From: ez027993@dale.ucdavis.edu (Gary The Owners Are Lying Bastards Huckabay)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Cordero
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:34:21 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Oakland A's Bad Pitcher Club (Heaverlo Division)

(Roger "Watch ONLY my left thimb, lass" Maynard) writes:
Gary "Can't find the &^%& Strike Zone AGAIN!" Huckabay writes:

>Excuse me?  Where have I ever said that I understand the mechanics of the
>game any better than a teenage softball player?

Where did I say you didn't?  And if you're referring to me as a teenage
softball player, thank you.  I'm flattered.  I'm actually a 27-year old
SDCN who plays amateur baseball and softball, and occasionally semi-pro
baseball.  I'd LOVE to be a 'teenage' ANYTHING again.

>My objection is to the people who claim that stats are more useful in the
>evaluation of talent than the opinions of professional scouts, whom, I 
>presume, could claim, for the most part, that they belong in the 20% of
>professionals that you claim are knowledgeable.

Well, scouts are fallible.  People who interpret statistics are fallible.
I think scouting is paramount before age 20, but of severely limited
utility after that.  Problem with DRAFTING people based on stats is
obvious: high school stats vary wildly, and IMHO, don't tell you much about
a player.  I had a higher slugging percentage in high school than Barry
Bonds.  Higher OBP, too, I would bet.  But any dimwit with an active
visual cortex could tell that Barry was a prospect, and I was a very
marginal prospect.

Once we give a guy 2 years in the minors, though, I think statistics
are a more useful tool than scouting reports.  After all, scouting is
observation, and statistics are observation.  

>This is the true arrogance in my opinion.  Certainly stats are useful
>in evaluating talent but stats alone do not give us absolutes.

And observation does?  Why hold statistics to a higher standard than 
scouting?

>Would you sign a player without looking him over?  Would you claim a player
>is the "best" without observing him carefully with your own eyes, or lacking
>that level of understanding, wouldn't you at least respect the opinion of 
>someone you feel is knowledgeable about the mechanics of the sport?

But my feeling about who is knowledgeable is likely to be invalid.
Most people consider sportswriters knowledgeable.  I sure as hell don't.
Because a kid is drafted at 18, plays baseball in an environment filled
with anti-intellectual influences for 25 years, I'm supposed to think
he knows something about personnel evaluation or strategy?  Playing
the game and managing the game are two entirely different things.

>If you are going to put words in my mouth I would appreciate it if you
>made an attempt to understand my point of view first.

Roger, I try to stay civil, but this is like Jesse Jackson and 
Louis Farrakhan calling Marge Schott racist.  I have *bent over backwards*
trying to understand your point of view.  It's just that the holes in
your argument are too big for me to support it.

You, on the other hand, seem to be totally uninterested in learning,
only in pontificating.  Problem is, you don't have the intellectual
or moral high ground from which to preach.

And, speaking strictly for myself, I'm not convinced you know enough
to pontificate, teach, or evaluate anything about baseball.  Your credentials
and track record are not impressive to me.  I, and perhaps others here,
might take you more seriously if you made an effort to evaluate statements
more logically, and be more consistent in your application of reasoning.

>as always, a pleasure,

"You can say what you want about Roger Maynard, but he's one damn
 polite netter." - Bhagwan Thornley.

-- 
*    Gary Huckabay     * "Hi, Joel, it's Kathy."  "Hi, Kath."  "I think you 
*  "Official keeper    *  better come over.  Gary's not well.  He's chewing 
*  of the r.s.b. ammo  *  on the carpet, his eyes are red, and he's sobbing 
*   and weapons hoard."*  uncontrollably." "The A's signed Storm.  He'll live."