Comments on: Scouts vs. Stats and Searching for Synergies http://gashousegraphs.com/2010/10/16/scouts-vs-stats-and-searching-for-synergies/ Sun, 19 May 2013 03:52:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 By: vivaelpujols http://gashousegraphs.com/2010/10/16/scouts-vs-stats-and-searching-for-synergies/#comment-344 vivaelpujols Fri, 22 Oct 2010 22:17:06 +0000 http://playahardnine.wordpress.com/?p=1869#comment-344 I agree. Chris, however, seems to be unwilling to systematically verify his ideas.

]]> By: stevesommer05 http://gashousegraphs.com/2010/10/16/scouts-vs-stats-and-searching-for-synergies/#comment-343 stevesommer05 Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:41:39 +0000 http://playahardnine.wordpress.com/?p=1869#comment-343 Thanks. Clearly faulty scouting would make the above process useless; however linking the scouts and stats guys would allow for things to be less conjecture and more concrete. I think an interesting experiment would be to have TPG bin guys by swing types / flaws (maybe even by year) and then do some analysis on the numbers of those guys.

]]> By: Rui Xu http://gashousegraphs.com/2010/10/16/scouts-vs-stats-and-searching-for-synergies/#comment-342 Rui Xu Wed, 20 Oct 2010 00:08:35 +0000 http://playahardnine.wordpress.com/?p=1869#comment-342 Steve,
This is great stuff… I suppose the problem is when you have faulty scouting. With TPG’s stuff, he passes off conjecture as fact, when we don’t actually have any way to quantify that. He thinks he can fix Miles and Pagnozzi when they already have pretty good swings… I would be far more optimistic if they DIDN’T have great swings

Most of that was irrelevant to your post. I guess that the conclusion is that we have to decide what kind of scouting we use to leverage the stats

]]>