basically have to be right, much more than posters on CT just because they have access to a lot more detailed information than we do.
A CT poster's "eye test" never trumps years worth of information from working with players on a day-in, day-out basis.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
This. Plus many times, guys just see some gaudy milb numbers and start their campaigns to bring these guys up based on that. They haven't even seen the guy in order to conduct their eye tests. There's a reason why those guys aren't here.
Cardly wrote: ↑17 Feb 2026 20:09 pm
For the past 2 seasons we were told Gorman had runway and we had to see what he had. What’s different this season? He is not good
For the last 2 seasons we were told Walker had a runway and we had to see what he had. What’s different this season? He is not good
For the past 2 seasons we have known Saggese needs to play second because his arm is best suited there.
Etc etc etc
Why did they not improve their big league roster during this past winter? This season is a wasted year with a PR joke telling us they have to see what they have. We already did that. It is not good!
My guess is that the record will be 62 wins and 100 loses.
You will most be likely be wrong
This is why people calling Walker a bust was a joke. They gave up on him far too quickly.
Baseball is funny that way. It can make so many of us self-anointed experts look silly. I try to avoid the small sample size, the short attention span, the bumper sticker, and the “hot take”.
Sound advice Brock. Or unsustainable stats. Also, that jump from aaa to the show is a big one. Most don't make it smoothly.
Perhaps what people should internalize is that the staff of the organization - the instructors, coaches, scouts, front office personnel, etc. - know vastly more about any particular player/prospect than we do - they have to know vastly more because they are around these guys every day.
If the organization isn't "giving up" on Walker, Gorman, Svanson, whoever - there is almost certainly a reason for it. When these guys struggle at the ML level, they can see that as well as we can. But they must have some reasons based on what they know to give them "more runway" to try to sort it out.
The staff of the organization won't be right 100% of the time - some of these guys will still fail no matter how much "runway" they are given. But they will be right, basically have to be right, much more than posters on CT just because they have access to a lot more detailed information than we do.
A CT poster's "eye test" never trumps years worth of information from working with players on a day-in, day-out basis.
Still the eye test is used by 40 K nightly to measure those analyticals. That’s all they got.
Well, the best we have to rely on are the "analyticals" that we have - which is far short of what the organization has.
"Eye test" < our limited "analyticals" < the organizational "analyticals" and supporting information
I hear ya. But at worst, I could go Eye Test = our limited analysis < org analytics and supporting docs.
I think a ball players and fans alike have keen eye sight.
Let me put is this way - our statistical data/analytics is, in a way, the "eye test" rigorously applied to every single event that happens on the field.
Whereas no one individual's "eye test" can be applied to watch every player by every player in baseball, our statistical data/analytics "watches" and summarizes what happened on every single player made by every single player in baseball and reports it to us.
Even down to the level of tracking speed and horizonal/vertical break on pitches being thrown in a side session on a pitcher's off day, there isn't much these days that the "eye test" can do better than technology to track and record.
Cardly wrote: ↑17 Feb 2026 20:09 pm
For the past 2 seasons we were told Gorman had runway and we had to see what he had. What’s different this season? He is not good
For the last 2 seasons we were told Walker had a runway and we had to see what he had. What’s different this season? He is not good
For the past 2 seasons we have known Saggese needs to play second because his arm is best suited there.
Etc etc etc
Why did they not improve their big league roster during this past winter? This season is a wasted year with a PR joke telling us they have to see what they have. We already did that. It is not good!
My guess is that the record will be 62 wins and 100 loses.
You will most be likely be wrong
This is why people calling Walker a bust was a joke. They gave up on him far too quickly.
Baseball is funny that way. It can make so many of us self-anointed experts look silly. I try to avoid the small sample size, the short attention span, the bumper sticker, and the “hot take”.
Sound advice Brock. Or unsustainable stats. Also, that jump from aaa to the show is a big one. Most don't make it smoothly.
Perhaps what people should internalize is that the staff of the organization - the instructors, coaches, scouts, front office personnel, etc. - know vastly more about any particular player/prospect than we do - they have to know vastly more because they are around these guys every day.
If the organization isn't "giving up" on Walker, Gorman, Svanson, whoever - there is almost certainly a reason for it. When these guys struggle at the ML level, they can see that as well as we can. But they must have some reasons based on what they know to give them "more runway" to try to sort it out.
The staff of the organization won't be right 100% of the time - some of these guys will still fail no matter how much "runway" they are given. But they will be right, basically have to be right, much more than posters on CT just because they have access to a lot more detailed information than we do.
A CT poster's "eye test" never trumps years worth of information from working with players on a day-in, day-out basis.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
This. Plus many times, guys just see some gaudy milb numbers and start their campaigns to bring these guys up based on that. They haven't even seen the guy in order to conduct their eye tests. There's a reason why those guys aren't here.
Yeah - I think the "I played/coached in high school/college in the 1960s/1970s/1980s" contingent delude themselves somewhat in terms of what that means their "eye test" is worth with regard to baseball in 2026.
Cardly wrote: ↑17 Feb 2026 20:09 pm
For the past 2 seasons we were told Gorman had runway and we had to see what he had. What’s different this season? He is not good
For the last 2 seasons we were told Walker had a runway and we had to see what he had. What’s different this season? He is not good
For the past 2 seasons we have known Saggese needs to play second because his arm is best suited there.
Etc etc etc
Why did they not improve their big league roster during this past winter? This season is a wasted year with a PR joke telling us they have to see what they have. We already did that. It is not good!
My guess is that the record will be 62 wins and 100 loses.
You will most be likely be wrong
This is why people calling Walker a bust was a joke. They gave up on him far too quickly.
Baseball is funny that way. It can make so many of us self-anointed experts look silly. I try to avoid the small sample size, the short attention span, the bumper sticker, and the “hot take”.
Sound advice Brock. Or unsustainable stats. Also, that jump from aaa to the show is a big one. Most don't make it smoothly.
Perhaps what people should internalize is that the staff of the organization - the instructors, coaches, scouts, front office personnel, etc. - know vastly more about any particular player/prospect than we do - they have to know vastly more because they are around these guys every day.
If the organization isn't "giving up" on Walker, Gorman, Svanson, whoever - there is almost certainly a reason for it. When these guys struggle at the ML level, they can see that as well as we can. But they must have some reasons based on what they know to give them "more runway" to try to sort it out.
The staff of the organization won't be right 100% of the time - some of these guys will still fail no matter how much "runway" they are given. But they will be right, basically have to be right, much more than posters on CT just because they have access to a lot more detailed information than we do.
A CT poster's "eye test" never trumps years worth of information from working with players on a day-in, day-out basis.
Still the eye test is used by 40 K nightly to measure those analyticals. That’s all they got.
Well, the best we have to rely on are the "analyticals" that we have - which is far short of what the organization has.
"Eye test" < our limited "analyticals" < the organizational "analyticals" and supporting information
I hear ya. But at worst, I could go Eye Test = our limited analysis < org analytics and supporting docs.
I think a ball players and fans alike have keen eye sight.
Let me put is this way - our statistical data/analytics is, in a way, the "eye test" rigorously applied to every single event that happens on the field.
Whereas no one individual's "eye test" can be applied to watch every player by every player in baseball, our statistical data/analytics "watches" and summarizes what happened on every single player made by every single player in baseball and reports it to us.
Even down to the level of tracking speed and horizonal/vertical break on pitches being thrown in a side session on a pitcher's off day, there isn't much these days that the "eye test" can do better than technology to track and record.
I agree. It can do all better. Where does the eye test now fit in this formula. I’d think more initially, then less as analytics takes over.
Cardly wrote: ↑17 Feb 2026 20:09 pm
For the past 2 seasons we were told Gorman had runway and we had to see what he had. What’s different this season? He is not good
For the last 2 seasons we were told Walker had a runway and we had to see what he had. What’s different this season? He is not good
For the past 2 seasons we have known Saggese needs to play second because his arm is best suited there.
Etc etc etc
Why did they not improve their big league roster during this past winter? This season is a wasted year with a PR joke telling us they have to see what they have. We already did that. It is not good!
My guess is that the record will be 62 wins and 100 loses.
You will most be likely be wrong
This is why people calling Walker a bust was a joke. They gave up on him far too quickly.
Baseball is funny that way. It can make so many of us self-anointed experts look silly. I try to avoid the small sample size, the short attention span, the bumper sticker, and the “hot take”.
Sound advice Brock. Or unsustainable stats. Also, that jump from aaa to the show is a big one. Most don't make it smoothly.
Perhaps what people should internalize is that the staff of the organization - the instructors, coaches, scouts, front office personnel, etc. - know vastly more about any particular player/prospect than we do - they have to know vastly more because they are around these guys every day.
If the organization isn't "giving up" on Walker, Gorman, Svanson, whoever - there is almost certainly a reason for it. When these guys struggle at the ML level, they can see that as well as we can. But they must have some reasons based on what they know to give them "more runway" to try to sort it out.
The staff of the organization won't be right 100% of the time - some of these guys will still fail no matter how much "runway" they are given. But they will be right, basically have to be right, much more than posters on CT just because they have access to a lot more detailed information than we do.
A CT poster's "eye test" never trumps years worth of information from working with players on a day-in, day-out basis.
Still the eye test is used by 40 K nightly to measure those analyticals. That’s all they got.
Well, the best we have to rely on are the "analyticals" that we have - which is far short of what the organization has.
"Eye test" < our limited "analyticals" < the organizational "analyticals" and supporting information
I hear ya. But at worst, I could go Eye Test = our limited analysis < org analytics and supporting docs.
I think a ball players and fans alike have keen eye sight.
Let me put is this way - our statistical data/analytics is, in a way, the "eye test" rigorously applied to every single event that happens on the field.
Whereas no one individual's "eye test" can be applied to watch every player by every player in baseball, our statistical data/analytics "watches" and summarizes what happened on every single player made by every single player in baseball and reports it to us.
Even down to the level of tracking speed and horizonal/vertical break on pitches being thrown in a side session on a pitcher's off day, there isn't much these days that the "eye test" can do better than technology to track and record.
I agree. It can do all better. Where does the eye test now fit in this formula. I’d think more initially, then less as analytics takes over.
The "professional eye test" - that mostly of scouts and coaches - still has the most value when the organization has the least reliable data/analytics to go on. So maximum value when they are deciding who to draft or which international signings to make.
Then, as they accumulate years worth of data/analytics, the "professional interpretation" of that data - what does it really portend about the player's future success (or not) - starts to take over. That skill of "professional interpretation" is probably also frequently linked to years worth of coaching/scouting experience as well, so it isn't necessarily distant from the same root as the "professional eye test." But it does likely require guys who can go beyond "I've seen a guy like this be successful before" to "I understand WHY I saw as guy like this be successful before and the guy I'm looking at now produces similar data/analytics and could/should also be successful."
Last edited by mattmitchl44 on 10 May 2026 08:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Cardly wrote: ↑17 Feb 2026 20:09 pm
For the past 2 seasons we were told Gorman had runway and we had to see what he had. What’s different this season? He is not good
For the last 2 seasons we were told Walker had a runway and we had to see what he had. What’s different this season? He is not good
For the past 2 seasons we have known Saggese needs to play second because his arm is best suited there.
Etc etc etc
Why did they not improve their big league roster during this past winter? This season is a wasted year with a PR joke telling us they have to see what they have. We already did that. It is not good!
My guess is that the record will be 62 wins and 100 loses.
You will most be likely be wrong
This is why people calling Walker a bust was a joke. They gave up on him far too quickly.
Baseball is funny that way. It can make so many of us self-anointed experts look silly. I try to avoid the small sample size, the short attention span, the bumper sticker, and the “hot take”.
Sound advice Brock. Or unsustainable stats. Also, that jump from aaa to the show is a big one. Most don't make it smoothly.
Perhaps what people should internalize is that the staff of the organization - the instructors, coaches, scouts, front office personnel, etc. - know vastly more about any particular player/prospect than we do - they have to know vastly more because they are around these guys every day.
If the organization isn't "giving up" on Walker, Gorman, Svanson, whoever - there is almost certainly a reason for it. When these guys struggle at the ML level, they can see that as well as we can. But they must have some reasons based on what they know to give them "more runway" to try to sort it out.
The staff of the organization won't be right 100% of the time - some of these guys will still fail no matter how much "runway" they are given. But they will be right, basically have to be right, much more than posters on CT just because they have access to a lot more detailed information than we do.
A CT poster's "eye test" never trumps years worth of information from working with players on a day-in, day-out basis.
Still the eye test is used by 40 K nightly to measure those analyticals. That’s all they got.
Well, the best we have to rely on are the "analyticals" that we have - which is far short of what the organization has.
"Eye test" < our limited "analyticals" < the organizational "analyticals" and supporting information
I hear ya. But at worst, I could go Eye Test = our limited analysis < org analytics and supporting docs.
I think a ball players and fans alike have keen eye sight.
Let me put is this way - our statistical data/analytics is, in a way, the "eye test" rigorously applied to every single event that happens on the field.
Whereas no one individual's "eye test" can be applied to watch every player by every player in baseball, our statistical data/analytics "watches" and summarizes what happened on every single player made by every single player in baseball and reports it to us.
Even down to the level of tracking speed and horizonal/vertical break on pitches being thrown in a side session on a pitcher's off day, there isn't much these days that the "eye test" can do better than technology to track and record.
I agree. It can do all better. Where does the eye test now fit in this formula. I’d think more initially, then less as analytics takes over.
The "professional eye test" - that mostly of scouts and coaches - still has the most value when the organization has the least reliable data/analytics to go on. So maximum value when they are deciding who to draft or which international signings to make.
Then, as they accumulate years worth of data/analytics, the "professional interpretation" of that data - what does it really portend about the player's future success (or not) - starts to take over. That skill of "professional interpretation" is probably also frequently linked to years worth of coaching/scouting experience as well, so it isn't necessarily distant from the same root as the "professional eye test."
Fine write. One of your best. I “ see” it your way- ha.
Cardly wrote: ↑17 Feb 2026 20:09 pm
For the past 2 seasons we were told Gorman had runway and we had to see what he had. What’s different this season? He is not good
For the last 2 seasons we were told Walker had a runway and we had to see what he had. What’s different this season? He is not good
For the past 2 seasons we have known Saggese needs to play second because his arm is best suited there.
Etc etc etc
Why did they not improve their big league roster during this past winter? This season is a wasted year with a PR joke telling us they have to see what they have. We already did that. It is not good!
My guess is that the record will be 62 wins and 100 loses.
Cardly wrote: ↑17 Feb 2026 20:09 pm
For the past 2 seasons we were told Gorman had runway and we had to see what he had. What’s different this season? He is not good
For the last 2 seasons we were told Walker had a runway and we had to see what he had. What’s different this season? He is not good
For the past 2 seasons we have known Saggese needs to play second because his arm is best suited there.
Etc etc etc
Why did they not improve their big league roster during this past winter? This season is a wasted year with a PR joke telling us they have to see what they have. We already did that. It is not good!
My guess is that the record will be 62 wins and 100 loses.
You will most be likely be wrong
This is why people calling Walker a bust was a joke. They gave up on him far too quickly.
Baseball is funny that way. It can make so many of us self-anointed experts look silly. I try to avoid the small sample size, the short attention span, the bumper sticker, and the “hot take”.
I try to avoid labeling a player a bust prior to age 26 and three full seasons. He came up at an age where some of his peers are in college, yet people wrote him off as a bust as they lacked patience for a young player to develop.
Cardly wrote: ↑17 Feb 2026 20:09 pm
For the past 2 seasons we were told Gorman had runway and we had to see what he had. What’s different this season? He is not good
For the last 2 seasons we were told Walker had a runway and we had to see what he had. What’s different this season? He is not good
For the past 2 seasons we have known Saggese needs to play second because his arm is best suited there.
Etc etc etc
Why did they not improve their big league roster during this past winter? This season is a wasted year with a PR joke telling us they have to see what they have. We already did that. It is not good!
My guess is that the record will be 62 wins and 100 loses.
Cardly wrote: ↑17 Feb 2026 20:09 pm
For the past 2 seasons we were told Gorman had runway and we had to see what he had. What’s different this season? He is not good
For the last 2 seasons we were told Walker had a runway and we had to see what he had. What’s different this season? He is not good
For the past 2 seasons we have known Saggese needs to play second because his arm is best suited there.
Etc etc etc
Why did they not improve their big league roster during this past winter? This season is a wasted year with a PR joke telling us they have to see what they have. We already did that. It is not good!
My guess is that the record will be 62 wins and 100 loses.
Nominate for dumb post of the year.
yeah, this did not age well
I admit to “venting” on CT as do most. Unfortunately when I do vent I often go overboard out of frustration. LOL
That is why I always abstain from giving preseason predictions.
I label myself as an optimist and not having any “inside info” on the FO/players/coaches/etc leaves me at a disadvantage.
Needless to say...very encouraged YTD!
Cardly wrote: ↑17 Feb 2026 20:09 pm
For the past 2 seasons we were told Gorman had runway and we had to see what he had. What’s different this season? He is not good
For the last 2 seasons we were told Walker had a runway and we had to see what he had. What’s different this season? He is not good
For the past 2 seasons we have known Saggese needs to play second because his arm is best suited there.
Etc etc etc
Why did they not improve their big league roster during this past winter? This season is a wasted year with a PR joke telling us they have to see what they have. We already did that. It is not good!
My guess is that the record will be 62 wins and 100 loses.
You will most be likely be wrong
This is why people calling Walker a bust was a joke. They gave up on him far too quickly.
Baseball is funny that way. It can make so many of us self-anointed experts look silly. I try to avoid the small sample size, the short attention span, the bumper sticker, and the “hot take”.
Sound advice Brock. Or unsustainable stats. Also, that jump from aaa to the show is a big one. Most don't make it smoothly.
Perhaps what people should internalize is that the staff of the organization - the instructors, coaches, scouts, front office personnel, etc. - know vastly more about any particular player/prospect than we do - they have to know vastly more because they are around these guys every day.
If the organization isn't "giving up" on Walker, Gorman, Svanson, whoever - there is almost certainly a reason for it. When these guys struggle at the ML level, they can see that as well as we can. But they must have some reasons based on what they know to give them "more runway" to try to sort it out.
The staff of the organization won't be right 100% of the time - some of these guys will still fail no matter how much "runway" they are given. But they will be right, basically have to be right, much more than posters on CT just because they have access to a lot more detailed information than we do.
A CT poster's "eye test" never trumps years worth of information from working with players on a day-in, day-out basis.
Still the eye test is used by 40 K nightly to measure those analyticals. That’s all they got.
Well, the best we have to rely on are the "analyticals" that we have - which is far short of what the organization has.
"Eye test" < our limited "analyticals" < the organizational "analyticals" and supporting information
I hear ya. But at worst, I could go Eye Test = our limited analysis < org analytics and supporting docs.
I think a ball players and fans alike have keen eye sight.
Let me put is this way - our statistical data/analytics is, in a way, the "eye test" rigorously applied to every single event that happens on the field.
Whereas no one individual's "eye test" can be applied to watch every player by every player in baseball, our statistical data/analytics "watches" and summarizes what happened on every single player made by every single player in baseball and reports it to us.
Even down to the level of tracking speed and horizonal/vertical break on pitches being thrown in a side session on a pitcher's off day, there isn't much these days that the "eye test" can do better than technology to track and record.
I agree. It can do all better. Where does the eye test now fit in this formula. I’d think more initially, then less as analytics takes over.
The "professional eye test" - that mostly of scouts and coaches - still has the most value when the organization has the least reliable data/analytics to go on. So maximum value when they are deciding who to draft or which international signings to make.
Then, as they accumulate years worth of data/analytics, the "professional interpretation" of that data - what does it really portend about the player's future success (or not) - starts to take over. That skill of "professional interpretation" is probably also frequently linked to years worth of coaching/scouting experience as well, so it isn't necessarily distant from the same root as the "professional eye test." But it does likely require guys who can go beyond "I've seen a guy like this be successful before" to "I understand WHY I saw as guy like this be successful before and the guy I'm looking at now produces similar data/analytics and could/should also be successful."
Good points. The bolded is why I still place some value on seeing/scouting the player in person. The best coaches and scouts can identify the why behind the data/analytics.
This is why people calling Walker a bust was a joke. They gave up on him far too quickly.
Baseball is funny that way. It can make so many of us self-anointed experts look silly. I try to avoid the small sample size, the short attention span, the bumper sticker, and the “hot take”.
Sound advice Brock. Or unsustainable stats. Also, that jump from aaa to the show is a big one. Most don't make it smoothly.
Perhaps what people should internalize is that the staff of the organization - the instructors, coaches, scouts, front office personnel, etc. - know vastly more about any particular player/prospect than we do - they have to know vastly more because they are around these guys every day.
If the organization isn't "giving up" on Walker, Gorman, Svanson, whoever - there is almost certainly a reason for it. When these guys struggle at the ML level, they can see that as well as we can. But they must have some reasons based on what they know to give them "more runway" to try to sort it out.
The staff of the organization won't be right 100% of the time - some of these guys will still fail no matter how much "runway" they are given. But they will be right, basically have to be right, much more than posters on CT just because they have access to a lot more detailed information than we do.
A CT poster's "eye test" never trumps years worth of information from working with players on a day-in, day-out basis.
Still the eye test is used by 40 K nightly to measure those analyticals. That’s all they got.
Well, the best we have to rely on are the "analyticals" that we have - which is far short of what the organization has.
"Eye test" < our limited "analyticals" < the organizational "analyticals" and supporting information
I hear ya. But at worst, I could go Eye Test = our limited analysis < org analytics and supporting docs.
I think a ball players and fans alike have keen eye sight.
Let me put is this way - our statistical data/analytics is, in a way, the "eye test" rigorously applied to every single event that happens on the field.
Whereas no one individual's "eye test" can be applied to watch every player by every player in baseball, our statistical data/analytics "watches" and summarizes what happened on every single player made by every single player in baseball and reports it to us.
Even down to the level of tracking speed and horizonal/vertical break on pitches being thrown in a side session on a pitcher's off day, there isn't much these days that the "eye test" can do better than technology to track and record.
I agree. It can do all better. Where does the eye test now fit in this formula. I’d think more initially, then less as analytics takes over.
The "professional eye test" - that mostly of scouts and coaches - still has the most value when the organization has the least reliable data/analytics to go on. So maximum value when they are deciding who to draft or which international signings to make.
Then, as they accumulate years worth of data/analytics, the "professional interpretation" of that data - what does it really portend about the player's future success (or not) - starts to take over. That skill of "professional interpretation" is probably also frequently linked to years worth of coaching/scouting experience as well, so it isn't necessarily distant from the same root as the "professional eye test." But it does likely require guys who can go beyond "I've seen a guy like this be successful before" to "I understand WHY I saw as guy like this be successful before and the guy I'm looking at now produces similar data/analytics and could/should also be successful."
Good points. The bolded is why I still place some value on seeing/scouting the player in person. The best coaches and scouts can identify the why behind the data/analytics.
The issue is not that either the eye test or the analytics are good or bad, it is
in ignoring the side that you do not prefer. Analytics are what has occurred with projections
off of results if what has occurred continues to occur. Formulas can project some likely
outcomes with continence and regressions to means.
Imagine picking stocks with only using a P/E ratio. The price is new the earnings are old. It's
a tool not a complete picture.
This is why people calling Walker a bust was a joke. They gave up on him far too quickly.
Baseball is funny that way. It can make so many of us self-anointed experts look silly. I try to avoid the small sample size, the short attention span, the bumper sticker, and the “hot take”.
Sound advice Brock. Or unsustainable stats. Also, that jump from aaa to the show is a big one. Most don't make it smoothly.
Perhaps what people should internalize is that the staff of the organization - the instructors, coaches, scouts, front office personnel, etc. - know vastly more about any particular player/prospect than we do - they have to know vastly more because they are around these guys every day.
If the organization isn't "giving up" on Walker, Gorman, Svanson, whoever - there is almost certainly a reason for it. When these guys struggle at the ML level, they can see that as well as we can. But they must have some reasons based on what they know to give them "more runway" to try to sort it out.
The staff of the organization won't be right 100% of the time - some of these guys will still fail no matter how much "runway" they are given. But they will be right, basically have to be right, much more than posters on CT just because they have access to a lot more detailed information than we do.
A CT poster's "eye test" never trumps years worth of information from working with players on a day-in, day-out basis.
Still the eye test is used by 40 K nightly to measure those analyticals. That’s all they got.
Well, the best we have to rely on are the "analyticals" that we have - which is far short of what the organization has.
"Eye test" < our limited "analyticals" < the organizational "analyticals" and supporting information
I hear ya. But at worst, I could go Eye Test = our limited analysis < org analytics and supporting docs.
I think a ball players and fans alike have keen eye sight.
Let me put is this way - our statistical data/analytics is, in a way, the "eye test" rigorously applied to every single event that happens on the field.
Whereas no one individual's "eye test" can be applied to watch every player by every player in baseball, our statistical data/analytics "watches" and summarizes what happened on every single player made by every single player in baseball and reports it to us.
Even down to the level of tracking speed and horizonal/vertical break on pitches being thrown in a side session on a pitcher's off day, there isn't much these days that the "eye test" can do better than technology to track and record.
I agree. It can do all better. Where does the eye test now fit in this formula. I’d think more initially, then less as analytics takes over.
The "professional eye test" - that mostly of scouts and coaches - still has the most value when the organization has the least reliable data/analytics to go on. So maximum value when they are deciding who to draft or which international signings to make.
Then, as they accumulate years worth of data/analytics, the "professional interpretation" of that data - what does it really portend about the player's future success (or not) - starts to take over. That skill of "professional interpretation" is probably also frequently linked to years worth of coaching/scouting experience as well, so it isn't necessarily distant from the same root as the "professional eye test." But it does likely require guys who can go beyond "I've seen a guy like this be successful before" to "I understand WHY I saw as guy like this be successful before and the guy I'm looking at now produces similar data/analytics and could/should also be successful."
Good points. The bolded is why I still place some value on seeing/scouting the player in person. The best coaches and scouts can identify the why behind the data/analytics.
The issue is not that either the eye test or the analytics are good or bad, it is
in ignoring the side that you do not prefer. Analytics are what has occurred with projections
off of results if what has occurred continues to occur. Formulas can project some likely
outcomes with continence and regressions to means.
Imagine picking stocks with only using a P/E ratio. The price is new the earnings are old. It's
a tool not a complete picture.
