A Wally Contradiction

But here’s something of a different take. Wally is obviously trying to make himself out as a stats-sensitive guy, regardless of whether he knows his ASS from his UZR. Here’s the thing: I don’t think Jerry would even deign to think about being anything other than he is (no further explanation necessary). I think a guy like Wally might actually make efforts to understand the more complex appraisals of the game made available to him as a MLB manager. When I first arrived at AA, I knew what some of the newer stats were and roughly what was “good.” But remember that Billy Beane likewise didn’t have a vast majority of the stats that we nerd it up over on a daily basis. His original approach was “one-base good, outs bad, fielding helps.” Even with that limited understanding, he managed to make positive strides. The point is that more often than not stats are provided via the FO and scouts, and a manager has the option to be receptive to and encourage this, or to be dismissive and discourage this. Self-identification means a lot when you may need to train someone, and if Wall self-identifies as a stats guy I’m encouraged.

I also think you make a good point that, to whatever degree, a manager must manage egos and personalities, regardless of whether this is in the sports or non-sports world. Especially when you are dealing with A-types who make a lot of money and are under a ton of pressure, you have to be able to work with people. From what I can tell Wally is pretty good at this. Although I agree that an appropriate vetting process needs to be undertaken—and hopefully after Omar is shown the door (perchance to dream)—I don’t think that dismissing Wally outright because he happens to make himself aware of BA splits, is the rigth approach. I’m sure he also has an eye for who has a good eye; the question is whether he uses this information appropriately or relies on his gut.

I think this is going a little far into the statistical ether. Splits exist, and some guys for whatever reason have better success with RISP than others. I agree that the sample size may be a little small given the shorter seasons in the minors, but you have to work with what you have, not what you might want to have. I also think BA is a little over-maligned nowdays. Not only does it form the basic contituent part of OBP, SLG, and OPS, it tells you a very simple thing: what percentage of the time does the guy get a hit. Are there more nuanced approaches that give better analysis? Of course. But taking BA plus a general knowledge of whether a guy has a good eye and is powerful can give you some semblance of OPS in practice.

There are always going to be statistical outliers: for example, why are the Mets so terrible with the bases loaded this year? To dismiss outliers as not “actually existing” because as a general rule things return to the mean misses something that in my mind is a maxim of the scientific method. More often than not the “unexplainable” can be explained, just via a different methodology (in the bases loaded example, maybe the batters are all getting a particular piece of bad advice: who knows). To dismiss something that has been observed is pretty similar to saying that it is a matter of luck or coincedence. So what’s worse, to ignore RISP stats fully or to try to use them as a practical matter?

Although I think what you (and Ogre etc) have been saying has a good chance of being right, as I said above I think that he who identifies as a stats guy would be more likely to employ stats provided by scouts etc.