Quote:
Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave
And my point is if it went away tomorrow we can still come to confident conclusions about players and their ability to hit the ball hard because we have other tools. To give the example of Kris Bryant from another post, last year he had his lowest career home rate (way down from 2016). At the same time he hit doubles at a rate much higher than previous seasons. Given these two pieces of data, do you as a thinking logical intelligent person believe we can conclude that he wasn't hitting the ball as hard (still hard enough to find the gaps for doubles) and as often as before? Or, would you argue that we can only determine that Bryant wasn't hitting the ball as hard and often with AEV data, as there are no other tools at our disposal? If AEV showed a decline last year, all that data is doing is validating what we saw in other data. If you know the actual MPH down the tenth it won't change what the other data showed-a decline in power last year. In other words, AEV didn't tell what we didn't already know from other data.
|
so you'd rather use less basic knoweldge that is influenced by numerous other factors that can cloud and hide the reality of the situation, rather than the actual components and physics that make up a well-hit ball?
somewhat true, but far less accurate information for all the reasons i stated. no it isn't redundant. it is just more refined.
it tells us more, simple as that. it is more useful information when you break things down inot the smallest factors and know those factors with greater precision. there's a reason why clubs that have embraced intelligent analysis vs. traditional dogma are doing better.
this is how all of physics, chemistry and important sciences work... we couldn't predict the exact moment of an eclipse without understanding of the basics that cause that result. by understanding newton's three laws of energy and mass you can deduce many things you absolutely could never do with your eye. a human's perception is >1% of reality. that's always key to remember.. you see virtually nothing... you experience virtually nothing compared to the total of reality. our senses are horrendously incompetent.
there's no magic key or bullet... there is greater understanding and precision, which will undoubtedly result in better decisiosn... and when you are in a multi-billion dollar industry, there is good reason to dig deeper than your competition. it is a competitive advantage that will be revealed over time, but not necessarily in the short-term.
think of it as some idiot who refuses to take a two-strike approach and ends up not in the mlb in a few years... just a bit smarter and realistic and he might have stayed longer. 'winging' it with your eye is just as dumb when you have other better tools at your disposal.
would you use a themometer that's +/-5 degrees just because that's what you traditionally use because that's what your daddy taught you? or use the one with greater accuracy because it's important to your greenhouse to be more precise? that's basically what this decision is about... greater precision. greater accuracy of data.
will it matter all the time that the themostat is more accurate? no, but some portion of the time it will avoid problems or increase yields etc etc... that's the key... over time you make better decisions than your counterparts. you can only do that with proper data collection and proper data mining techniques -- which will involve those traditionalists if they break out of the bah-humbug confrontational nonsnese over things they don't quite understand. they are essential to proper implementation of any analytics department... they experience is essential to asking the right questions and providing the right data for each situation that they can use it.
you are basically looking at somethign that works better and more precisely and saying it doesn't matter... but over time it most certainly does. if you make 5% less mistakes than your counterparts you are going to dominate them over time or at least consistently better in some measureable way.