Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

The Angels Have A Stats Guy?

The most amazing thing to come from this Ross Newhan story is these paragraphs:
Almost all clubs employ metrics and computers to differing degrees and most pursue a balance between these newer tools and their experienced scouts.

The Angels, for example, have remained scouting-based while putting increased significance under older-school Stoneman on the contributions of 29-year-old computer analyst Tory Hernandez, whom they promoted last week from player performance analyst to manager of baseball operations.

"If our scouts are irreplaceable, Tory has been invaluable," Stoneman said. "Nothing will ever replace the human mind, but I don't know how we would operate without the computer."

Well, that's interesting. The Angels, using actual numbers 'n stuff? Who knew?

One thing the piece points out is that the increase in parity makes for a lot of front office heartburn:

Some clubs have a greater margin for error than others, but almost all, in a wild-card era of parity (this could be the eighth straight year in which a different team wins the World Series), believe they can reach the playoffs, reducing ownership's tolerance for front-office excuses.

Labels: ,

I heard him interviewed in spring training this year. Real bright guy, interested in a lot of things the Angels are widely assumed to despise.
Saw that too this morning, Rob, and meant to mention it at DT. It's like being told there is a Santa Claus.
And not only is there a Santa Claus, but he's left you a lump of coal in your stocking.
Ummm, when that Management by Baseball (Jeff Angus?) guy interviewed Scioscia, he basically confirmed that the Angels have tons of stats that they look at. And specifically that Joe Maddon was Scioscia's stats guy on the bench. Don't be so shocked that they have a stats guy just because they focus on different stats than are typically available.
Sorry that my irony didn't make it through. Your point is exactly the problem I've had with the Angels' FO ever since that series of Angus articles was published: they pay attention to the wrong things.
and here i though the run the last last six years was solely based on Mickey Hatcher's brilliance.
But your post and jon's comment imply shock about them using computers and stats at all. Time and again the Angels have actually proven they are not approaching the game from a pre-computer era point of view. They may not be using your preferred stats, but they ARE using stats. And are they the wrong things? When the Angels won't even discuss the details of what they go into (sure they hint at things with first to third, RISP and RISP2, but that is by no means all that they claim to use), it is hard to say for sure they are the wrong things. And besides, you can make stats say anything you want...as the saying goes, "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Why would Jeff Angus make up the part about the Angels being more interested in RISP and RISP2 hitting being the most important things the team tracks?
I'm not saying that he made it up. I am saying that he said that they look at a ton of statistical data and 1st-to-3rd, RISP, and RISP2 are SOME of the things they looked at. There is no way the Angels ONLY look at those stats...why would they reveal everything in their strategies of player acquisition and development in a simple interview?
It's not only. Primarily is enough.
My entire point was that you seem shocked SHOCKED that the Angels have a computer guy and using stats in your post ("The Angels, using actual numbers 'n stuff? Who knew?"), when in fact, it has been known for awhile that they have been using them for 15+ years.

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Newer›  ‹Older
This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

WWW 6-4-2