???

 

Hawk says Conor Gillaspie's name like "Cone-er"

I think you do need a mix. If you are all sabermetrics and nothing else, or all old school scouting and no sabermetrics, I think you aren't going to win. The perfect formula is a mix, and how that mix is weighted probably fluxuates year to year. Moneyball really got it going, but one of the reasons for Beane's success early was he had the pitching in place. He made some wise moves based on sabermetrics, but might not have had Mulder, Hudson, Zito if he didn't depend as much on scouting earlier.

 

I agree. If your manager/GM organization plays all the averages, you have an average organization with average results. You want your team to be the above average.

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/04/...the-revolution/

 

 

Did Hawk really describe one of Span's hit as being as soft as a "duck passing gas" last night?

Did Hawk really describe one of Span's hit as being as soft as a "duck passing gas" last night?

 

The original phrase is not "duck snort," but "duck fart." Duck fart is obviously not as air-friendly, so he censored it to duck snort instead. Pretty simple, really. So, when he says it's a duck passing gas, it's just another way of saying duck snort/fart.

The original phrase is not "duck snort," but "duck fart." Duck fart is obviously not as air-friendly, so he censored it to duck snort instead. Pretty simple, really. So, when he says it's a duck passing gas, it's just another way of saying duck snort/fart.

I wouldn't mind he use duck passing gas for a little while. That was pretty good.

Hawk on Toronto radio still insisting Billy Beane wrote a book.

 

http://www2.tsn.ca/window/podcastcentre/#i...20%20&id=13

Edited April 17, 201312 yr by flavum

Hawk on Toronto radio still insisting Billy Beane wrote a book.

 

http://www2.tsn.ca/window/podcastcentre/#i...20%20&id=13

Accuracy is not one of Hawk's strong points.

Quite a bit of overreaction about Hawk's talk about sabermetrics. He's obviously not going to wholly understand them since most people don't, and he's frustrated with the over-reliance on advanced statistics nowadays. I think the general sentiment that the explanatory power of advanced statistics is overstated is in fact a correct sentiment to hold.

Quite a bit of overreaction about Hawk's talk about sabermetrics. He's obviously not going to wholly understand them since most people don't, and he's frustrated with the over-reliance on advanced statistics nowadays. I think the general sentiment that the explanatory power of advanced statistics is overstated is in fact a correct sentiment to hold.

 

This is an opinion, thus it is not the correct sentiment to hold.

 

Name one thing, ANYTHING, about a baseball player that you want to know and I can, with little doubt in my mind, find both:

1) a number that is derived from that quality

2) find a number rooted in sabermetrics that better defines that original number

 

The biggest area of debate at this point is amongst fielding numbers, but no matter what you want to use - fielding percentage, errors, defensive runs save, ultimate zone rating, or fan evalutions - we are trying to come up with some sort of way to come up to generally accepted opinions about a players defensive skill sets.

 

Numbers without context mean nothing, but numbers with context mean everything.

Edited April 17, 201312 yr by witesoxfan

Hawk hates sabermetrics because they show he was an even more brutal ballplayer than everyone already knew.

Hawk hates sabermetrics because they show he was an even more brutal ballplayer than everyone already knew.

 

Math is hard is the real answer.

This is an opinion, thus it is not the correct sentiment to hold.

 

Name one thing, ANYTHING, about a baseball player that you want to know and I can, with little doubt in my mind, find both:

1) a number that is derived from that quality

2) find a number rooted in sabermetrics that better defines that original number

 

The biggest area of debate at this point is amongst fielding numbers, but no matter what you want to use - fielding percentage, errors, defensive runs save, ultimate zone rating, or fan evalutions - we are trying to come up with some sort of way to come up to generally accepted opinions about a players defensive skill sets.

 

Numbers without context mean nothing, but numbers with context mean everything.

?

 

How can you make that statement? Have you ever even been in a locker room? Have you ever been a manager of anything? There are always folks that contribute things to the whole that is difficult to quantify.

 

Do you remember Jack Haley?

Do you remember Jack Haley?

 

Good god.

 

You're still smarter than Hawk, though.

Good god.

 

You're still smarter than Hawk, though.

Yeah, and this is why some of the old guard is hesitant to accept a lot of the sabre movement...because of this kind of elitism.

This is an opinion, thus it is not the correct sentiment to hold.

 

Name one thing, ANYTHING, about a baseball player that you want to know and I can, with little doubt in my mind, find both:

1) a number that is derived from that quality

2) find a number rooted in sabermetrics that better defines that original number

 

The biggest area of debate at this point is amongst fielding numbers, but no matter what you want to use - fielding percentage, errors, defensive runs save, ultimate zone rating, or fan evalutions - we are trying to come up with some sort of way to come up to generally accepted opinions about a players defensive skill sets.

 

Numbers without context mean nothing, but numbers with context mean everything.

 

 

The real problem is that Hawk among others are ignorant about it. Open a God Damn book. Do some research instead of just spouting off. Hawk thinks that when you involve numbers and computers it gets guys thinking too much and they fail. Now, if a hitter entered the batters box worried about his BABIP, OPS+, and other things instead of worrying about that specific at bat, he would probably fail. Hawk is right about that. BUT WHY WOULD ANY MAJOR LEAGUE HITTER DO THAT? Nobody does that. The players play. Managers manage. But for fans, front office people, and media members those quantifiable numbers are a very effective tool to measure a baseball player. Guys like Hawk and Joe Morgan specifically still are so lazy and ignorant when it comes to this stuff that they still believe that Billy Beane and not Michael Lewis wrote the book Moneyball. Just unbelievable actually.

I don't want to hear sabremetric thoughts while the game is going on, so I'm fine with Hawk's disdain for it. Agree with Jamshack about the elitism that has taken over the seamhead crowd in recent years. Funny, when outcomes go against the numbers, it's because of randomness or luck. I find myself a lot less accepting of "what the numbers show" than I used to be because of that.

Edited April 20, 201312 yr by Marty34

All it takes is one Saturday Fox game to make me miss Hawk and Stone. These two are f***ing awful.

cronebender‏@cronebender1mSox Announcer fWAR: Hawk: 7.2Wimpy: 8.9DJ: 12.2Stone: 16.8Farmio: 0.3 (11 seasons

 

 

Hawk has to go.

Speaking of Hawk, did anyone see the Dad at Fenway this weekend who pushes his kid through the Marathon every year? Dude's a dead-ringer for Hawk.

 

?

 

How can you make that statement? Have you ever even been in a locker room? Have you ever been a manager of anything? There are always folks that contribute things to the whole that is difficult to quantify.

 

Do you remember Jack Haley?

 

Jack Haley doesn't have to be a player. Josh Hamilton has what essentially amounts to a sponsor that generally follows him around place to place that was on the Rangers payroll and he didn't play a single inning.

 

I also take it, then, that you believe the team is losing this year because they got rid of Orlando Hudson because he was an incredible influence on the locker room.

 

The one area of baseball that is difficult to objectively qualify is coaching - not managing, but coaching - and its effect on players. Why is Jim Hickey a better pitching coach in Tampa than he was in Houston? Why does Don Cooper generally make pitchers better? Why does it work with some pitchers and not others?

Hawk will be on MLB Now on Thursday to discuss his love of Sabremetrics.

Hawk will be on MLB Now on Thursday to discuss his love of Sabremetrics.

 

 

 

I'm not a Sabremetrics guy but Hawk is about to get worked over.

 

His only argument will be, "Show me a player who does_____ and I'll show you a _____ player".

Hawk will be on MLB Now on Thursday to discuss his love of Sabremetrics.

 

Oh lawd.

 

Expect a Deadspin article.