Brian Burke is a Dinosaur

[The Legend]

The post below answers your question. The RedSox bailed on the moneyball approach and went the way of their rivals, the Yankees. Spend tons of cash and pray for the best.

This is so wrong, I don't know where to begin.

Theo was hired in 2003. AFTER Manny. AFTER Pedro.

 

[Kyle Doobas*]

Um, wouldn't a lamppost still be useful for illumination as well as support, drunk or not?


TOML

.....really?

The idea is that you can't see anyway.

 

[Mowerman]

Hockey doesn't lend itself too well to advanced statistics. Maybe if you're on a hockey forum and you're trying to justify an argument with more than just your eye quickly. Not really if you are analyzing players in the show. Trained eyes are what counts there. Don't really see what's so controversial about any of his quotes if you limit them to the realm of hockey (which I'm assuming was the context... cherrypicked quotes like this are worthless).

 

[Darylman]

Hockey doesn't lend itself too well to advanced statistics. Maybe if you're on a hockey forum and you're trying to justify an argument with more than just your eye quickly. Not really if you are analyzing players in the show. Trained eyes are what counts there. Don't really see what's so controversial about any of his quotes if you limit them to the realm of hockey (which I'm assuming was the context... cherrypicked quotes like this are worthless).

I agree. Burke is making a very black and white statement, he's saying stats are useless if you aren't already carefully watching a player.

Take some random prospect overseas, if you go SIMPLY by his statline, however complex you make it out to be, this is no substitute for actual eyewitness scouting. I don't see how this is so controversial. Advanced stats give nuance to observations, but they don't really make them on their own.

 

[GuineaPig]

I get why people are hesitant to say it, but I will anyways: over a large sample (let's call it 100+ games at least) I absolutely think using stats is better than watching a given player in the NHL.

 

[Noldo]

One thing were advance stats will excel (once they have been sufficiently refined) is eliminating any style bias still existing in hufe amounts in hockey. Someone brought up that stat can not measure the effect of Stevens' of Pronger's physicality, but quite contrary the stats won't care how a player does the job if his style is effective. Most likely result being that the GMs investing in advance stats will be able to identify unorthodox/un-flashy players that contribute more than their style would suggest while avoiding players that seem good based on traditional views. Further, the stats isn't really needed to identify the very best, they stand out anyway. But stats will most likely help GMs to identify the most effective support players, allowing teams to gather more depth (and the depth wins championships) or leave more space to be allocated to stars.

 

[Man Bear Pig]

This is so wrong, I don't know where to begin.

Theo was hired in 2003. AFTER Manny. AFTER Pedro.

Not wrong. Look at what Theo did. He went after big priced players. He certainly wasn't in a hurry to start cutting payroll was he? He signed Drew,Dice-k,Crawford,Lackey,Cameron,Gagne,Lugo,Renteria etc. Not exactly a Billy Beane kind of approach.

 

[Joe Canadian]

Not wrong. Look at what Theo did. He went after big priced players. He certainly wasn't in a hurry to start cutting payroll was he? He signed Drew,Dice-k,Crawford,Lackey,Cameron,Gagne,Lugo,Renteria etc. Not exactly a Billy Beane kind of approach.

Of course none of those players had anything to do with the 2004 Red Sox (except for Renteria who was the Cardinal batter who grounded out to end the World Series that year). And Epstein wouldn't be the first GM to stray away from one approach in favour of throwing money around, nor was he the last. Your only evidence that the team wasn't a Moneyball team seems to be the payroll totals. That ignores the decision making process that went into filling out the other roster spots. Moneyball isn't a synonym for low-payroll team, high payroll teams can deploy it. Especially when said teams don't have unlimited funds and need to fill out a roster beyond those high priced players.

 

[Captain Mittens*]

Not wrong. Look at what Theo did. He went after big priced players. He certainly wasn't in a hurry to start cutting payroll was he? He signed Drew,Dice-k,Crawford,Lackey,Cameron,Gagne,Lugo,Renteria etc. Not exactly a Billy Beane kind of approach.

As pointed out ...those were all after the 2004 win when ownership put pressure on him to win again and spend what was needed to do it

 

[Jeri]

It will be interesting to see if hockey comes up with an equivalent WAR stat to baseball in the next couple of years.

 

[The Legend]

It will be interesting to see if hockey comes up with an equivalent WAR stat to baseball in the next couple of years.

As a gigantic stathead, even if I have to admit it's almost impossible. Baseball is a individual sport masquerading as a team sport - hockey has actions that are much more interrelated.

I would like someone to debunk the "momentum"myth.

 

[Jeri]

As a gigantic stathead, even if I have to admit it's almost impossible. Baseball is a individual sport masquerading as a team sport - hockey has actions that are much more interrelated.

I would like someone to debunk the "momentum"myth.

Oh definitely, it is near impossible to come up with, because there is such a limited number of variables in baseball compared to hockey, but even a flawed statistic such as WAR (although still useful) would be a decent all encompassing indicator.

How exactly is "momentum" a myth? It's one of those more intangible "forces" wouldn't you say? A fight or two quick goals have the effect of getting a team pumped the same way a diving catch or a 2 out steal of 3rd base would have in a baseball game?

 

[Mathletic]

Oh definitely, it is near impossible to come up with, because there is such a limited number of variables in baseball compared to hockey, but even a flawed statistic such as WAR (although still useful) would be a decent all encompassing indicator.

How exactly is "momentum" a myth? It's one of those more intangible "forces" wouldn't you say? A fight or two quick goals have the effect of getting a team pumped the same way a diving catch or a 2 out steal of 3rd base would have in a baseball game?

there have been studies on fights. I know one guy looked for the rate of shots after a fight. Another looked for goal scoring rate vs expected goal scoring rate. Neither could find momentum effect due to a fight. Sure, there's times when a team scores after a fight. But it doesn't happen more often than when there's no fight.

 

[Mathletic]

couple interesting articles on hockey analytics

http://nhlnumbers.com/2013/3/7/why-shot-differential-is-important-item-45604

and about the MIT conference

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opinion/2013/03/nhl-teams-ready-to-embrace-advanced-statistics.html

 

[GuineaPig]

It will be interesting to see if hockey comes up with an equivalent WAR stat to baseball in the next couple of years.

http://puckprospectus.com/sortable/

 

[Ozamataz Buckshank]

Of course none of those players had anything to do with the 2004 Red Sox (except for Renteria who was the Cardinal batter who grounded out to end the World Series that year). And Epstein wouldn't be the first GM to stray away from one approach in favour of throwing money around, nor was he the last. Your only evidence that the team wasn't a Moneyball team seems to be the payroll totals. That ignores the decision making process that went into filling out the other roster spots. Moneyball isn't a synonym for low-payroll team, high payroll teams can deploy it. Especially when said teams don't have unlimited funds and need to fill out a roster beyond those high priced players.

Actually...it is. Moneyball is not about just using advanced statistics, it's about using them to find value in players to save money while still contending.

 

[Man Bear Pig]

Of course none of those players had anything to do with the 2004 Red Sox (except for Renteria who was the Cardinal batter who grounded out to end the World Series that year). And Epstein wouldn't be the first GM to stray away from one approach in favour of throwing money around, nor was he the last. Your only evidence that the team wasn't a Moneyball team seems to be the payroll totals. That ignores the decision making process that went into filling out the other roster spots. Moneyball isn't a synonym for low-payroll team, high payroll teams can deploy it. Especially when said teams don't have unlimited funds and need to fill out a roster beyond those high priced players.

Moneyball applies more towards low-budget teams, it kind of defeats the purpose of great value when you sign guys for $20 million a season. The point is to use the advanced stats to find cheap players as the alternative. Guys like Beane are geniuses because they're great at searching the bargain bin by using advanced statistics and maximizing the asset. Boston just signs and trades for everybody in sight. That's not moneyball my friend.

 

[oilersrule14]

One thing were advance stats will excel (once they have been sufficiently refined) is eliminating any style bias still existing in hufe amounts in hockey. Someone brought up that stat can not measure the effect of Stevens' of Pronger's physicality, but quite contrary the stats won't care how a player does the job if his style is effective. Most likely result being that the GMs investing in advance stats will be able to identify unorthodox/un-flashy players that contribute more than their style would suggest while avoiding players that seem good based on traditional views. Further, the stats isn't really needed to identify the very best, they stand out anyway. But stats will most likely help GMs to identify the most effective support players, allowing teams to gather more depth (and the depth wins championships) or leave more space to be allocated to stars.

But that still hasn't addressed whether stats can measure the effect of physicality.

You mentioned an alternative point to support the stats, and I think it's very valid. However, there's no stat that can tell me if the physicality of a Pronger has a positive effect on his teammates, in terms of opening up room for them or allowing them to play at ease.

Any stats attempting to do so are going to suffer from the fact that you can't separate Pronger's effectiveness of play from his physical play, nor can you separate his teammates's regular effectiveness of play from any increased effectiveness of play due to physicality.

I think that's an overlooked aspect of the game by the talking heads of the statisticians groups, and an overemphasized aspect of the game by the talking heads of the no-stats group. Usually, it's the quieter guys not causing a stir that put fair emphasis on all aspects.

 

[kmad]

Actually...it is. Moneyball is not about just using advanced statistics, it's about using them to find value in players to save money while still contending.

Sabermetrics is using advanced statistics in sports, moneyball is using those statistics to find undervalued players.

 

[The Legend]

Actually...it is. Moneyball is not about just using advanced statistics, it's about using them to find value in players to save money while still contending.

Moneyball is about market inefficiencies.

 

[Mathletic]

But that still hasn't addressed whether stats can measure the effect of physicality.

You mentioned an alternative point to support the stats, and I think it's very valid. However, there's no stat that can tell me if the physicality of a Pronger has a positive effect on his teammates, in terms of opening up room for them or allowing them to play at ease.

Any stats attempting to do so are going to suffer from the fact that you can't separate Pronger's effectiveness of play from his physical play, nor can you separate his teammates's regular effectiveness of play from any increased effectiveness of play due to physicality.

I think that's an overlooked aspect of the game by the talking heads of the statisticians groups, and an overemphasized aspect of the game by the talking heads of the no-stats group. Usually, it's the quieter guys not causing a stir that put fair emphasis on all aspects.

You're asking for the wrong questions. There's no point in measuring physicality. It's like asking how much batters were intimidated when facing Randy Johnson. If the guy is afraid after getting pitched inside or simply facing RJ then he'd a less effective batter or RJ a more effective pitcher, period. If Pronger's physicality helps him being a more effective defender, then it will show in his stats.

Randy Johnson gave up less HR, had more strike outs, better DICE/DIPS, better Pitch FX and all you want. No one ever attemped measuring fear in the batter's eye.

Also, if you read the first article I mentionned, the author touches a bit on those subjects.

Moneyball applies more towards low-budget teams, it kind of defeats the purpose of great value when you sign guys for $20 million a season. The point is to use the advanced stats to find cheap players as the alternative. Guys like Beane are geniuses because they're great at searching the bargain bin by using advanced statistics and maximizing the asset. Boston just signs and trades for everybody in sight. That's not moneyball my friend.

The value a player brings to a team is relative to each market. The value of Manny Ramirez was not the same for Boston than it would have been to Oakland for example. Those are things that have been studied quite extensively. The value of the 90th win for a team like Boston is worth about 3 million IIRC. That's quite a bit. A player's performance will impact on team wins, which then in turn have an impact on attendance/tv ratings, which lead to various revenues. The revenues generated by Manny Ramirez in Boston were well beyond what they paid for him. Analytics will help you figuring out how much that is worth and put a number on value for each dollar invested. It's not a black or white thing where stats have value for low budget teams and don't for high budget teams.

 

[Joe Canadian]

Actually...it is. Moneyball is not about just using advanced statistics, it's about using them to find value in players to save money while still contending.

No. It's not. And the reasoning you stated doesn't back up your point, though it is correct. Moneyball is about finding market ineffcienies. Teams that have $140 Million budget can have a high payroll, with large contracts, and can still deploy Moneyball techniques to fill out their roster. Unless a team has an unlimited payroll, which the 2004 Red Sox did not, there are always going to be roster spots that GMs need to fill with limited funds.

 

[Hero]

Baseball is a 1 vs 1 scenario repeated many times. very easy to keep stats and compare them, not so with hockey.

 

[Noldo]

But that still hasn't addressed whether stats can measure the effect of physicality.

You mentioned an alternative point to support the stats, and I think it's very valid. However, there's no stat that can tell me if the physicality of a Pronger has a positive effect on his teammates, in terms of opening up room for them or allowing them to play at ease.

Any stats attempting to do so are going to suffer from the fact that you can't separate Pronger's effectiveness of play from his physical play, nor can you separate his teammates's regular effectiveness of play from any increased effectiveness of play due to physicality.

I think that's an overlooked aspect of the game by the talking heads of the statisticians groups, and an overemphasized aspect of the game by the talking heads of the no-stats group. Usually, it's the quieter guys not causing a stir that put fair emphasis on all aspects.

But in the end you don't really need to separate Pronger's physicality from his overall effectiveness. The effect of the physical play is included in the player's overall effectiveness, assuming that the physicality actually leads to better results.

Having said that, I think that the largest obstacle for development of feasile advance statistics for hockey is the effect of other teammates. After all, even the best effort can result in no positive development if the linemate manages to put the puck to the stands from a perfect opportunity while sometimes piss poor pass might result in big positive if the linemate manages to anticipate the situation.

Due to its nature as fast paced team game development and collection of advance stats will probably require enormous amount of watching of the games. And in a one sense it might be that statistics can never show us something that we could not have seen just by watching the games. But statistics might give us a way to better compare the findings of different watchers because in the end there is limited time that we can spend watching the game.

 

[Ozamataz Buckshank]

No. It's not. And the reasoning you stated doesn't back up your point, though it is correct. Moneyball is about finding market ineffcienies. Teams that have $140 Million budget can have a high payroll, with large contracts, and can still deploy Moneyball techniques to fill out their roster. Unless a team has an unlimited payroll, which the 2004 Red Sox did not, there are always going to be roster spots that GMs need to fill with limited funds.

I just reread the post I quoted. For some reason I thought I was replying to something completely different to what I thought I was. I'll blame that on posting at 7AM before I have my coffee.