Data, Development and the FUTURE of White Sox Pitching | The White Sox Podcast

[almagest]

2 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

The sources I cited in this thread are publicly available data. When I present findings here, they're not leveraging my own transformations or statistics because that would cause even more of a stir from people like you. They are referencing public metrics.

The source itself is data from MY model which I have built and utilized for going on 20+ years. I've posted unique findings, comps, and analysis on this very site that were derived from the model. In fact, I've used it so long that I built it leveraging R and the Lahman package, while also working in baseballr. I don't utilize R these days and switched everything over to python about 3 years ago with some help from conversion tools.

That said, I have nothing to prove to anyone here. I provide stats and data to contribute to the community and conversation and to provide a different perspective. I also can say with the utmost confidence that neither you or WestEddy have ever done anything close to my job, but I actually hate my job and I wish I did something else so I'm certainly not bragging about it.

I also probably do speak a bit corporate (I'd say more consulting than corporate), given that my job is to lead global technology transformations focusing on AI implementations and DBMS/data transformations and consolidations for large global orgs and governments. I bring up my background in these spaces to establish context. Nothing more.

I commented it's exhausting to have this dialogue because people online will never change their mind. The internet is not a place to discuss things for which you are an expert. Please tell me more about how I was talking out of my ass though, I'm very interested.

I've worked on a number of ML and data science initiatives within organizations from tens of millions of dollars in revenue, up to multiple billions. I've also worked with data scientists and machine learning engineers who were self-taught, all the way up to PHDs. I have seen these initiatives be very successful and provide valuable data, and I have also seen them fail, and/or provide negative value. I ran one personally that had initial success with an enterprise customer, but ultimately failed due to lack of internal adoption, data siloing, data cleanliness, and overall budgetary restrictions. I'm a friendly advisor on a startup that is seeking to solve this exact problem for small to mid-sized organizations, particularly ones that are likely to undergo PE acquisition. I am not a data scientist or ML engineer by trade, but I've learned enough to know when someone is being honest, helpful and providing interesting talking points. I think you do that a lot of the time and I do enjoy reading your posts. 

You're pretty close to calling everyone here stupid when they don't agree with you or have questions, though. WestEddy and CWS are definitely not stupid - they're thoughtful, intelligent posters who bring much needed alternative opinions to a board that is becoming increasingly single-minded and difficult to read (which I do get - not much to be excited about when the MLB team is the WORST TEAM OF ALL TIME). I'd also say the vast majority of posters here aren't stupid, and could certainly understand how you're arriving at your conclusions if you present them well and explain where your findings and evidence come from. If you don't want to - fine. No one can force you, certainly, and you don't owe anyone anything, but don't be surprised or offended when people ask questions or argue. It's the internet - everyone is full of s%*# until proven otherwise.

What set off my BS alarm in your case was partially due to the above attitude, as in my experience, people who pull the "you can't understand what I'm doing" card when pushed even slightly are, more often than not, a BS artist.

Also, your "25 year pitching success" point just seems like a naive analysis. The reason I brought up hitting success over the same period is because, by WAR and by number of cases of improved/positive contribution, the Sox have been as good or better at hitting development over that 25 year period as they have pitching. We know they've been atrocious at hitting development during the latter KW and for all of Hahn years, though, so that can't be true, which indicates that something definitively got worse during their tenures and it seems unlikely it would apply only to hitting. It also indicates that your analysis could be heavily front-loaded, since A) you have the full career trajectories of these players to consider over the more limited careers of everyone drafted from 2013 on, and B) for a basic, illustrative example, a team could develop 100 WAR of value in the first 10 years, and 0 WAR in the next 10, but still look "good" on average. 

This "definitively worse" scouting, drafting and player development also highlights some incredibly difficult variables to account for, and given your explanations in this thread, I don't know how (or even if you can) account for them. JR is really the only consistent piece over this 25 year period. The Sox have had multiple GMs, scouting directors, international/US scouts, player development personnel, managers, minor league teams, etc etc. While some of the general organizational philosophies probably haven't changed, each change I mentioned brings a distinct philosophy and approach - probably more than a lot of organizations, because we've all heard how the Sox lacked a unified message and programs for a long time.

The philosophies of hitting and pitching have changed a lot - average velocity has risen every single decade, and every single year since 2007. "Tunneling" and "pitch shape" are things we NEVER used to hear about, and now they're all over. Pitching used to be about the number of effective innings, and now it's about strikeouts, max effort, and a 5 inning starter plus a bullpen of guys throwing in the high 90s+. Offensive approaches have changed, too, from "take steroids and mash", to uppercut swings that combat pitchers who live low in the zone, to extremely detailed stats like who keeps the barrel through the hitting zone the longest. Hitters can see a pitchers full arsenal in the box before they even face him.

Maybe you've figured out how to account for all of the difficulty here, but I have never met or worked with anyone who could - even the PHD level people were applying off the shelf algorithms most of the time, which would only work for simple use cases at best.

I think we also vastly overrate the Sox pitching achievements. Seems like every year for the last decade+ we're all posting about how good the pitching is, then we actually look at where the team ranks in MLB and it's mediocre at best.

Also, I genuinely feel for you being stuck in a career you don't enjoy. I've been there, too, as I'm sure many of the people here have. Hopefully you figure out a way out, or at least a way to extract some enjoyment out of what you do. Or make enough really soon to go retire somewhere nice.

Edited June 27 by almagest

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

23 hours ago, almagest said:

I've worked on a number of ML and data science initiatives within organizations from tens of millions of dollars in revenue, up to multiple billions. I've also worked with data scientists and machine learning engineers who were self-taught, all the way up to PHDs. I have seen these initiatives be very successful and provide valuable data, and I have also seen them fail, and/or provide negative value. I ran one personally that had initial success with an enterprise customer, but ultimately failed due to lack of internal adoption, data siloing, data cleanliness, and overall budgetary restrictions. I'm a friendly advisor on a startup that is seeking to solve this exact problem for small to mid-sized organizations, particularly ones that are likely to undergo PE acquisition. I am not a data scientist or ML engineer by trade, but I've learned enough to know when someone is being honest, helpful and providing interesting talking points. I think you do that a lot of the time and I do enjoy reading your posts. 

You're pretty close to calling everyone here stupid when they don't agree with you or have questions, though. WestEddy and CWS are definitely not stupid - they're thoughtful, intelligent posters who bring much needed alternative opinions to a board that is becoming increasingly single-minded and difficult to read (which I do get - not much to be excited about when the MLB team is the WORST TEAM OF ALL TIME). I'd also say the vast majority of posters here aren't stupid, and could certainly understand how you're arriving at your conclusions if you present them well and explain where your findings and evidence come from. If you don't want to - fine. No one can force you, certainly, and you don't owe anyone anything, but don't be surprised or offended when people ask questions or argue. It's the internet - everyone is full of s%*# until proven otherwise.

What set off my BS alarm in your case was partially due to the above attitude, as in my experience, people who pull the "you can't understand what I'm doing" card when pushed even slightly are, more often than not, a BS artist.

Also, your "25 year pitching success" point just seems like a naive analysis. The reason I brought up hitting success over the same period is because, by WAR and by number of cases of improved/positive contribution, the Sox have been as good or better at hitting development over that 25 year period as they have pitching. We know they've been atrocious at hitting development during the latter KW and for all of Hahn years, though, so that can't be true, which indicates that something definitively got worse during their tenures and it seems unlikely it would apply only to hitting. It also indicates that your analysis could be heavily front-loaded, since A) you have the full career trajectories of these players to consider over the more limited careers of everyone drafted from 2013 on, and B) for a basic, illustrative example, a team could develop 100 WAR of value in the first 10 years, and 0 WAR in the next 10, but still look "good" on average. 

This "definitively worse" scouting, drafting and player development also highlights some incredibly difficult variables to account for, and given your explanations in this thread, I don't know how (or even if you can) account for them. JR is really the only consistent piece over this 25 year period. The Sox have had multiple GMs, scouting directors, international/US scouts, player development personnel, managers, minor league teams, etc etc. While some of the general organizational philosophies probably haven't changed, each change I mentioned brings a distinct philosophy and approach - probably more than a lot of organizations, because we've all heard how the Sox lacked a unified message and programs for a long time.

The philosophies of hitting and pitching have changed a lot - average velocity has risen every single decade, and every single year since 2007. "Tunneling" and "pitch shape" are things we NEVER used to hear about, and now they're all over. Pitching used to be about the number of effective innings, and now it's about strikeouts, max effort, and a 5 inning starter plus a bullpen of guys throwing in the high 90s+. Offensive approaches have changed, too, from "take steroids and mash", to uppercut swings that combat pitchers who live low in the zone, to extremely detailed stats like who keeps the barrel through the hitting zone the longest. Hitters can see a pitchers full arsenal in the box before they even face him.

Maybe you've figured out how to account for all of the difficulty here, but I have never met or worked with anyone who could - even the PHD level people were applying off the shelf algorithms most of the time, which would only work for simple use cases at best.

I think we also vastly overrate the Sox pitching achievements. Seems like every year for the last decade+ we're all posting about how good the pitching is, then we actually look at where the team ranks in MLB and it's mediocre at best.

Also, I genuinely feel for you being stuck in a career you don't enjoy. I've been there, too, as I'm sure many of the people here have. Hopefully you figure out a way out, or at least a way to extract some enjoyment out of what you do. Or make enough really soon to go retire somewhere nice.

This is why I said its a waste of my time to engage with you. The above is 1000% wrong, no matter how many times you say otherwise.

Also tunneling and pitch shape has existed since i was playing college baseball 20+ years ago. Tunneling has been something coaches have been discussing for decades. Now there's more data on it, but its always existed. 

I never called anyone dumb but I was the only one who brought and actual statistical analysis into the conversation that people only discredited with their feels which i dont like to waste much time on.

Also, I chose to have kids so no sympathy required for my career but appreciate the sentiment. We all do things we dont want for our family.

Edited June 28 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[Chicago White Sox]

18 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

This is why I said its a waste of my time to engage with you. The above is 1000% wrong, no matter how many times you say otherwise.

Also tunneling and pitch shape has existed since i was playing college baseball 20+ years ago. Tunneling has been something coaches have been discussing for decades. Now there's more data on it, but its always existed. 

I never called anyone dumb but I was the only one who brought and actual statistical analysis into the conversation that people only discredited with their feels which i dont like to waste much time on.

Also, I chose to have kids so no sympathy required for my career but appreciate the sentiment. We all do things we dont want for our family.

What statistical analysis are you referring to that was discredited?  The use of a 20 year sample to suggest that the Sox were good to the very end of Hahn’s tenure at developing pitching?