Luhnow is the Astros new GM

[OregonStrosFan]

So says The Man anyway...

Word is it's Luhnow.

This had gotta mean HOU goes out and signs Pujols, don't it?!?!?

[OregonStrosFan]

Interesting misc. from Derrick Goould at the StL Post-Dispatch: (LINK)

"pet project of his has been increasing the Cardinals ability to evaluate and sign players in the Caribbean, and two of the Cardinals' top prospects pitcher Carlos Martinez and outfielder Oscar Taveras."

[remy]

link

[Fynn]

So says The Man anyway...

This had gotta mean HOU goes out and signs Pujols, don't it?!?!?

He has much to do, but it will be interesting to see what Luhnow does with Brett Wallace--help him improve or trade him again as they did in St. Louis.

[Travis]

A few interviews Luhnow's done over the years:

http://www.thestlcardinals.com/JeffLuhnowI.html
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7216
https://futureredbirds.wordpress.com/2008/05/09/q-a-with-jeff-luhnow/
http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/2007/03/qa-jeff-luhnow/

[BizidyDizidy]

A fucking McKinsey guy, great

[S.P. Rodriguez]

I found this interesting from this interview  https://futureredbirds.wordpress.com/2008/05/09/q-a-with-jeff-luhnow/:

I see the piggyback/tandem starting is back, not only at Quad Cities but also with Palm Beach. What do you feel the benefits are to the 8-man rotation? How long do you intend to continue with it?

There are two primary reasons why we use the tandem structure at A ball. The first is to spread the innings out among our top pitchers. In both A ball levels, we have more than five guys who we feel need to have innings to develop. When you use a five-man rotation, you can be assured that those five guys will get the needed innings, but what tends to happen is the bullpen innings get allocated to the older, more reliable guys who might not be the top prospects. Managers want to win, of course, so they tend to rely on guys who can win at that level. That is not always consistent with who the organization feels needs to have innings in order to get better.

The second reason is to closely monitor their pitch counts and inning load to prevent injury. Knock on wood, but since we started the tandem approach last year, we have had almost no arm injuries among our starters. This, as we all know, is a key to maintaining depth in our system.

I don't find the pitch count all that interesting, rather the distributing innings to all top candidates to ensure opportunity to develop.  It seems this might give guys who were not the most highly touted of the top prospects having a chance to demonstrate ability.  Specifically, those late round guys who have potential but typically only see relief innings.  Woudl any of the Bus Drivers mind offering their thoughts on said approach?  I'll hang up and listen....

[jbm]

A fucking McKinsey guy, great

Could you elaborate? 

I find it ironic that he drafted Wallace.  Just a quick glance at his drafts seems to favor college guys.  Last four had Wallace, Cox, and Wong with Miller being the only high schooler.  I wonder if he has a discernable bent in this regard. 

[BizidyDizidy]

Could you elaborate? 

From the first linked article, he was a business guy not a baseball guy until he was 37 and he was a McKinsey and Co management consultant for a while at least. I was mostly just joking (I am in fact a former McKinsey guy myself).

[JimR]

pitch counts may prevent injury in the minors, but they are a direct cause of injuries in MLB.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

pitch counts may prevent injury in the minors, but they are a direct cause of injuries in MLB.

This part I'm good with.  But it seems to me, the strategy is to distribute the innings, in A ball, more evenly so you can actually assess what you have in a broader sense, versus focusing on the top draft picks.  I can only assume that after A Ball, they separate starters vs relievers with the bulk of the innings going to the starter candidates.

ETA: forget I posed the question... Ferret has clarified everything, with his linked articles.. damnit. 

[Limey]

Why is it that, everytime I see the name "Luhnow", my brain reads "Ruhrow".

[Duman]

The piggy back rotation has been used by several organizations at low A ball.  Lots of buzz when it starts, nothing is ever said about it's long term use. 

[Waldo]

Why is it that, everytime I see the name "Luhnow", my brain reads "Ruhrow".

My brain reads Lithgow.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

The piggy back rotation has been used by several organizations at low A ball.  Lots of buzz when it starts, nothing is ever said about it's long term use. 

Thanks...

[jaklewein]

My brain reads Lithgow.

I'm going to take this hiring has good news.  Partly because I believe it, but mostly because I want to believe it.  I've been in the dumps about the team for awhile now.  Please someone...anyone...tell me this was a good hire.  Hell, lie to me if you have to.  I don't care.

[Ebby Calvin]

I'm going to take this hiring has good news.  Partly because I believe it, but mostly because I want to believe it.  I've been in the dumps about the team for awhile now.  Please someone...anyone...tell me this was a good hire.  Hell, lie to me if you have to.  I don't care.

It's a good hire.

[jaklewein]

It's a good hire.

Thank you sir.

[Gizzmonic]

I'm going to take this hiring has good news.  Partly because I believe it, but mostly because I want to believe it.  I've been in the dumps about the team for awhile now.  Please someone...anyone...tell me this was a good hire.  Hell, lie to me if you have to.  I don't care.

You speak like my bittersweet heart!

[austro]

It's a good hire.

YTIFY.

[MusicMan]

Footer points out that the BFIBs are not happy about losing him, which is a good sign.

[JimR]

His name to the scouting fraternity is Harry Potter.

[GreatBagwellsBeard]

His name to the scouting fraternity is Harry Potter.

This raises questions that would expose the level of my nerdiness.

[BizidyDizidy]

His name to the scouting fraternity is Harry Potter.

Not sure how to take that

[OregonStrosFan]

This raises questions that would expose the level of my nerdiness.

You mean remind us, no?!?

[Noe]

It's a good hire.

Agreed. For what they're trying to do, indeed the *ONLY* hire they could make.... think along the lines of an expansion team making a five to ten year plan and starting the right way and you have the same plan for the Astros right now.  It's that bad and that good all at the same time.  They had to reach into the depths of player development and not up and coming GM to make their bold move (re: hire).  On this one, they did something right.

[Noe]

Not sure how to take that

Nerdy magic man.

[BizidyDizidy]

Nerdy magic man.

Is that good or bad

[Noe]

Is that good or bad

If you believe in magic, good.  If not, then bad.

[Jacksonian]

His name to the scouting fraternity is Harry Potter.

So Bud Selig's been trying to murder him since he was a baby?

[Noe]

So Bud Selig's been trying to murder him since he was a baby?

Yes. Yes he has.

[Bench]

Not sure how to take that

I automatically assumed it was derogatory.  So... that's wrong?

[GreatBagwellsBeard]

So Bud Selig's been trying to murder him since he was a baby?

SFN

[Noe]

I automatically assumed it was derogatory.  So... that's wrong?

Depends on who is saying it and how they're saying it.  When you're around scouts, a large percentage of things is said in jest to either give a backhanded compliment or said with the begrudging manner.  Either way, they're telling you he is unconventional and it seems to work for him.  "That guy is somehow is successful and we don't know how!" That which you (scouts) do not understand is magic.

[Jacksonian]

SFN

So that did raise a question that exposed your level of nerdiness.  I'll pat whip myself on the back.

[MusicMan]

I'll pat whip myself on the back.

Aren't you crossing over to The Da Vinci Code here?

[JimR]

Depends on who is saying it and how they're saying it.  When you're around scouts, a large percentage of things is said in jest to either give a backhanded compliment or said with the begrudging manner.  Either way, they're telling you he is unconventional and it seems to work for him.  "That guy is somehow is successful and we don't know how!" That which you (scouts) do not understand is magic.

it was not a compliment of any kind. it was meant to refer to him as a total stat geek, which the scouts disparage.

[Andyzipp]

it was not a compliment of any kind. it was meant to refer to him as a total stat geek, which the scouts disparage.

That's how I took it.  From what I've been told, the "war room" scene in the film adaptation of Moneyball was pretty accurate in terms of how the average group of scouts view statistical analysis.

[Mr. Happy]

Stats schmrats. I want a seasoned eyed scout to watch all of the intangibles. How he's going when he's getting squeezed... How he takes errors in the field... How he pitches when he doesn't have his best stuff on a given day. Tell your stats to shut up.

[moriartp]

it was meant to refer to him as a total stat geek, which the scouts disparage.

Strange. Harry was actually quite the jock when it comes down to it. He always preferred playing Quidditch to studying. Hell, I don't think Hogwarts had any math classes at all. It's like the scouts didn't even read the books. Tsk tsk.

[MusicMan]

Tell your stats to shut up.

Why does it have to be all one or the other?

[jbm]

Why does it have to be all one or the other?

Maybe if people actually understood the stat side, your question would be easier to answer.  For the life of me, I have no idea how stats are used to identify the future development of a high school kid, or for a college kid for that matter.  Do these guys have some secret stat that predicts the future?  I mean, this high school kid hit 638 and hit 20 homers, or had some obscure impressive stat, what does that tell me about the likelihood of him being a major leaguer.  I just don't get it. 

Stats are very useful to describe, but not to predict.

[roadrunner]

Maybe if people actually understood the stat side, your question would be easier to answer.  For the life of me, I have no idea how stats are used to identify the future development of a high school kid, or for a college kid for that matter.  Do these guys have some secret stat that predicts the future?  I mean, this high school kid hit 638 and hit 20 homers, or had some obscure impressive stat, what does that tell me about the likelihood of him being a major leaguer.  I just don't get it. 

Stats are very useful to describe, but not to predict.

It's about drafting a player that you think will excel in the stats you believe are important.  Really simple Moneyball example: slow guy who doesn't have power but draws a lot of walks.  Stats guy likes the player, scout hates the player.

Luhnow seems like a really smart dude.  I'm excited.

[jbm]

It's about drafting a player that you think will excel in the stats you believe are important.  Really simple Moneyball example: slow guy who doesn't have power but draws a lot of walks.  Stats guy likes the player, scout hates the player.

Luhnow seems like a really smart dude.  I'm excited.

That doesn't explain anything.  You are just describing traits an org values, not how to select an 18 year old who will eventually excel in those traits.  Lets say an org values players that can field, throw, hit for average and hit for power.  How do high school stats help predict what that 18 year old will do that a major league level?

[EasTexAstro]

That doesn't explain anything.  You are just describing traits an org values, not how to select an 18 year old who will eventually excel in those traits.  Lets say an org values players that can field, throw, hit for average and hit for power.  How do high school stats help predict what that 18 year old will do that a major league level?

It doesn't really predict anything, but if those stats, compared to other players on his team, area, district, region....stand out, it might mean he is worth looking at. How does he compare with players in a similar environment?

I believe coaches on high school teams, older select teams, and colleges have ways of getting scouts' attention. Having the stat comparisons helps point out statistical evidence of why that kid might be of interest.

[jbm]

I agree that stats can describe performance, and scouts want to find players that perform well, but when they have to predict whether the kid will make it, they have use other skills.  Otherwise, clubs could just release their scouts and hire people on computers to "scout" high school kids. 

I guess I get frustrated because people always act like stat analysis is some special tool, allowing insights others will never have.  I enjoy statistical analysis when people debate major league performance, I just don't think it has any real value in drafting or development.  I also doubt very seriously whether any successful club uses stats to identify prospects.  Statistical analysis, in popular baseball culture at least, is a myth created by moneyball.  All it really boiled down to is: getting on base was undervalued at that moment in time. 

[moriartp]

Regardless of Luhnow's methods, the Cardinals have had a pretty good run of acquiring amateur talent—and getting the most out of it—under his watch. How much of the credit belongs to Luhnow directly is something that those of us on the outside aren't equipped to judge, though.

[jbm]

I got nothing against the guy.  Obviously, I hope he is wildly successful. 

I really don't agree with that point though.  Take the fatass off that team, and let's see how well all the talent they have selected and developed perform.  As for prospects, how many great players from the last eight drafts made that team successful?  I'm probably missing one or two, but Garcia is the only one with an extensive track record on their club.  We'll see how that pitcher and thrid baseman from the playoffs fair over the long haul.

[Noe]

Regardless of Luhnow's methods, the Cardinals have had a pretty good run of acquiring amateur talent—and getting the most out of it—under his watch. How much of the credit belongs to Luhnow directly is something that those of us on the outside aren't equipped to judge, though.

*Anecdotal evidence warning*

There is the story about how Luhnow was a fan of Brendan Ryan's game because he had all the statistical evidence to tell Don Tony that this kid at shortstop would get to every ball hit in and around him and save many runs.  LaGenius used Ryan and found him to be just a tad underwhelming, sort of an uninspired player who had talent but did not know how to use it and challenge himself.  So LaGenius went out and got Theriot from the rival Cubs because he wanted a grinder.  Ryan has more skills than Theriot and statistically would run circle around him.... by Don Tony insisted and Mozeliack (sp?) listened and got him.

Basically, if stats were the end all, be all.... many players like Theriot and Eckstein who have played their hearts out for Don Tony, would never have been on the team to begin with.  Conversely, there other players that may fall through the cracks because they do not impress scouts (intangibles be damned) and later function well in appropriate situations on a team because the talent and ability is used appropriately.  I am with MM, you need both and you need both sides to understand that neither side is making decisions on usage... that is a manager's job.  So Luhnow can push Mills if he wants and it's up to Mills to tell him "I don't care what that catcher hit... I want Castro behind the dish because he is a much better receiver!".

That is how it should work. IMHO of course.

[Noe]

I got nothing against the guy.  Obviously, I hope he is wildly successful.  

I really don't agree with that point though.  Take the fatass off that team, and let's see how well all the talent they have selected and developed perform.  As for prospects, how many great players from the last eight drafts made that team successful?  I'm probably missing one or two, but Garcia is the only one with an extensive track record on their club.  We'll see how that pitcher and thrid baseman from the playoffs fair over the long haul.

The position of a GM is interesting to me because they have to be involved in the farm system and the major league team.  Seems that there are GMs who worry more about the major league team and how to improve and leave the farm system to trusted individuals who can provide evidence that certain players can help the major league team if the situation ever presented itself.  Luhlow has been a player development guy for a long time.  He was not promoted in St. Louis, he was demoted because they did not want him moving up the ladder to a GM position.

Methinks that the GM position is about to be redefined in Houston somehow and it will be interesting to watch.  I think you'll see many others rally to Luhlow's side to allow him to concentrate more on what goes on in the farm while the major league club is what it is.  Not that Luhlow will be the equivalent of Nero fiddling while Rome burned, but perhaps something not too far from that when it comes to the major league club.  I see Luhlow's primary job to be make the farm system and by proxy the organization's future the primary task at hand.  The present is what it is and the Rangers could not be happier.

Thanks Nolan!

[Ron Brand]

If you're in the business of evaluating / projecting players and stats are all you use, then you are a fool destined to fail. I doubt seriously that anyone in those positions in MLB do that. It's a blend, and statistics become a better asset the farther up the chain the competition gets. The statistics used in high school, etc. are more raw, basic ones because the comps are few - speed, hit placement, that sort of thing.

Blending the use of traditional, knowledgeable scouting and the new statistical models can give you insights into how to steal a march on your competition. It's the proportions of the blend that can determine if you're finding the right solution before the other guy, or if you're chasing a mirage. It's in many ways like distilling a new variety of bourbon or making wine - you won't know if it's wrong until later, after you've put a lot of time and money into it.

[JimR]

If you're in the business of evaluating / projecting players and stats are all you use, then you are a fool destined to fail. I doubt seriously that anyone in those positions in MLB do that. It's a blend, and statistics become a better asset the farther up the chain the competition gets. The statistics used in high school, etc. are more raw, basic ones because the comps are few - speed, hit placement, that sort of thing.

Blending the use of traditional, knowledgeable scouting and the new statistical models can give you insights into how to steal a march on your competition. It's the proportions of the blend that can determine if you're finding the right solution before the other guy, or if you're chasing a mirage. It's in many ways like distilling a new variety of bourbon or making wine - you won't know if it's wrong until later, after you've put a lot of time and money into it.

HS stats have absolutely no value at all. the players must be seen. all of the really good ones hit .500.

[Ron Brand]

HS stats have absolutely no value at all. the players must be seen. all of the really good ones hit .500.

Exactly. All you can rely on is how hard they throw and how fast they run. Of course, those guys that hit the ball 500' a lot get a look too.

[jbm]

I would love to hear some examples of either great trades, or great signings that were stats driven that were not obvious to most clubs.  I would also like to hear examples of draft selection succeses driven by stats, either college or high school.  

The problem I have is that Crane said Luhnow has one priority: build up the player selection and development.  A stats-minded skillset doesn't mesh with that priority, at least the way I imagine talent is normally identified and developed.

I suspect that there are organizations who can identify talent, and those who can't, but I bet all of them rely on traditional scouting methods to evaluate the raw talent.  This stats stuff is largely a myth.  That is why there aren't many well known stats-driven success stories.

[MusicMan]

This stats stuff is largely a myth.  That is why there aren't many well known stats-driven success stories.

Sandy Alderson, Billy Beane, Andrew Friedman, Theo Epstein...

[Ron Brand]

I would love to hear some examples of either great trades, or great signings that were stats driven that were not obvious to most clubs.  I would also like to hear examples of draft selection succeses driven by stats, either college or high school.  

The problem I have is that Crane said Luhnow has one priority: build up the player selection and development.  A stats-minded skillset doesn't mesh with that priority, at least the way I imagine talent is normally identified and developed.

I suspect that there are organizations who can identify talent, and those who can't, but I bet all of them rely on traditional scouting methods to evaluate the raw talent.  This stats stuff is largely a myth.  That is why there aren't many well known stats-driven success stories.

You'd be looking at the Moneyball model then, and your timeline would run roughly 1981 - 2011 for the real stat revolution. I don't have anything at hand that gives me anything like that. I don't remember the Abstracts going into anything like that.

It sounds like you are in favor of dismissing statistics, and all of the MLB teams make heavy use of very detailed statistics in their work. They also make heavy use of great scouts and their reports. The desire is to get as much possible information you have and to synthesize it well. Better if you can do it more efficiently than the other guys.

It's a bad comp, but an example of what you're looking for is sorta analogous to the Astros not being afraid to go after pitchers who weren't tall. The thought was that other teams were focusing on pitchers who were 6'1" or better and leaving the shorter guys behind. That resulted in players like Oswalt being in the Astro system and their line was that the large, ignored pool of shorter pitchers gave them a lot of choices of talented players to draft and follow.

They're not going to tell you how they do it, but I think it's very safe to assume that statistical analysis is used pretty sparingly for raw talent and much more often to make fine distinctions at higher levels. Just because we've got Harry Potter doesn't, in my opinion, mean that he's going to use his wand to open every Christmas present he gets. I think he's trying to use numbers and correlations to find some kind of combination, any combination, that he thinks is being ignored by other teams but may still yield good players.

[moriartp]

It's a bad comp, but an example of what you're looking for is sorta analogous to the Astros not being afraid to go after pitchers who weren't tall. The thought was that other teams were focusing on pitchers who were 6'1" or better and leaving the shorter guys behind. That resulted in players like Oswalt being in the Astro system and their line was that the large, ignored pool of shorter pitchers gave them a lot of choices of talented players to draft and follow.

That's actually a perfect example.

[JimR]

That's actually a perfect example.

 it is the perfect example of the opposite of being stat driven. scouts watched those guys throw and ignored the stat of 5'11".

[Ron Brand]

it is the perfect example of the opposite of being stat driven. scouts watched those guys throw and ignored the stat of 5'11".

Actually, I think it was stat-driven to a good extent. As I remember it, the stats guys were correlating height, arm angle, velocity and time to the plate and along with some injury data, concluded that shorter guys weren't as good a risk as taller guys. That left the Astros free to roam around in the Barrel O' Dwarves to find some good players.

I have no idea how true this was, but I know it was the company line for a while and was repeated gleefully by stats guys, BP, etc. as to how forward-thinking and resourceful the Astros were.

ETA: The Astros stats guys didn't agree with those conclusions, and went after shorter pitchers accordingly.

[JimR]

Actually, I think it was stat-driven to a good extent. As I remember it, the stats guys were correlating height, arm angle, velocity and time to the plate and along with some injury data, concluded that shorter guys weren't as good a risk as taller guys. That left the Astros free to roam around in the Barrel O' Dwarves to find some good players.

I have no idea how true this was, but I know it was the company line for a while and was repeated gleefully by stats guys, BP, etc. as to how forward-thinking and resourceful the Astros were.

ETA: The Astros stats guys didn't agree with those conclusions, and went after shorter pitchers accordingly.

maybe it was that scientific, but i doubt it. the stereotype of a pitcher was 6'3"-6'4" and about 210. the Astros said "screw that. can he throw?"

a few years ago i was having beers with a friend and Red Murff. i had gotten to know Murff a little when i was coaching in Brenham, and he was scouting the area for the Expos. we were talking about those days, and he told me he had scouted me when i was in HS and he worked for the Mets. he said "if you had been taller, i would have drafted you." i told him "tell me i was not good enough. i can handle that, but do not tell me i was not tall enough."

[Ron Brand]

it is the perfect example of the opposite of being stat driven. scouts watched those guys throw and ignored the stat of 5'11".

I see what you're saying. It takes me a little time.

I think that both sides bring important tools to the job. Ignoring one side means you get left behind.

[jbm]

Sandy Alderson, Billy Beane, Andrew Friedman, Theo Epstein...

I'm talking about player selection (in the draft and internationally) and development, not a supposed stats-driven gm who tweeked his roster using stats, or made a major league trade or signing based on some stat evaluation.  That is Luhnow's primary goal as stated by Crane.  I'm talking about examples such as: "we drafted this guy becasue he had x stat, and by fucking god, those guys with x stat are more likely to develop into major leaguers."

It is common to hear success stories in the draft and international signings based on traditional scouting knowledge, I don't recall any non-moneyball examples.

[JimR]

I'm talking about player selection (in the draft and internationally) and development, not a supposed stats-driven gm who tweeked his roster using stats, or made a major league trade or signing based on some stat evaluation.  That is Luhnow's primary goal as stated by Crane.  I'm talking about examples such as: "we drafted this guy becasue he had x stat, and by fucking god, those guys with x stat are more likely to develop into major leaguers."

It is common to hear success stories in the draft and international signings based on traditional scouting knowledge, I don't recall any non-moneyball examples.

Jeremy Bown, but how did that one work out?

[JimR]

I see what you're saying. It takes me a little time.

I think that both sides bring important tools to the job. Ignoring one side means you get left behind.

i agree with your basic premise. some stats are useful to demonstrate what guys have done and what skills they have shown. i think both must be used and neither used to the exclusion of the other.

[Mr. Happy]

Why does it have to be all one or the other?

Because if you ever played the game, it's all about a combination of heart, athleticism, determination and discipline. I defy you to show me a stat that shows any of that.

[moriartp]

I think that both sides bring important tools to the job. Ignoring one side means you get left behind.

Completely this. And if either side is executed poorly, you wind up with some ass-backward drafting philosophies. Like ignoring short pitchers. Or ignoring high school players altogether (I'm looking at you, J.P. Ricciardi).

[Ron Brand]

I'm talking about player selection (in the draft and internationally) and development, not a supposed stats-driven gm who tweeked his roster using stats, or made a major league trade or signing based on some stat evaluation.  That is Luhnow's primary goal as stated by Crane.  I'm talking about examples such as: "we drafted this guy becasue he had x stat, and by fucking god, those guys with x stat are more likely to develop into major leaguers."

It is common to hear success stories in the draft and international signings based on traditional scouting knowledge, I don't recall any non-moneyball examples.

I'm not sure that Crane said that the Astros were going to be signing raw draftees based on some stat evaluation. I saw references to trying to find some untapped resources, and stats would help that, but as we've pretty much all agreed on, high school stats are essentially useless.

He's had success for a while in the past, although it would be wrong to give him all the credit for that. He's also made some mistakes, and my guess is that he's smart enough to learn from them. I really can't fathom that they'd base a $600mm investment on lefthanded high school centerfielders who impart .29nm of topspin on the ball as opposed to the norm of .21nm.

Do you have a quote or a link that states his primary goal?

[MusicMan]

Jeremy Bown, but how did that one work out?

Kevin Youkilis worked out pretty well.

[Bench]

i agree with your basic premise. some stats are useful to demonstrate what guys have done and what skills they have shown. i think both must be used and neither used to the exclusion of the other.

It is amazing how resistant some people insist on being towards such a straightforward and sensible premise. 

[Ron Brand]

Because if you ever played the game, it's all about a combination of heart, athleticism, determination and discipline. I defy you to show me a stat that shows any of that.

I guess you are unfamiliar with HADeDi/Aaaargh.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

i agree with your basic premise. some stats are useful to demonstrate what guys have done and what skills they have shown. i think both must be used and neither used to the exclusion of the other.

I think this broad approach applies to all situations where analysis is critical.  

Some of the comments made by Luhno are opinions/philosophies I share.  He made a statement that scouting and stats are all valuable based on how meaningful you can make it.  However, once you reach the point of decision, you take all the information you have, apply it to the best of your ability, and make a decision.  Once you have made the decision, move forward, do not dwell on past decisions or else you risk missing future opportunities to improve.  

[Ron Brand]

Because if you ever played the game, it's all about a combination of heart, athleticism, determination and discipline. I defy you to show me a stat that shows any of that.

Actually, out of those four you could get a fair statistical handle on two of them. That still leaves half the equation that you have to put eyeballs on.

[moriartp]

Because if you ever played the game, it's all about a combination of heart, athleticism, determination and discipline. I defy you to show me a stat that shows any of that.

I can't. But a player can have all of those things and still not be able to hit a lick.

[Bench]

I can't. But a player can have all of those things and still not be able to hit a lick.

See Deshaies, Jim. 

[Ron Brand]

See Deshaies, Jim. 

Yeah, but metrically, how does he compare to Dooley Womack? Or Wade Blasingame? We'll never know.

[moriartp]

Yeah, but metrically, how does he compare to Dooley Womack? Or Wade Blasingame? We'll never know.

TO THE STATMOBILE!!

[VirtualBob]

Yeah, but metrically, how does he compare to Dooley Womack? Or Wade Blasingame? We'll never know.

So ... your new handle will be metro-gnome then? 

[Ron Brand]

So ... your new handle will be metro-gnome then? 

Man, I hope not.

[OregonStrosFan]

It's a bad comp, but an example of what you're looking for is sorta analogous to the Astros not being afraid to go after pitchers who weren't tall. The thought was that other teams were focusing on pitchers who were 6'1" or better and leaving the shorter guys behind. That resulted in players like Oswalt being in the Astro system and their line was that the large, ignored pool of shorter pitchers gave them a lot of choices of talented players to draft and follow.

At least pre-Heck, who'd been quoted as saying: "if you're going to miss, miss big" ('big' as in 'height', not 'big' as in 'spectacular over-evaluation of talent' (which is an argument for another day...)).

[jbm]

Do you have a quote or a link that states his primary goal?

http://blogs.bettor.com/Houston-Astros-looking-keen-to-bring-in-a-new-GM-MLB-News-a117060

Postolos quote:

On Monday he said, “We’re very eager for the process to come to a conclusion, but the key thing for us is to find the right person, we continue to be focused on finding the best, and our priority is developing an outstanding farm system. We’re tending to focus on candidates who have a strong track record in scouting and player development. That’s critical for us. If you say everything is your priority, you really don’t have a priority.”

[jbm]

At least pre-Heck, who'd been quoted as saying: "if you're going to miss, miss big" ('big' as in 'height', not 'big' as in 'spectacular over-evaluation of talent' (which is an argument for another day...)).

They missed 'real big' with that catcher from Florida IIRC.

[Ron Brand]

http://blogs.bettor.com/Houston-Astros-looking-keen-to-bring-in-a-new-GM-MLB-News-a117060

Postolos quote:

I'm not following how you get to "I'm going to a stats-based approach to evaluate high schoolers" from that though.

ETA: Also, wasn't Luhnow more inclined to draft college players in his history, or am I remembering that backwards?

[jbm]

I'm not following how you get to "I'm going to a stats-based approach to evaluate high schoolers" from that though.

ETA: Also, wasn't Luhnow more inclined to draft college players in his history, or am I remembering that backwards?

Oh, you were talking about stats being a Luhnow priority.  I was talking about building the farm as an org priority.  My point is: if that is the Crane's priority, I'm not sure it calls for a stats-minded guy.

As to Luhnow, I didn't read anything directly about him being a guy who looks to stats to guide his draft selection, I just inferred it from reading that stat-minded people are happy with the hire, the discussion about him being called Harry Potter, and the inference that Heck was done because he wasn't much of a stats guy.  My real question is: how are stats used in Luhnow's primary duties of talent selection and development?  That is how I came to the question of "how would stats be used to evaluate high schoolers."  

[Ron Brand]

Oh, you were talking about stats being a Luhnow priority.  I was talking about building the farm as an org priority.  My point is: if that is the Crane's priority, I'm not sure it calls for a stats-minded guy.

As to Luhnow, I didn't read anything directly about him being a guy who looks to stats to guide his draft selection, I just inferred it from reading that stat-minded people are happy with the hire, the discussion about him being called Harry Potter, and the inference that Heck was done because he wasn't much of a stats guy.  My real question is: how are stats used in Luhnow's primary duties of talent selection and development?  That is how I came to the question of "how would stats be used to evaluate high schoolers."  

Well, now that he's in charge of the whole show maybe he'll be smart enough to use all the tools at hand and not just the wonky ones.

[Reuben]

This Levine article from a few days back applies to this discussion. And it includes a pretty indicative quote from Luhnow:

   There’s a misperception about what the winning formula is. You can’t be the elite scouting and player development organization without the best scouts and coaches in the industry. Those are baseball people who have been in this their entire life and use their good judgment and experience to make decisions.

    The complementary part is adding a whole new area, which is really utilizing whatever technology and whatever capabilities are available, whether it’s understanding medical assessments, understanding performance histories, different ways to evaluate character. There’s a lot of science that can be added to the equation.

    But it’s really all about gathering up as much valuable information as you can, organizing in a way that makes sense and making the best possible decisions.

Frankly, I thought both sides (Beane & his "stat geeks", and the scouts) looked pretty ridiculous in the Moneyball movie. I hope that there was a lot of movie-maker simplifying/embellishing going on in those war room scenes. Luhnow seems like he is not just a stubborn scout-hating stat head.

Also, one thing that occurred to me re. using "stats" to pick high school players. Perhaps its not the pitching or hitting stats a "stat-guy" GM would use, but economic and probability models that help decide how much money is wise to spend on high school players, ie. the risk/reward probabilities. Same thing with international signings. Is it wise to sign a 16-year-old Dominican kid for $5mil? Or is it better to sign 10 Dominican kids for $500k each? I'm no economist (hell, my last math class was 11th grade Pre-Calc), but I'll bet guys like Luhnow analyze a lot of data about the payoff rate on different types of prospects. Of course, you still have to sign the "right" kids, and that means scouting them, without question.

[moriartp]

The majority of Luhnow's high picks have been college players, but he's popped several high schoolers in the first round. He's also made some high-dollar signings in Latin America in the past couple of years, and I imagine they don't have performance stats on those guys. So he's definitely got a system in place that can work outside of stats and is willing to invest in that area.

[jbm]

Thanks for quote Reuben.  That explains a lot.  It portrays him more as an analyst of things which might guide player selection rather than a fanta-idiot pouring over FIPs, BABIP and K/BB ratios.  

[Mr. Happy]

I can't. But a player can have all of those things and still not be able to hit a lick.

I assumed that the player had talent, which is why a scout was there to watch him anyway. When I scouted (for three years), I looked for the little things, like missing signs, not running out ground balls, ole' plays in the field, how they dealt with adversity (umpire call going against him or an error behind him) and heart. How animated were they in the dugout. Did they look excited to be playing and were they good teammates.

[jbm]

Did you check the hotness of the girlfriend?

[Mr. Happy]

Did you check the hotness of the girlfriend?

That was my personal scouting. It was always important.

[BizidyDizidy]

I assumed that the player had talent, which is why a scout was there to watch him anyway. When I scouted (for three years), I looked for the little things, like missing signs, not running out ground balls, ole' plays in the field, how they dealt with adversity (umpire call going against him or an error behind him) and heart. How animated were they in the dugout. Did they look excited to be playing and were they good teammates.

Wow, this sounds terrible.

[Mr. Happy]

Wow, this sounds terrible.

WTF? It's the intangibles that separate those who make it from those who don't. They all have talent. Talk to any scout and they'll tell you something similar.

[Mark Arm]

So yeah, good hire.