Jump to content

cruzer1

Al Avila on analytics...

Recommended Posts

I get why the Tigers are helped by losing as many games as possible, too, but I don't want that anymore than anyone else does here. That's why I'm concerned about them not being all-in on analytics. They're so far behind the curve now that I fear they'll never catch up to even the middle of the pack, and even beyond that, I have a sense that they would like to prove that the old ways are still the best approach. This feels like the Ruben Amaro Phillies without the spouting off in the media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IdahoBert said:

It’s the difference between winning 67 games and winning 69.  Although the latter is indeed preferable. 

something about that second number would make it a real nice season.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, chasfh said:

I read it the other way. I'm sorry, too.

I don't really care.  I just don't know why you are so insistent it can be interpreted only one way.  He was all over the place in his quotes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, pyrotigers said:

Well yeah, realistically they should probably lose as many games as possible, but I want to be entertained at least a little

I am hoping to be entertained by individual players.  I like watching players develop.  Even a false break out season can be fun.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IdahoBert said:

6D8DE5E9-FDD6-4B2A-B376-AE997561C083.png

Oh golly.  She's hot, don't you think?  Who says that analytics can't be hot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, pyrotigers said:

Well yeah, realistically they should probably lose as many games as possible, but I want to be entertained at least a little

Yup, agree.  This organization needs the overhaul from within.  Losing helps with the draft positioning and draft allowances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, chasfh said:

I read it the other way. I'm sorry, too.

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Charles Liston said:

Oh golly.  She's hot, don't you think?  Who says that analytics can't be hot?

She was an Admiral. She had other ways to make guys take notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, tiger337 said:

I don't really care.  I just don't know why you are so insistent it can be interpreted only one way.  He was all over the place in his quotes.  

I grant that "system" could mean overall decision-making system and not analytics computing system. It's possible that they never input any scouting rankings into the analytics computing system and that they combine the analytics ranking with the scouting ranking and mix them together and come up with one list using pencil and paper instead. I just think it's more likely they input the scouting rankings into the computer and let that do the work instead. But I grant I could be wrong about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the quality of analytics for most players they are scouting?

I understand if they are evaluating a MLB player for trade, the available analytics are consistent and reliable.  But some high school kid in South Carolina or Oklahoma?  A prospect playing in Venezuela?  Someone in low A-ball?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I grant that "system" could mean overall decision-making system and not analytics computing system. It's possible that they never input any scouting rankings into the analytics computing system and that they combine the analytics ranking with the scouting ranking and mix them together and come up with one list using pencil and paper instead. I just think it's more likely they input the scouting rankings into the computer and let that do the work instead. But I grant I could be wrong about that.

 

 

OK.  They may very well do a rank ordering of the both lists and add them together.  I actually think it's more useful to have two lists which may be why I interpreted the comments as I did.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scouting is consistently represented quantitatively with the 20-80 scale. What’s the issue?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

OK.  They may very well do a rank ordering of the both lists and add them together.  With a relatively small number of data points, I actually think it's more useful to have two lists which may be why I interpreted the comments as I did.  

I agree.  I think if you are selecting 1st overall, you want the scouts and the analytics to be in agreement, because you have first shot at a perennial all star (presuming the given draft produces one). 

You get to the fifth round on, it is a crap shoot.  At that point I have no issue taking someone who looks good per the numbers but the scouts don't like nor do I have an issue with taking some raw athlete the scouts love but hasn't produced yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

What is the quality of analytics for most players they are scouting?

I understand if they are evaluating a MLB player for trade, the available analytics are consistent and reliable.  But some high school kid in South Carolina or Oklahoma?  A prospect playing in Venezuela?  Someone in low A-ball?

this is what I wonder about. I think some of the data with the most potential to pick up things that scouting misses would be the advanced stat-cast type of measurement and as you note, you have to doubt many high schools, overseas teams or even colleges would have much of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shelton said:

Scouting is consistently represented quantitatively with the 20-80 scale. What’s the issue?

 

The analytic data probably has a different scale and distribution from the scouting data.  I am sure there is a way to combine them, but it seems like you would have better information keeping them separate.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

She was an Admiral. She had other ways to make guys take notice.

And she knows COBOL!  My computer course was in FORTRAN, because COBOL was too new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

The analytic data probably has a different scale and distribution from the scouting data.  I am sure there is a way to combine them, but it seems like you would have better information keeping them separate.  

I would assume they start off separated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Charles Liston said:

And she knows COBOL!  My computer course was in FORTRAN, because COBOL was too new.

FORTRAN was one of best languages ever created.  You could do so much with a limited number of commands.  It is still used by many scientists today.  COBOL sucked.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

FORTRAN was one of best languages ever created.  You could do so much with a limited number of commands.  It is still used by many scientists today.  COBOL sucked.  

Yup - things like quantum mechanics and finite element analysis were great in Fortran because it had libraries for massive width vector processing in super wide CPUs. I don't know how much of that kind of hardware is still around. I think "Super computer" today has come to refer more to high count cluster machines rather than vector processors like the old Cray machines. 

My graduate project team wrote a simulator to model a relatively complex chemical process unit operation in Fortran - worked quite well - but it cost us a fortune in punch cards......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate it when you submit a wad of punch cards 2 inches thick, and find out the next day that your program bombed because of a mistake on the first card.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Charles Liston said:

I hate it when you submit a wad of punch cards 2 inches thick, and find out the next day that your program bombed because of a mistake on the first card.

I heard they are inventing these new computers that have screens like television sets.  No more cards or paper.  Do you think that will really happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

I heard they are inventing these new computers that have screens like television sets.  No more cards or paper.  Do you think that will really happen?

Oh right.  Sure it will.  That's like having a screen beside your telephone so that you can see who you're talking to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×