I'm not a White Sox fan, but I love Ken's work. Just a f--ing badass. It seems like 50% of baseball fans love him and 50% hate him, which is the sign of an awesome guy.
+Michael G In baseball forums I've seen, he's pretty much loathed. There are people who love Rex Hudler who says some of the dumbest things you have ever heard a broadcaster say.
I couldn't agree more. I listened to Rex when he did Angels games from time to time on AM radio because I live in L.A. Absolutely god awful-- maybe the worst.
Michael G He called the moon a planet one time. He said "Game winning homo." Talked about taking possession of a little girl into his family because a kid had a "Trade my sister for an autographed baseball" sign, and of course it was super creepy and took it way to far.
I love his work also Michael G and I am a White Sox fan!!! But as you said, in one of my many Facebook groups which I am a part of on Facebook, Chicago White Sox Pride and Passion, more than half of the White Sox fans in that group hate the Hawk!!!I That rerminded me of a poll in the 1970s here in the Chicago area which was conducted by the Chicago Sun-Times!!! The Announcer who was voted the favorite Announcer of all of the Chicago Announcers??? Harry Caray!!! The Announcer who was voted the least favorite Announcer??? Harry Caray!!!
Exactly about the t-Dubya T-Dubya!!! Can I get a t shirt that says that??? I need some extra motivation myself as in addition to being a Baseball fan and a fan of the Chicago White Sox, I go to a MMA class which is more like Grappling and Jiu-Jitsu on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 6:30 to 7:30 not too far from where I live in Streamwood, Illinois as I have just started and have attended only 2 classes so far and at 173 pounds, I am not only the least experienced person in the group, I am the lightest person in weight as there is also a 180 pounder, 2 200 pounders, 1 who weighs 217, another who is 6 foot 4 and 225, and one who is 230!!! I need a TWTW t shirt!!!
I'm a numbers guy, and have read the MacMillan "Baseball Encyclopedia" & Bill James' "Win Shares" books many times. I believe sabermetrics can assist in evaluating a player's past performance. It can give an indication of future performance, but only an indication. A lot can change from year to year with a player, causing the trend to be wrong (e.g. a pitcher learning/mastering a new pitch). It is a tool, and should be one of several tools in evaluating a player or a strategy. Brian Kenny is letting the tail wag the dog.
Hawk could be a nut at times but he was 100% right at 4:16 when he said every game is different. You can't just copy and paste these metrics from one game to another. Every game has its own unique flow with different ups and downs. The decisions should be made based on what that game dictates the best move is at that exact point in time, not what a computerized chart suggests (not every single time at least).
"but will the percentages tell you what is going to happen at that exact moment?" Is Harold trying to imply that his scout's eye allows him to predict every outcome in a baseball game before it happens?
No, but to make every decision by simply going off a set of the most basic, nuance-less numbers based on a zillion irrelevant circumstances that don't take into account a zillion things going on at that exact moment with all of the individual players involved and the environment around them is absurd.
@@callanboyle9318 Knowing your players. It's like football. Current metrics say you have a 50% chance of converting a two point conversion. Therefore, the probability card says down by two scores go for two twice. Thought being if you get it the first time you kick the one point the second, win by one point, if you fail the first time you will convert the second, cause 50%, therefore tie. If you know anything about football that is a stupid statement. Two point plays spend months in development and exploit key match ups, there are a lot of times where they are sure things, some 75%, some doomed to fail. It's the coaches job to assess what's going on with the players, past play calls, and the opposition to determine a working metrics. To return to baseball, if you have a guy at the plate who is committed to bunting in practice and talented, plays hard every play all season, and is highly committed and motivated to winning in the current game, you as a manager can determine that you have a higher than average chance of converting the sac bunt, and you estimate that chance to be higher than the batting average of the player against current pitching then you should bunt. That was Harold's point.
Its not about prediction, it’s about the fact that you need to take into context when making the decisions by looking at what’s literally happening in front of you.
+Waynez Gamez he's a disgrace to broadcasting. the pistons announcer isn't even half as biased as this guy and I can't stand blaha. hawk gets so butthurt on live tv, i would be embarrased if I was a CHW fan.
@@elcunado2926 that’s literally his job. i’ve been listening to jerry remmy (he’s not on as much anymore) on the sox games for years now nd i would expect him to be bias for the team he announced for years lol. they lowk apart of the team to us viewers lol
I guarantee you Mickey Mantle would be against it too! I can just see The Mick, and Teddy Ballgame rolling their eyes and saying, "This stuff is bullshit." Just give me a bat and I'll show you! LOL!! If your a real baseball fan do you really need to know some new fangled arithmetic to know what Mantle, Mays, and Koufax would do for you on the field?
@@felixmadison5736 There is no way that Ted Williams would be against sabermetrics. He was one of the first hitters who prioritized launch angle and not trying to go the other way when being shifted. Those are two things that the anti-sabermetrics crowd hates.
Two points about the sacrifice: 1 -it increases your chance to score a single run, but greatly decreases your chance to score more th,an one. 2 - a single base advance (unless it is from third to home) is worth less than the out you give up. Where the manager comes in is in adapting to the current situation and having that temper his typical strategy. I own five of Bill James' Abstracts, as well as Total Baseball and their insights helped me win several seasons of tabletop baseball. In addition to being fascinating reading.
A single run late in a game can mean victory. A single run early in a game is huge, also. Especially if a great pitcher has an early one run lead. And how many times do teams not bunt and the hitter hits into a double play. End of inning.
The fight between traditional analysis and Sabermetrics is overblown. No one who professionally studies advanced stats would tell you that they have all the answers. They would tell you that what they do is not intended to replace old-school scouting or player evaluation, it is meant as a supplement. If you are truly 'against sabermetrics', then you are basically against the idea that we can test our claims about reality with facts. But most people aren't against that idea, they are reacting to people who use advanced stats to make absolute claims where there are none. Statistics give probabilities, nothing more. Anyone who tells you that an advanced stat gives you an answer about anything is wrong. The flip-side of that is that anyone who says you can't test a claim with research is also completely wrong. If everybody kept these two things in mind, there wouldn't need to be a fight. Here's a great article from a SABR-slanted site on why stats are important. It's an easy read. www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2014/4/24/5635638/chicago-white-sox-ken-harrelson-baseball-statistics-twtw-the-will-to-win
Jeremiah Prescott. Thank you. These new statistical models provide some very interesting information and are way more predictive of future production than traditional stats. BUT you can't use them to change history. A baseball game is played on a particular day in a particular place. And when the results are in, they are in. Hawk hit .275 and had an OBP of .356 in 1968. Period. Saying that this translates into an OBP of over .450 at Coors Field in some season a generation and a half later -- Who cares? That never happened. And even this is an extrapolation from statistical models that anyone with a degree in Statistics would tell you comes with any number of limitations and caveats. The problem with those wedded to sabermetrics is that they declare the validity of their comparisons without regard to those limitations and caveats. And please don't get me started on pitcher's wins. Here you have two ex-players saying that the pitcher's W stat, at least as to starting pitchers, is significant. And you got some non-ball player in the studio telling them they're wrong. In the theoretical realm, sabermetric advocates are correct about the W stat. But, practically speaking, in a baseball world where the reality is that the games are played and the results are thereafter immutable, a starter who has earned a W has earned a W for the team. And that's the only thing that gets counted in the standings.
Sabermetrics does not factor in one very important aspect of baseball. Momentum. Statistics reflect what a player DID, not what a player is about to do. Part of managing baseball has to be done with the eyes and not with numbers, some situations are dictated from momentum and instinct, not form percentages. Statistics say the 2012 San Francisco Giants had no business winning the NLDS & NLCS, yet the momentum they had put so much pressure on their opponents that they won the whole damn thing.
There is a massive age gap between people who think sabermetrics are garbage, and the people who think it's the best way to view the game, from a GM/Manager perspective. The people who think it's trash tend to be about 20 years older than the people who subscribe to it. That should tell you something about the direction baseball is heading. And frankly, I couldn't be happier.
I'm one of the few middle grounders. I actually agree that there are parts of a team (leadership, clubhouse attitude, coachability, etc) that haven't been made into numbers, which should be taken into accounts. But sabermetrics are better stats than a lot of outdated stats (pitchers wins, RBIs, etc). I think the moral of the story here is that you need to look at everything holistically. Look at both sabermetrics, as well as what colleagues (baseball experts) think of him. Using both is the best way to go, in my opinion.
All of the things hawk mentioned can be measured statistically all you have to do is decide to measure it and then quantify it. Wins above replacement is a wonderful example of this. Hawk should read more and take a stats class and stop talking about golf during games. He is the only baseball announcer who talks more about golf than baseball during games.
d griff lol trust me no I am not the only one that has noticed the crazy made up stats of hawk. But u must be a good 7th 8th and 9th inning hitter also? Haha
Hawk is a homer but thats what true Sox fans like about him. The Cubs will need Len Casper to be that way by the end of the season because he and Ricketts will be the only fans pulling for them. People are jumping the Cubs ship like it was the Titanic.
He's wrong. Both in that Sabermetrics ignores pitching and defense and in that clutch hitting is something that actually exists. Sabermetrics is less about telling teams how to win and more about telling teams how to properly evaluate players so that they can use them more efficiently.
2nd viewing of this video over a year. Makes me recall a Casey Stengel comment I read years ago. He was talking about his great Yankee squad at the time, and to emphasize their mindset, he called 2nd baseman, Joe Gordon, over and asked, "What's your batting average?" Response: "Don't know." "What's your fielding average?" Response: "Don't know," and Gordon runs back to practice. I guess this was the 1940's. Point is, they were focused on what was happening on the field, on winning - that "TWTW" Harrelson was talking about. I've never liked the Yankees, but I've always admired the success of the organization. I didn't like Harrelson when he played: he seemed like a cheap version of Roger Maris - like Davey Johnson or Sammy Sosa - a good ballplayer who caught lightning in a bottle and exploded as a performer. I look at Harrelson differently now, partly because of sabermetrics. I respect that he played and contributed what he did, and I respect his continuing contribution as a broadcaster and baseball man. And I respect his position. My love for Baseball morphed from my experiences in Little League to board games to history and numbers. As much as I love the numbers, I know they cannot drive the game - they must not. Most of us who love the numbers have never faced a 90-mph fastball. I've rambled. Sabermetrics and advanced analytics are part of the game today and there's no going back. But this conflict between jocks and nerds needs to end. Anyone who watched this video loves the game and to me, that's what we need to remember, and work our way out of this power struggle that exists. The game on the field and the data it generates can co-exist peacefully if we keep things in proportion and perspective.
That depends on what aspect of the match-up you're looking at. If you're looking at lefty/righty splits (especially for a player like Ryan Howard) then yes. If you're looking at the history between a hitter and pitcher, it doesn't matter at all. There's far too small a sample size in the latter.
There's no doubt that sabermetrics are a valuable addition to baseball. However, sometimes the analysis is taken too far and what you end up with are a bunch of geeks trying to make themselves seem important in the sporting world.
Leadership is something that guys like Hawk only apply in hindsight anyways. Team goes 62-100 and they say "Theres no leadership!" and if a team goes 100-62 then they say "Look at the veteran leadership!".
Actually sabermetrics told them to leave Snell in against Betts. Cash just took a blanket sabermetric statement which isn’t how sabermetrics is supposed to be used instead of actually looking at the situation and numbers which told him to leave Snell in
what does RF/9 mean? I see it all the time when I look at how good a player is on d? so I would just like to understand it becuz i look at stats all the time.
That's an incredibly small sample size to use to defend such a statement. That's really the problem with all these claims about "clutch hitting". When the samples are large enough everything balances out and clutch doesn't exist. Even Allen Craig is eventually going to regress on his ridiculous numbers with RISP. He doesn't have a special skill, he's just getting lucky.
My point is not that coaches can predict the future. It is that numbers indicate what a player did based on a large collection of circumstances. Circumstances change everyday and there are too many whether it be a hot streak, day/night, home/away, weather, the guy pitching, change in speed/movement of his pitches... I just personally think that statistics have their place and ARE helpful... I'm just saying that you can't rely only on situational numbers to give you your best odds of success.
Entertainment doesn't win ball games. Getting on base does. Puig swings at everything under the sun and that is going to catch up with him. One player who has been sucessful without walking a lot does not prove that walks are meaningless. You'll find a strong correlation between the best hitters in the game (as measured by wRC+) and the ones with the highest walk rates.
No surprise Harrelson hasn't read Moneyball. He complains that managers and GMs have been fired because of not understanding sabremetrics, but that glosses over the fact many more managers and GMs have been fired simply for not winning enough one way or another. In the end it's the age-old "stats vs. scouts" debate, and there's room for both. The more you can calculate things about the sport, especially the business side of winning, the more beneficial it is.
Most players have ~75% of their at-bats with the bases empty. If a player was a "pure .300" hitter (his ability is such that he is guaranteed a hit 30% of the time) it's entirely possible for him to have a sub-par average when looking at 25% of his at-bats. David Wright is a superb hitter. Duh. Upton obviously isn't as good as Wright, but his "not" hitting with men on is an aberration that will even out in time.
Statistical analysis is the evolution of baseball. Every sport evolves in some form. Being that baseball is considered the "thinking man's game," it makes sense that analyzing statistics and assessing probability determines where a ball will be hit by a hitter. Since there are more stats in baseball than any other sport, why not turn that into an advantage? Sure talent is meaningful but each team can only have a limited number of stars so possessing knowledge is the best tactic for most teams.
No he didn't and here's why... he said the most important thing is the will to win and then he said the results you're looking for is a W...a win, but he never talks about how you GET to that win...that W. We all know you have to to rate players...somehow...he uses batting average, right? Duh... Now whether I agree with sabermetrics or not is almost irrelevant because I really don't even understand it but for him to say that how you rate something is irrelevant "because all you need is the will" makes him nonsensical and not EVEN wrong. But he's fun ---sometimes. Most times though he's just a stubborn faggy idiotically-emotional bully fool.
And the whole point of "Moneyball" and sabremetrics, to me, is being able to find ways beneath the surface to put together a team that can be competitive with the big spenders, whether that team wins a World Series or not. All of these guys have "The Will To Win." This whole "winning is the biggest thing" is right, but the overall win is more important than who gets credit for it. If you give up one run and the other guy gives up zero, you get the loss. You still pitched a great game.
No. It's not. Moneyball is about more than that. It's about taking advantage of what the market is ignoring and then exploiting it in a favourable way.
11 лет назад
The only thing I say about pitcher's wins is that you can't make much out of it until you look at his ERA, WHIP and factor in run support. Look at the guys who have the most wins this year, they are getting 6 runs per game! You have guys with 1 WHIP and barely .500!
There are always intangibles, but it's about how likely they will try to or be successful at doing such things, which help give you an idea of how to put a team together. It's not the only way to look at baseball, but sabermetrics isn't bullshit either.
Yes he was. I didn’t think so at the time but with how the game has been boiled down to home runs and 100mph pitchers he definitely predicted the future.
PitchF/x is the next generation of sabermetric analysis. It looks specifically at speed, rotation, movement and location of the ball at any given moment of play. It can do things like analyze how a pitcher's velocity and speed on his changeup alter over the course of a year, game, or even inning. The point is a) even the best players can know nothing about how the game actually works; see: Curt Schilling, and b) PitchF/x sees what the "former players" see, and it analyzes it better than they do
I'm a firm believer in Brian Kenny and Sabr stats, but I still enjoy a lot that Hawk said. He's a terrific announcer and fun individual. I think he'd be better off just saying that complex new stats aren't his thing. There's nothing wrong with not embracing stats, as long as condemn what you don't understand.
To him he's right, and that's the problem. I mean, every question we might ask to him gets answered when he said he didn't actually read Moneyball ... which addresses the pitching problem he persists.
If the record is a reflection of his pitching deeply into games it would follow that the same would hold true for Shields. It doesn't. Scherzer's record is indicative of the fact that he is an excellent pitcher playing for an offensive-heavy team that scores a lot of runs for him.
Pitching is the first line of defense, and the paramount aspect - by far. Talk show host Pete Franklin used to say the 3 most important things in baseball are 1. Pitching, 2. Pitching and 3. Pitching. Years ago I went into a bookie joint where they were setting odds for MLB games. They used a large book of stats, and they all involved pitching - not any offense But sabermetrics has great value in trying to get guys on base, and for pitchers trying to get them out. Hawk is right and wrong.
Hawk is the obnoxious one. He makes it very clear that he doesn't understand what sabermetrics is, and for some reason, he's too stubborn to even attempt to learn.
he is obnoxious EVERY DAY. he is a twerp that knows nothing about what he is talking about. he interrupts anyone that gets the better of him, al la larry king....two dumb shits
Had the Red Sox not employed Bill James, they may have not acquired David Ortiz. 2004 Red Sox had a payroll of $128 million, not over 200 million. LOL @ 1:40 Harold Reynolds has a career fWAR of 12.5 in 12 seasons. He was a punchless hitter who had a low batting average despite being hard to strike out. His baserunning was a liability because he got caught stealing way too many times. He once was CS 29 times out of 64 attempts. His defense kept him in the lineup and he was pretty good in 89 and 90. I wouldn't call him good or outstanding. To sum it up: Old man yells at could.
+jannecechmanek it's really not. It's well known that Jeter was an awful base runner and an even worse defensive SS but as much as I hate his numbers and the pinstripes I need him in my lineup when it matters. Because he was able to do substantial things at the right moment even when the sabermetrics don't take notice. Harold was the opposite of that.
moegerms What exactly did he do that sabermetrics didn't take notice? It noticed that his offense more than offset his defense and it rates his baserunning favorably. His stolen base percentage for his career was 78% which is pretty good, and honestly I've never heard that he was a poor baserunner. Jeter ranks 54th in career fWAR all time, and had he retired 2 years earlier he would have ranked 50th. Being one of the top 60 baseball players is not bad.
***** Harold was a liability on the base paths. His stolen base percentage isn't THAT bad and he isn't slow. I'm guessing he had a lot of TOOTBLANs in his career. Sabermetrics do notice how a runner does not making outs on the basepath as well as taking extra bases (first to third on a single, first to home on a double, and 2nd to home on a single) and moving up on sac flies. I'm curious to see what things people think sabermetrics don't measure, because they probably do. At least things that happen on the field.
+jannecechmanek Jeter is a perfect example of a the "pinstripe effect". He was very good for a period of time, then regressed back to average, and even below average in multiple areas. He came in clutch when the pennant was 1 series away but his greatness is aided by the monster team that he played with. You put Jeter in Kansas city in 98 or Chicago in and he wouldn't have had the career he had. Same thing with Mariano. As great as MO was do you think those 600 saves would have been closed out if he played in Milwaukee for his entire career?? Not to take anything away from either of them but it's something to play with in your mind.
Honestly, Scherzer's strikeouts are the reason his WHIP is lower. The Tigers have scored at least five runs for Scherzer in ten games. The Royals have done so for Shields five times. The Tigers have scored two runs or fewer for Scherzer TWICE. The Royals have done so for Shields seven times. Scherzer's record is a much a reflection of how well the Tigers have been playing as it is of his pitching.
It's not about having as many Paul Konerkos as you can like Brian is trying to say, but having a Konerko as well as guys who can actually run & have defensive range, pitch & get on base & steal, but most importantly, know what to do & when to do it; I.E. are smart & play to the scoreboard. And, Hawk is right. If a player does not have the will to win or the baseball smarts, that won't always translate in the numbers.
He also fired Tony LaRussa. Probably thought that his legendary binder had too many stats and not enough instincts and TWTW. Stone's a great announcer. He was great as a Cubs announcer, he was great for TBS, and he's still a great announcer. He deserves better than someone who calls him Stone Pony.
Basically, it's not his fault that he hit most of his home runs with no one on; the players in front of him just couldn't get on base to save their lives. I've heard Diamondbacks fans saying "You need to wait for your pitch in the right situation and then hurt the other team, rather than going for the selfish home run". What manager would rather a player NOT hit a home run just because there were no players on? In what world is it the home-run hitter's fault no one was on?
Red Sox payroll in 2004 was 127,298,500, not $200K like Hawk said... in fact, they've NEVER had a payroll over $200K. Regardless, Hawk is correct: baseball is a game of guts and TWTW... and BK is correct in that knowing the numbers is critical to understanding trends. What HR didn't do for BK was have his back and put the two together for the show... "A smart manager will use information to make a game time decision..." that's what 'Moneyball' was all about.
You do realize you're striking down your own argument, right? Yes, there are dozens of factors that play into any given situation...which is precisely why sabermetrics exists. Relying on the numbers is the ONLY thing that can give you your best odds of success; there's no way managers can compile the odds given all those factors. Humans are really bad at probabilities, and having the help of situational metrics has proven over and over to do a better job of predicting success than humans can.
If your argument is that advanced metrics cannot predict the future and should therefore take a back seat to managers "eyeballing" the game, your implied suggestion is that managers can predict the future. Since baseball currently has a dearth of prophets, you're more likely suggesting that managers' sense of the game over a smaller sample space (i.e. SF's playoff run) is more accurate than the metrics and should be more highly valued. In that case, you and Hawk are both just wrong.
People laugh at Hawk,but he knows what he is talking about here. Big things that hall of famers did to win games for their teams never showed up on the stat sheets.
Uh, why not both?? Good old fashioned scouting and hard-nosed baseball, combined with new-age analytics = no stone unturned. It's okay to get the best of both worlds in this scenario.
Harold Reynolds should know how flawed W/L for a pitcher is. When you look at current Tigers pitcher Doug Fister in 2011. Before Fister was traded to Detroit, he had a 3-12 record in Seattle BUT had a 3.33 ERA, 1.17 WHIP (Walks, Hits, Innings pitched) and batters had a average of .252 against him. It was rarely on him when he was pitching for the Mariners. I live in Michigan and I hear idiots like Pat Caputo degrade Fister because of his W/L record.
Please TRY to elaborate this? Here is what is funny everyone complains about sabrmetrics BUT if you look at the stats the best players are near the top. So their really is not a flaw in it.
It takes a baseball eye and instincts to detect that "fight" in a player. Sabremetrics are good if looked at quarterly but no less. But both do have to co exist
There's no evidence to suggest that a pitcher has must control over whether a batted ball falls for a hit or an out. Looking at Scherzer and Shields' BB/9 rates, Scherzer has a .5 advantage (2.2 to 2.7) which is negligible. Shields has made one start more than Scherzer, but has thrown 5 more innings. There isn't a significant difference in the innings they throw in each start, as you suggest there is. Not to say that Scherzer hasn't been great, but Shields is not far behind him at all.
Well, he at least uses evidence to back up his arguments. You can't throw out a statement like, "That team lacked the will to win, and that's why they lost." That's a cop-out. Sports are not contests of character; they're contests of skill. We use numbers to measure those skills, especially in baseball. "Intangibles" don't matter unless they affect what happens (and what gets measured) on the field.
I'm not a White Sox fan, but I love Ken's work.
Just a f--ing badass.
It seems like 50% of baseball fans love him and 50% hate him, which is the sign of an awesome guy.
+Michael G In baseball forums I've seen, he's pretty much loathed.
There are people who love Rex Hudler who says some of the dumbest things you have ever heard a broadcaster say.
I couldn't agree more. I listened to Rex when he did Angels games from time to time on AM radio because I live in L.A. Absolutely god awful-- maybe the worst.
Michael G
He called the moon a planet one time.
He said "Game winning homo."
Talked about taking possession of a little girl into his family because a kid had a "Trade my sister for an autographed baseball" sign, and of course it was super creepy and took it way to far.
I love his work also Michael G and I am a White Sox fan!!! But as you said, in one of my many Facebook groups which I am a part of on Facebook, Chicago White Sox Pride and Passion, more than half of the White Sox fans in that group hate the Hawk!!!I That rerminded me of a poll in the 1970s here in the Chicago area which was conducted by the Chicago Sun-Times!!! The Announcer who was voted the favorite Announcer of all of the Chicago Announcers??? Harry Caray!!! The Announcer who was voted the least favorite Announcer??? Harry Caray!!!
All about that T-Dub'ya T-Dub'ya
Exactly about the t-Dubya T-Dubya!!! Can I get a t shirt that says that??? I need some extra motivation myself as in addition to being a Baseball fan and a fan of the Chicago White Sox, I go to a MMA class which is more like Grappling and Jiu-Jitsu on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 6:30 to 7:30 not too far from where I live in Streamwood, Illinois as I have just started and have attended only 2 classes so far and at 173 pounds, I am not only the least experienced person in the group, I am the lightest person in weight as there is also a 180 pounder, 2 200 pounders, 1 who weighs 217, another who is 6 foot 4 and 225, and one who is 230!!! I need a TWTW t shirt!!!
bamabum123456789 the will to win baby!
I'm a numbers guy, and have read the MacMillan "Baseball Encyclopedia" & Bill James' "Win Shares" books many times. I believe sabermetrics can assist in evaluating a player's past performance. It can give an indication of future performance, but only an indication. A lot can change from year to year with a player, causing the trend to be wrong (e.g. a pitcher learning/mastering a new pitch). It is a tool, and should be one of several tools in evaluating a player or a strategy. Brian Kenny is letting the tail wag the dog.
Hawk could be a nut at times but he was 100% right at 4:16 when he said every game is different. You can't just copy and paste these metrics from one game to another. Every game has its own unique flow with different ups and downs. The decisions should be made based on what that game dictates the best move is at that exact point in time, not what a computerized chart suggests (not every single time at least).
"but will the percentages tell you what is going to happen at that exact moment?"
Is Harold trying to imply that his scout's eye allows him to predict every outcome in a baseball game before it happens?
No, but to make every decision by simply going off a set of the most basic, nuance-less numbers based on a zillion irrelevant circumstances that don't take into account a zillion things going on at that exact moment with all of the individual players involved and the environment around them is absurd.
@@e2go so what would you base your decision on if you don’t use sabermetrics?
@@callanboyle9318 Knowing your players. It's like football. Current metrics say you have a 50% chance of converting a two point conversion. Therefore, the probability card says down by two scores go for two twice. Thought being if you get it the first time you kick the one point the second, win by one point, if you fail the first time you will convert the second, cause 50%, therefore tie. If you know anything about football that is a stupid statement. Two point plays spend months in development and exploit key match ups, there are a lot of times where they are sure things, some 75%, some doomed to fail. It's the coaches job to assess what's going on with the players, past play calls, and the opposition to determine a working metrics. To return to baseball, if you have a guy at the plate who is committed to bunting in practice and talented, plays hard every play all season, and is highly committed and motivated to winning in the current game, you as a manager can determine that you have a higher than average chance of converting the sac bunt, and you estimate that chance to be higher than the batting average of the player against current pitching then you should bunt. That was Harold's point.
@@davidmendenhall4090 got that right
Its not about prediction, it’s about the fact that you need to take into context when making the decisions by looking at what’s literally happening in front of you.
The performance is dubya
YOU CAAAAAAAAAAN PUT IT ON THE BOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARD...
YEAH!
never gets old lol
The Hawk. "I boxed in the ring and in the street.". He's so into himself.
+Bill Browne But he's not full of shit, that's why he deserves some respect
+Waynez Gamez he's a disgrace to broadcasting. the pistons announcer isn't even half as biased as this guy and I can't stand blaha. hawk gets so butthurt on live tv, i would be embarrased if I was a CHW fan.
Being biased is literally his job.
El Cuñado that’s his job, why do you think all 30 teams has their own set of commentators
@@elcunado2926 that’s literally his job. i’ve been listening to jerry remmy (he’s not on as much anymore) on the sox games for years now nd i would expect him to be bias for the team he announced for years lol. they lowk apart of the team to us viewers lol
Long live Hawk Harrelson. Dude is fucking awesome.
Hawk being against sabermetrics is best thing to ever happen to sabermetrics
I guarantee you Mickey Mantle would be against it too! I can just see The Mick, and Teddy Ballgame rolling their eyes and saying, "This stuff is bullshit." Just give me a bat and I'll show you! LOL!! If your a real baseball fan do you really need to know some new fangled arithmetic to know what Mantle, Mays, and Koufax would do for you on the field?
@@felixmadison5736 There is no way that Ted Williams would be against sabermetrics. He was one of the first hitters who prioritized launch angle and not trying to go the other way when being shifted. Those are two things that the anti-sabermetrics crowd hates.
@@raschticky Possible, but Ted didn't need sabermetrics, and his hitting proves it.
Best clip around. Love you Hawk. Grew up listening to you. Was awesome
Hawk may very well be the Mike Ditka of baseball.
Two points about the sacrifice:
1 -it increases your chance to score a single run, but greatly decreases your chance to score more th,an one.
2 - a single base advance (unless it is from third to home) is worth less than the out you give up.
Where the manager comes in is in adapting to the current situation and having that temper his typical strategy.
I own five of Bill James' Abstracts, as well as Total Baseball and their insights helped me win several seasons of tabletop baseball. In addition to being fascinating reading.
A single run late in a game can mean victory. A single run early in a game is huge, also. Especially if a great pitcher has an early one run lead. And how many times do teams not bunt and the hitter hits into a double play. End of inning.
The fight between traditional analysis and Sabermetrics is overblown. No one who professionally studies advanced stats would tell you that they have all the answers. They would tell you that what they do is not intended to replace old-school scouting or player evaluation, it is meant as a supplement.
If you are truly 'against sabermetrics', then you are basically against the idea that we can test our claims about reality with facts. But most people aren't against that idea, they are reacting to people who use advanced stats to make absolute claims where there are none. Statistics give probabilities, nothing more. Anyone who tells you that an advanced stat gives you an answer about anything is wrong. The flip-side of that is that anyone who says you can't test a claim with research is also completely wrong. If everybody kept these two things in mind, there wouldn't need to be a fight.
Here's a great article from a SABR-slanted site on why stats are important. It's an easy read.
www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2014/4/24/5635638/chicago-white-sox-ken-harrelson-baseball-statistics-twtw-the-will-to-win
Jeremiah Prescott. Thank you. These new statistical models provide some very interesting information and are way more predictive of future production than traditional stats. BUT you can't use them to change history. A baseball game is played on a particular day in a particular place. And when the results are in, they are in. Hawk hit .275 and had an OBP of .356 in 1968. Period. Saying that this translates into an OBP of over .450 at Coors Field in some season a generation and a half later -- Who cares? That never happened. And even this is an extrapolation from statistical models that anyone with a degree in Statistics would tell you comes with any number of limitations and caveats. The problem with those wedded to sabermetrics is that they declare the validity of their comparisons without regard to those limitations and caveats. And please don't get me started on pitcher's wins. Here you have two ex-players saying that the pitcher's W stat, at least as to starting pitchers, is significant. And you got some non-ball player in the studio telling them they're wrong. In the theoretical realm, sabermetric advocates are correct about the W stat. But, practically speaking, in a baseball world where the reality is that the games are played and the results are thereafter immutable, a starter who has earned a W has earned a W for the team. And that's the only thing that gets counted in the standings.
Sabermetrics does not factor in one very important aspect of baseball. Momentum. Statistics reflect what a player DID, not what a player is about to do. Part of managing baseball has to be done with the eyes and not with numbers, some situations are dictated from momentum and instinct, not form percentages. Statistics say the 2012 San Francisco Giants had no business winning the NLDS & NLCS, yet the momentum they had put so much pressure on their opponents that they won the whole damn thing.
Aged like fine wine.
I remember seeing this at the time and I disagreed with hawk but as time has gone on he was definitely right
i get an odd thrill watching harold not be able to get a word in
Some managers over thing situations too much information can be a waste of time and cause bad outcomes.
There is a massive age gap between people who think sabermetrics are garbage, and the people who think it's the best way to view the game, from a GM/Manager perspective. The people who think it's trash tend to be about 20 years older than the people who subscribe to it.
That should tell you something about the direction baseball is heading.
And frankly, I couldn't be happier.
CanadaMMA David Cone is the only kind of old guy, that likes them
I'm one of the few middle grounders. I actually agree that there are parts of a team (leadership, clubhouse attitude, coachability, etc) that haven't been made into numbers, which should be taken into accounts. But sabermetrics are better stats than a lot of outdated stats (pitchers wins, RBIs, etc). I think the moral of the story here is that you need to look at everything holistically. Look at both sabermetrics, as well as what colleagues (baseball experts) think of him. Using both is the best way to go, in my opinion.
@@protoman1365 i totally agree.
I love Brian Kenny
All of the things hawk mentioned can be measured statistically all you have to do is decide to measure it and then quantify it. Wins above replacement is a wonderful example of this. Hawk should read more and take a stats class and stop talking about golf during games. He is the only baseball announcer who talks more about golf than baseball during games.
d griff lol trust me no I am not the only one that has noticed the crazy made up stats of hawk. But u must be a good 7th 8th and 9th inning hitter also? Haha
N.J. Wæïne You did not strengthen ur point about hawk at all. All u r saying is that he is a has been.
War is a fake stat
Hawk is a homer but thats what true Sox fans like about him. The Cubs will need Len Casper to be that way by the end of the season because he and Ricketts will be the only fans pulling for them. People are jumping the Cubs ship like it was the Titanic.
He's wrong. Both in that Sabermetrics ignores pitching and defense and in that clutch hitting is something that actually exists. Sabermetrics is less about telling teams how to win and more about telling teams how to properly evaluate players so that they can use them more efficiently.
Bryan always has to be right and have the last word
K Gabbard In this case, he is. Hawk is an old fool who is in his right place out to pasture.
2nd viewing of this video over a year. Makes me recall a Casey Stengel comment I read years ago. He was talking about his great Yankee squad at the time, and to emphasize their mindset, he called 2nd baseman, Joe Gordon, over and asked, "What's your batting average?" Response: "Don't know." "What's your fielding average?" Response: "Don't know," and Gordon runs back to practice.
I guess this was the 1940's.
Point is, they were focused on what was happening on the field, on winning - that "TWTW" Harrelson was talking about. I've never liked the Yankees, but I've always admired the success of the organization.
I didn't like Harrelson when he played: he seemed like a cheap version of Roger Maris - like Davey Johnson or Sammy Sosa - a good ballplayer who caught lightning in a bottle and exploded as a performer. I look at Harrelson differently now, partly because of sabermetrics. I respect that he played and contributed what he did, and I respect his continuing contribution as a broadcaster and baseball man.
And I respect his position. My love for Baseball morphed from my experiences in Little League to board games to history and numbers. As much as I love the numbers, I know they cannot drive the game - they must not. Most of us who love the numbers have never faced a 90-mph fastball.
I've rambled. Sabermetrics and advanced analytics are part of the game today and there's no going back. But this conflict between jocks and nerds needs to end. Anyone who watched this video loves the game and to me, that's what we need to remember, and work our way out of this power struggle that exists. The game on the field and the data it generates can co-exist peacefully if we keep things in proportion and perspective.
Hawk shreds Brian Kenny.
That depends on what aspect of the match-up you're looking at. If you're looking at lefty/righty splits (especially for a player like Ryan Howard) then yes. If you're looking at the history between a hitter and pitcher, it doesn't matter at all. There's far too small a sample size in the latter.
What song is played at the beginning of the show?
There's no doubt that sabermetrics are a valuable addition to baseball. However, sometimes the analysis is taken too far and what you end up with are a bunch of geeks trying to make themselves seem important in the sporting world.
How so?
Imagine getting this upset over "geeks"
I love Hawk. You don't get a lot of oldschool baseball in the game today. Stop hating and appreciate the way the game used to be
Hawk played pro played pro baseball for 12 years, I think he knows a lot about the game we just watch.
So this is where the baseboard meme comes from
Leadership is something that guys like Hawk only apply in hindsight anyways. Team goes 62-100 and they say "Theres no leadership!" and if a team goes 100-62 then they say "Look at the veteran leadership!".
Go Hawk it's plan & simple pitching defense fundamentals & clutch hitting
Interesting looking back on this after the 2020 World Series, and the Rays use of sabermetrics cost them at winning a World Series.
To be fair, it gifted them Arozarena.
They dodgers used sabermetrics too don’t worry
Actually sabermetrics told them to leave Snell in against Betts. Cash just took a blanket sabermetric statement which isn’t how sabermetrics is supposed to be used instead of actually looking at the situation and numbers which told him to leave Snell in
Sabermetrics told rays to *Leave Snell IN*
what does RF/9 mean? I see it all the time when I look at how good a player is on d? so I would just like to understand it becuz i look at stats all the time.
it's probably range factor per 9 innings (i.e. putouts+assists per game played)
That's an incredibly small sample size to use to defend such a statement. That's really the problem with all these claims about "clutch hitting". When the samples are large enough everything balances out and clutch doesn't exist. Even Allen Craig is eventually going to regress on his ridiculous numbers with RISP. He doesn't have a special skill, he's just getting lucky.
My point is not that coaches can predict the future. It is that numbers indicate what a player did based on a large collection of circumstances. Circumstances change everyday and there are too many whether it be a hot streak, day/night, home/away, weather, the guy pitching, change in speed/movement of his pitches... I just personally think that statistics have their place and ARE helpful... I'm just saying that you can't rely only on situational numbers to give you your best odds of success.
Entertainment doesn't win ball games. Getting on base does. Puig swings at everything under the sun and that is going to catch up with him. One player who has been sucessful without walking a lot does not prove that walks are meaningless. You'll find a strong correlation between the best hitters in the game (as measured by wRC+) and the ones with the highest walk rates.
Hawk calling him Billy the whole time is hilarious
I agree with hawk
No surprise Harrelson hasn't read Moneyball. He complains that managers and GMs have been fired because of not understanding sabremetrics, but that glosses over the fact many more managers and GMs have been fired simply for not winning enough one way or another.
In the end it's the age-old "stats vs. scouts" debate, and there's room for both. The more you can calculate things about the sport, especially the business side of winning, the more beneficial it is.
"sabermatrix"
Most players have ~75% of their at-bats with the bases empty. If a player was a "pure .300" hitter (his ability is such that he is guaranteed a hit 30% of the time) it's entirely possible for him to have a sub-par average when looking at 25% of his at-bats.
David Wright is a superb hitter. Duh. Upton obviously isn't as good as Wright, but his "not" hitting with men on is an aberration that will even out in time.
Statistical analysis is the evolution of baseball. Every sport evolves in some form. Being that baseball is considered the "thinking man's game," it makes sense that analyzing statistics and assessing probability determines where a ball will be hit by a hitter. Since there are more stats in baseball than any other sport, why not turn that into an advantage? Sure talent is meaningful but each team can only have a limited number of stars so possessing knowledge is the best tactic for most teams.
Hawk had a pretty good argument.
No he didn't and here's why... he said the most important thing is the will to win and then he said the results you're looking for is a W...a win, but he never talks about how you GET to that win...that W.
We all know you have to to rate players...somehow...he uses batting average, right?
Duh...
Now whether I agree with sabermetrics or not is almost irrelevant because I really don't even understand it but for him to say that how you rate something is irrelevant "because all you need is the will" makes him nonsensical and not EVEN wrong.
But he's fun ---sometimes.
Most times though he's just a stubborn faggy idiotically-emotional bully fool.
And the whole point of "Moneyball" and sabremetrics, to me, is being able to find ways beneath the surface to put together a team that can be competitive with the big spenders, whether that team wins a World Series or not. All of these guys have "The Will To Win."
This whole "winning is the biggest thing" is right, but the overall win is more important than who gets credit for it. If you give up one run and the other guy gives up zero, you get the loss. You still pitched a great game.
Harrelson had many languages he could speak and chose to speak facts
No. It's not. Moneyball is about more than that. It's about taking advantage of what the market is ignoring and then exploiting it in a favourable way.
The only thing I say about pitcher's wins is that you can't make much out of it until you look at his ERA, WHIP and factor in run support. Look at the guys who have the most wins this year, they are getting 6 runs per game! You have guys with 1 WHIP and barely .500!
Wins are the most important statistic.
There are always intangibles, but it's about how likely they will try to or be successful at doing such things, which help give you an idea of how to put a team together. It's not the only way to look at baseball, but sabermetrics isn't bullshit either.
Hawk was right.
Yes he was. I didn’t think so at the time but with how the game has been boiled down to home runs and 100mph pitchers he definitely predicted the future.
PitchF/x is the next generation of sabermetric analysis. It looks specifically at speed, rotation, movement and location of the ball at any given moment of play. It can do things like analyze how a pitcher's velocity and speed on his changeup alter over the course of a year, game, or even inning. The point is a) even the best players can know nothing about how the game actually works; see: Curt Schilling, and b) PitchF/x sees what the "former players" see, and it analyzes it better than they do
I'm a firm believer in Brian Kenny and Sabr stats, but I still enjoy a lot that Hawk said. He's a terrific announcer and fun individual. I think he'd be better off just saying that complex new stats aren't his thing. There's nothing wrong with not embracing stats, as long as condemn what you don't understand.
To him he's right, and that's the problem. I mean, every question we might ask to him gets answered when he said he didn't actually read Moneyball ... which addresses the pitching problem he persists.
#TWTW Hawk is right, paralysis by analysis.
I couldn't agree with you more
the point flew right over Bryan. lmaooo
If the record is a reflection of his pitching deeply into games it would follow that the same would hold true for Shields. It doesn't. Scherzer's record is indicative of the fact that he is an excellent pitcher playing for an offensive-heavy team that scores a lot of runs for him.
You have to watch the games before you can talk about numbers. You have to watch the players closely. It still is an eye test to anyone besides GMs.
Tim Xander that is the opposite of the truth
Pitching is the first line of defense, and the paramount aspect - by far. Talk show host Pete Franklin used to say the 3 most important things in baseball are 1. Pitching, 2. Pitching and 3. Pitching. Years ago I went into a bookie joint where they were setting odds for MLB games. They used a large book of stats, and they all involved pitching - not any offense
But sabermetrics has great value in trying to get guys on base, and for pitchers trying to get them out. Hawk is right and wrong.
You still need one run I think Chris Sale can tell you that
I'd much rather c Hawk vs. Brian not Harald vs. Brian
Brian Kenny is extremely obnoxious in this clip. Unable to have a cool calm debate. Too heated, and clearly outclassed by Hawk
Hawk is the obnoxious one. He makes it very clear that he doesn't understand what sabermetrics is, and for some reason, he's too stubborn to even attempt to learn.
Hawk Harrelson said "I did a lot of fighting on the streets and in the ring". Yeah that isn't obnoxious at all LOL
Outclassed? LOL wow. The dude is ignorant as fuck.
he is obnoxious EVERY DAY. he is a twerp that knows nothing about what he is talking about. he interrupts anyone that gets the better of him, al la larry king....two dumb shits
Brian Kenny made a fool of the Hawk. TWW lol
Talking to baseball traditionalists is like banging your head against the wall.
talking to you dumb shits that believe all this is like talking to a turd
How many times do we need to teach you this lesson old man?
This guy reminds me of the scout in the movie.
Had the Red Sox not employed Bill James, they may have not acquired David Ortiz.
2004 Red Sox had a payroll of $128 million, not over 200 million.
LOL @ 1:40
Harold Reynolds has a career fWAR of 12.5 in 12 seasons. He was a punchless hitter who had a low batting average despite being hard to strike out. His baserunning was a liability because he got caught stealing way too many times. He once was CS 29 times out of 64 attempts. His defense kept him in the lineup and he was pretty good in 89 and 90. I wouldn't call him good or outstanding.
To sum it up: Old man yells at could.
*****
Saying a player is good because of "intangibles" is a cop out.
+jannecechmanek it's really not. It's well known that Jeter was an awful base runner and an even worse defensive SS but as much as I hate his numbers and the pinstripes I need him in my lineup when it matters. Because he was able to do substantial things at the right moment even when the sabermetrics don't take notice. Harold was the opposite of that.
moegerms What exactly did he do that sabermetrics didn't take notice? It noticed that his offense more than offset his defense and it rates his baserunning favorably. His stolen base percentage for his career was 78% which is pretty good, and honestly I've never heard that he was a poor baserunner. Jeter ranks 54th in career fWAR all time, and had he retired 2 years earlier he would have ranked 50th. Being one of the top 60 baseball players is not bad.
*****
Harold was a liability on the base paths. His stolen base percentage isn't THAT bad and he isn't slow. I'm guessing he had a lot of TOOTBLANs in his career.
Sabermetrics do notice how a runner does not making outs on the basepath as well as taking extra bases (first to third on a single, first to home on a double, and 2nd to home on a single) and moving up on sac flies.
I'm curious to see what things people think sabermetrics don't measure, because they probably do. At least things that happen on the field.
+jannecechmanek Jeter is a perfect example of a the "pinstripe effect". He was very good for a period of time, then regressed back to average, and even below average in multiple areas. He came in clutch when the pennant was 1 series away but his greatness is aided by the monster team that he played with. You put Jeter in Kansas city in 98 or Chicago in and he wouldn't have had the career he had. Same thing with Mariano. As great as MO was do you think those 600 saves would have been closed out if he played in Milwaukee for his entire career?? Not to take anything away from either of them but it's something to play with in your mind.
Honestly, Scherzer's strikeouts are the reason his WHIP is lower.
The Tigers have scored at least five runs for Scherzer in ten games. The Royals have done so for Shields five times. The Tigers have scored two runs or fewer for Scherzer TWICE. The Royals have done so for Shields seven times. Scherzer's record is a much a reflection of how well the Tigers have been playing as it is of his pitching.
It's not about having as many Paul Konerkos as you can like Brian is trying to say, but having a Konerko as well as guys who can actually run & have defensive range, pitch & get on base & steal, but most importantly, know what to do & when to do it; I.E. are smart & play to the scoreboard. And, Hawk is right. If a player does not have the will to win or the baseball smarts, that won't always translate in the numbers.
He also fired Tony LaRussa. Probably thought that his legendary binder had too many stats and not enough instincts and TWTW.
Stone's a great announcer. He was great as a Cubs announcer, he was great for TBS, and he's still a great announcer. He deserves better than someone who calls him Stone Pony.
Basically, it's not his fault that he hit most of his home runs with no one on; the players in front of him just couldn't get on base to save their lives. I've heard Diamondbacks fans saying "You need to wait for your pitch in the right situation and then hurt the other team, rather than going for the selfish home run". What manager would rather a player NOT hit a home run just because there were no players on? In what world is it the home-run hitter's fault no one was on?
You forget one thing though....the T-Dubya-T-Dubya!
thats true we cant have instant replay every inning
Stats do matter for pitching match ups.
Red Sox payroll in 2004 was 127,298,500, not $200K like Hawk said... in fact, they've NEVER had a payroll over $200K. Regardless, Hawk is correct: baseball is a game of guts and TWTW... and BK is correct in that knowing the numbers is critical to understanding trends. What HR didn't do for BK was have his back and put the two together for the show... "A smart manager will use information to make a game time decision..." that's what 'Moneyball' was all about.
The Hawk is a legend
I like how he just randomly starts ranting and raving for 10 minutes about something they didn't even bring up lol.
You do realize you're striking down your own argument, right? Yes, there are dozens of factors that play into any given situation...which is precisely why sabermetrics exists. Relying on the numbers is the ONLY thing that can give you your best odds of success; there's no way managers can compile the odds given all those factors. Humans are really bad at probabilities, and having the help of situational metrics has proven over and over to do a better job of predicting success than humans can.
Brian was really pissed
He doesn't have TWTW
I do also.
If your argument is that advanced metrics cannot predict the future and should therefore take a back seat to managers "eyeballing" the game, your implied suggestion is that managers can predict the future. Since baseball currently has a dearth of prophets, you're more likely suggesting that managers' sense of the game over a smaller sample space (i.e. SF's playoff run) is more accurate than the metrics and should be more highly valued. In that case, you and Hawk are both just wrong.
Will to win is built into OBP.
"The more numbers and more information you bring into the game the more instincts you take out of the game"...WTF?
Brian is right about the Rays at the end
That host is something else
People laugh at Hawk,but he knows what he is talking about here. Big things that hall of famers did to win games for their teams never showed up on the stat sheets.
I dunno. I disagree with literally every thing Hawk says in this clip and by the end I liked him more.
Uh, why not both?? Good old fashioned scouting and hard-nosed baseball, combined with new-age analytics = no stone unturned. It's okay to get the best of both worlds in this scenario.
It's hilarious that how poorly these quotes have aged
Hawk was exactly right
Harold Reynolds should know how flawed W/L for a pitcher is. When you look at current Tigers pitcher Doug Fister in 2011. Before Fister was traded to Detroit, he had a 3-12 record in Seattle BUT had a 3.33 ERA, 1.17 WHIP (Walks, Hits, Innings pitched) and batters had a average of .252 against him. It was rarely on him when he was pitching for the Mariners. I live in Michigan and I hear idiots like Pat Caputo degrade Fister because of his W/L record.
Please TRY to elaborate this? Here is what is funny everyone complains about sabrmetrics BUT if you look at the stats the best players are near the top. So their really is not a flaw in it.
Hawk wants you.....for the church of TWTW!! LOL
It takes a baseball eye and instincts to detect that "fight" in a player. Sabremetrics are good if looked at quarterly but no less. But both do have to co exist
all this sambermetrics shit is bullshit , if you can hit YOU CAN HIT , if you can pitch then you can PITCH
@Fries Jack Morris got elected by the Veterans' Committee...though he probably didn't deserve it.
Age old argument, science or spirit?
There's no evidence to suggest that a pitcher has must control over whether a batted ball falls for a hit or an out. Looking at Scherzer and Shields' BB/9 rates, Scherzer has a .5 advantage (2.2 to 2.7) which is negligible.
Shields has made one start more than Scherzer, but has thrown 5 more innings. There isn't a significant difference in the innings they throw in each start, as you suggest there is. Not to say that Scherzer hasn't been great, but Shields is not far behind him at all.
Well, he at least uses evidence to back up his arguments. You can't throw out a statement like, "That team lacked the will to win, and that's why they lost." That's a cop-out. Sports are not contests of character; they're contests of skill. We use numbers to measure those skills, especially in baseball. "Intangibles" don't matter unless they affect what happens (and what gets measured) on the field.