It was good to see an attempt at a discussion of advanced metrics and projections. I wish that they'd tried to be nuanced. Both scouts and computers have their limitations, and I wish the discussion had tried to bring this out. If I want to know likely outcomes for an 18 year old half way through his first year at low A, I'm asking a scout. If I want to know the most likely outcome for a 29 year old entering his fourth season as a full-time player at the MLB level, I'm looking to a computer. Pretending as though a one-size fits all approach to player projection is smart is stupid, and that's exactly the discussion that MLB Network had.

Also, there's no misrepresentation that bugs me more than "stats don't take heart into account." This is just false. What stats won't do is tell you whether heart is 20% or 1% of the game. But they do a good job of identifying guys with the right combination from one year to the next.

I'd love it if a smart, charismatic and not too-smug stat guy got a show on MLB network with the theme of putting your money where you're mouth is, i.e. let's make some predictions about reasonably predictable things and see whose doing a good job of predicting. They could do a segment called "Healthy or Hurt" and have people predict DL time for some players and see how well it does against, say, Will Carrol's system. It would be fun. It would also be nice to see people who actually work hard to get right answers being asked for their opinion, instead of guys who earned the right to be heard for doing something other than trying to know what their talking about.

It's pretty strange that they would introduce the topic of PECOTA on a show like that but not invite Nate to comment on it.

Obviously you're preaching to the choir, but amen. From a marketing perspective, MLB missed a big opportunity to engage in the analytic friendly fan market. Instead we've been treated to a slightly cleaner version of baseball tonight, sans the seasoned reporters such as Gammons.

Given the airtime they have to fill, there seems to be a golden opportunity to give voice to this corner of the market. After the great success of the Fantasy 411 in driving attention to radio/podcast activities on mlb.com, you'd think they'd have picked up on this.

As far as I'm concerned, give Cory Schwartz an hour to do what he wants and it would instantly be the best daily baseball show on TV.

I enjoyed your article Joe, but disagree about Reynolds and making a show around him unless it's a show with him only showing things in the field and not doing any analysis.

I can't watch him so I'll take your word for it that he was "all over the place." I think he has an inate desire to be liked so he'll agree with whatever the last person said even if the last person said "Harold Reynolds doesn't have a clue." Plus in his eagerness he chimes in so fast I wonder if he gave what he said an thought.

I have not watched much of the alleged analysis on MLB.com but I love the games.

"a quality .215 [batting average],which if nothing else gives me a great name for a fantasy team."

When does Hacking Mass start, because there will be a line forming up for that name....

You really buried the lede here. I almost gave up 1/3 of the way in because it seemed like it was just going to be another "why don't people love stats" rant (not that I don't agree!). Your suggestion that they get more stat people is good, though.

While I agreed with you 99% of the way, I think there is one part that statistics miss.

We assume that every player is playing to the best of his ability at all times; that Cristian Guzman's .265 is because he's inable to do better. ("take a pitch or two" notwithstanding.) And as such, when a co-worker fails, you know it's because he's doing the best he can and isn't succeeding.

And if Bonds or Jeff Kent is a jerk, well, he's still out there getting his hits, and you can put aside the fact you can't stand him.

However, if the rumors are true that Manny doesn't try hard, and he's faking his leg injuries, etc, or taking three strikes to show up the manager, I really think that *would* be detrimental to the team. I mean, that's not just "poor chemistry", but that's insubordination. And that leads to guys deciding not to dive for balls, not legging out ground balls, etc.

Anyway, Bonds and Manny aren't just piles of stats, they're people, and while the numbers we use to estimate their performances are pretty good, they're not everything. Usually the "not everything" is just a little bit around the margins, but I think sometimes it's a lot more than that.

One always get the sense that the false choice presented in these conversations isn't "stats vs. scouts," but "food on the table vs. abject poverty" for the former major league marginalia who are paid to pontificate. Someone should pull Harold Reynolds aside and show him your article as proof that the stat geeks aren't gunning for his job. Let's hug it out, H.R.

Great article Joe! I saw the video segment from MLB Network, and was heartened by the setup, and disappointed in the commentary. As you point out, though, what else can you expect from ex-players. What I'd really like to see, and I'm sure it will eventually happen, is a dove-tailing of both sides of the argument, like "Wrigleyviller" suggests, rather than a debate.

This all reminds me of Galileo's battle against the Catholic Church. Galileo is declaring these revolutionary ideas that totally go against the scripture ("The Book" if you will) and the Pope just cannot compromise his version of reality with what Galileo is proposing. After the segment, I can't help but think that Harold Reynolds is the reincarnate of Pope Urban.

Regarding scouts v. stats (AKA: faith v. science) I see it as a false choice. Each gives us some perspective on a player, but left on a desert island where the only way I can get off is to accurately project player performance, I will gladly take a calculator over a straw hat.

What if we extended this argument to other sectors? Perhaps we should direct our stimulus package to the auto industry because they're a "scrappy" group of workers. Maybe we should invest in companies that show "good makeup" despite what their balance sheet reads. This "stats can't tell me nothin'" approach is like judging your stock portfolio on whether or not you like the CEO of the company.

Yes, I'm preaching to the converted, but I love to hear myself type.

That's great that the MLB network featured PECOTA.

Now if only Nate Silver would make an appearance on Baseball Prospectus...

Just to chime in and add another voice to the choir. I also saw that segment as an attempt to try and both introduce something to the general public, namely the idea that baseball seasons can be predicted using numerical methods, and then get the opinions of some ex-players on the subject.

As far as what the ex-players said, the answer is that they said what they've always said: That numbers help you determine what kind of salary you'll get but have nothing to do with winning a ball-game.

What MLBN could have done was, instead of getting 3 ex-players, gotten one ex-player (Reynolds or Eric Davis), an ex-manager (if there are any around) and an ex-GM. That way the ex-player could say how he judges his own game by feel, the ex-manager could explain how he balances scouting reports and statistical analysis to decide playing time and strategy, and the ex-GM could note how he uses both scouting and stats to determine which players to acquire (or get rid of) and mostly stats in salary negotiations.

At the Major league level, Stats will always tell you how someone did, and can be used to predict how you think someone will do. Scouting is used the same way, but much more of it is tilted towards prediction. A statbook can note that a shortstop turned a groundball into an out, and with advanced metrics can even say where that ball was and how hard it was hit, but the scout can tell you whether that player made the play as if it were routine, or at maximum effort. He can gauge how far the player went to get the ball, and how quickly. He can tell you if the player's first step (his reaction time) contributed to his getting to the ball, or if he froze and used his speed to make up for it. In other words, a scout might be more likely to predict how that fielder might do on a ball hit 2 feet farther away than the ball he saw. That info might be important to the organization. But scouts aren't perfect. The player could have a cold that day, or a twisted ankle that he's hiding, or hung over. A really good scout (you would think) would find that out.

The problem with hitting is that I don't think that the nuances of hitting are such that a scout will tell you that much that a batting line won't. I've seen too many guys with UGLY swings who were successful at the major league level, and too many guys with either extremely fast, or extremely fluid swings who just couldn't hit. Thats the kind of thing that can fool a scout. Also the pitcher with the 100 MPH fastball that everyone can hit. Scouts can get fooled by that too. In those cases performance metrics can help.