The 2006 Scouting Report, By The Fans, For The Fans

[CubinNY]

I think the poll is interesting from scientific perspective. There are all sorts of corelational data that could be gathered comaparing objective data vs. subjective opinion.

 

It's valuable in investigating the opinon of fans. However, I think the data could easily be skewed pretty easily.

[tangotiger]

CubInNY is right. However, by only reaching out to hardcore nuts like people here, I hope to not attract the people who wouldn't take this seriously. Nonetheless, it takes a good 5 minutes to fill it out, so that's a disincentive right there.

 

***

 

And when USSoccer says it's "nothing but opinions", he's right! That's what a I want! It's not a knock against the system.

 

Do people know what a preconceived notion is? Preconceived notions don't change year-to-year! Opinions do. I want opinions, not preconceived notions. The Mets fans had a preconceived notion that Kaz Matsui was a GG in Japan. Did you see how they rated him?

 

Do people have preconceived notions about other rookies or new players on the team? Do those sway their eventual opinions? I can go case-by-case showing that's not true. I suppose it's incumbent on me to make the case.

 

However, some people who respond here have incredibly strong preconceived notions that this poll is no better than an ESPN poll. I don't expect to sway those people, just those who are on the fence.

 

***

 

As for Izturis, the results on my site are based on Cub and Dodger fans. I do have the results separately as well, but I haven't posted that yet.

[USSoccer]

 

And when USSoccer says it's "nothing but opinions", he's right! That's what a I want! It's not a knock against the system.

 

Do people know what a preconceived notion is? Preconceived notions don't change year-to-year! Opinions do. I want opinions, not preconceived notions. The Mets fans had a preconceived notion that Kaz Matsui was a GG in Japan. Did you see how they rated him?

 

The problem with opinions is that they are heavily influenced by a media that regurgitates cliches and conventional wisdom. Just because they change every year does not mean they become more accurate.

[goonys evil twin]

***

 

And when USSoccer says it's "nothing but opinions", he's right! That's what a I want! It's not a knock against the system.

 

Do people know what a preconceived notion is? Preconceived notions don't change year-to-year! Opinions do. I want opinions, not preconceived notions. The Mets fans had a preconceived notion that Kaz Matsui was a GG in Japan. Did you see how they rated him?

 

Do people have preconceived notions about other rookies or new players on the team? Do those sway their eventual opinions? I can go case-by-case showing that's not true. I suppose it's incumbent on me to make the case.

 

However, some people who respond here have incredibly strong preconceived notions that this poll is no better than an ESPN poll. I don't expect to sway those people, just those who are on the fence.

 

***

 

 

 

Preconceived notions change over time. A preconceived notion is an opinion formed beforehand without adequate evidence. After a full year of hearing something different about a player, your preconceived notions could easily be different. You aren't born with a set of preconceived notions that never change. It's about forming an opinion based on inadequate evidence. One of those things is the opinion of so-called experts, as well as a specific play or set of plays that burns in your mind. Those aren't adequate for making any sort of objective analysis of a players' defense.

[USSoccer]

One of those things is the opinion of so-called experts, as well as a specific play or set of plays that burns in your mind. Those aren't adequate for making any sort of objective analysis of a players' defense.

 

Exactly right. Aramis Ramirez had a pretty good defensive season, but the play that would likely stick in the casual fan's memory would be the popup he lost track of that bounced off his head against Atlanta that helped them lose that game. An entire season of improved 3B play would be negated by that one memorable bad play.

 

The same could be said for Juan Pierre's defense. People think he's fast, and therefore a great defensive CF, but his arm strength and routes suck. His routes don't translate well to TV, and armstrength is something the average fan would more likely ignore.

 

Derek Jeter is a pretty average SS, but I'll bet people remember the play against Oakland in the NLDS and the dive into the stands against Boston, and conclude he's great defensively.

[SouthSideRyan]

I think you're confused as to what type of people are filling this out if you think the people rating Jeter are thinking about him diving into the stands. Tango isn't posting this stuff on cubs.com forums.

[goonys evil twin]

I think you're confused as to what type of people are filling this out if you think the people rating Jeter are thinking about him diving into the stands. Tango isn't posting this stuff on cubs.com forums.

 

People on NSBB.com are not immune to the subjective opinions of others influencing their interpretation of defensive play.

[USSoccer]

I think you're confused as to what type of people are filling this out if you think the people rating Jeter are thinking about him diving into the stands. Tango isn't posting this stuff on cubs.com forums.

 

People on NSBB.com are not immune to the subjective opinions of others influencing their interpretation of defensive play.

 

Exactly. I know I have a bias in favor of ARam. I'm sure others have biases for and against others. Just because NSBB is generally a very knowledgable site doesn't mean we're immune for bias.

[tangotiger]

Your comment about Jeter is completely off-base. I'll repeat this once more: Yankee fans rated him as an average SS! Can you at least click on the link I provided so you can see for yourself?

 

***

 

Ok, now are arguing about the semantics. Yes, preconceived notions are opinions formed without adequate evidence. Opinions are subjective and influenced by preconceived notions, and influenced by opinions of other people.

 

I am looking for MLB fans with opinions. If you want to argue that most fans' opinions are influenced by preconceived notions and/or the opinions of others, that that forms their large basis, fine. I don't agree or disagree. However, I believe that the fans who fill out my ballot are relying much more on their fair observation, and try to minimize, as best they can, the other influences.

 

Like I said, it's incumbent on me to show that. If you choose to dismiss the results outright, that's your choice, and this project was not aimed at you. I personally find it fascinating when I click on Juan Pierre's page and see this:

http://www.tangotiger.net/scouting/sim2006_6550.html

 

Prior to coming to Chicago, it would have been interesting to know that, wouldn't you say? In fact, this is the sim report of Juan Pierre last year, based on the Marlins fans:

http://www.tangotiger.net/scouting/sim2005_334393.html

 

Notice how many overlapping players there are?

 

Again, you can argue that the overlapping players proves that the fans simply represented the conventional viewpoint without any of their own input. Fine, again. But, this project does at least represent that in a quanitifiable form that will have historical significance, if I can reach the serious hardcore fan.

[USSoccer]

Your comment about Jeter is completely off-base. I'll repeat this once more: Yankee fans rated him as an average SS! Can you at least click on the link I provided so you can see for yourself?

 

***

 

Ok, now are arguing about the semantics. Yes, preconceived notions are opinions formed without adequate evidence. Opinions are subjective and influenced by preconceived notions, and influenced by opinions of other people.

 

I am looking for MLB fans with opinions. If you want to argue that most fans' opinions are influenced by preconceived notions and/or the opinions of others, that that forms their large basis, fine. I don't agree or disagree. However, I believe that the fans who fill out my ballot are relying much more on their fair observation, and try to minimize, as best they can, the other influences.

 

Like I said, it's incumbent on me to show that. If you choose to dismiss the results outright, that's your choice, and this project was not aimed at you. I personally find it fascinating when I click on Juan Pierre's page and see this:

http://www.tangotiger.net/scouting/sim2006_6550.html

 

Prior to coming to Chicago, it would have been interesting to know that, wouldn't you say? In fact, this is the sim report of Juan Pierre last year, based on the Marlins fans:

http://www.tangotiger.net/scouting/sim2005_334393.html

 

Notice how many overlapping players there are?

 

Again, you can argue that the overlapping players proves that the fans simply represented the conventional viewpoint without any of their own input. Fine, again. But, this project does at least represent that in a quanitifiable form that will have historical significance, if I can reach the serious hardcore fan.

 

How do you plan on filtering the data long term to eliminate the opinions given by the less informed? I don't see how time is going to self correct opinions.

 

You brought up Jeter and Yankee fans, but does your survey account for the opinions of fans of other teams? Also, how do you account for Ramirez's poor rating when he was clearly better than his rating would indicate?

[goonys evil twin]

If you choose to dismiss the results outright, that's your choice, and this project was not aimed at you. I personally find it fascinating when I click on Juan Pierre's page and see this:

http://www.tangotiger.net/scouting/sim2006_6550.html

 

Prior to coming to Chicago, it would have been interesting to know that, wouldn't you say? In fact, this is the sim report of Juan Pierre last year, based on the Marlins fans:

http://www.tangotiger.net/scouting/sim2005_334393.html

 

Notice how many overlapping players there are?

 

What makes you think people haven't clicked on this already?

 

Please explain the fascinating part to me on Pierre.

 

What do you mean it "wasn't aimed at you"? Who is "you" in that sentance and who was it aimed at?

 

 

I'm not dismissing anything. I just said I don't understand the point. Seems to me like instead of explaining things you decided that anybody who didn't openly applaud your effort was simply too much of a simpleton to understand or appreciate the site. I believe the results tell you what a limited number of fans think about a certain player. I don't think it's all that interesting to read the hyperbolic lovefest by certain bloggers about their favorite player. It would be interesting to see how many people voted for players on every team, how many people voted for just one team, etc.

[tangotiger]

It would be interesting to see how many people voted for players on every team, how many people voted for just one team, etc.

 

If you read the project:

http://www.tangotiger.net/scouting/

 

You would know I said this:

 

What I would like to do now is tap that pool of talent. I want you to tell me what your eyes see. I want you to tell me how good or bad a fielder is. Go down, and start selecting the team(s) that you watch all the time. For any player that you've seen play in at least 10 games in 2006, I want you to judge his performance in 7 specific fielding categories.

 

So, it's only fans of the Cubs that would evaluate the Cub players.

 

There is of course a team-bias issue, which I calibrate that each team is equally biased. (For example the average score was 3.3 for each team, which I reset down to a 3.0. But, perhaps some team fans are more biased than others.)

 

On my blog, I go through all the possible issues of the project.

 

***

 

As for the "you", most of the comments made were dismissive rather than skeptical. Comments on Jeter clearly show that no effort was made to look at the results. Earlier comments came in with preconceived notions on the project, likening it to ESPN, without any questions as to who the voters are, or the quality control I institute.

 

If you don't see any benefit from the outset, this project is not for you.

 

If you see potential, but are worried about bias and other sampling issues, this project is for you. Detail your concerns, and we can try to handle them. If you think results at the player level will be sketchy, but at the group level (say like, how are SS perceived relative to 1B), then that's another benefit. If you think seeing who else Juan Pierre or Aaron Rowand compares to, this is for you.

 

***

 

As for USSoccer's comment about what is clear about Ramirez: you've illustrated my point that you should ignore the opinion of any one person, in favor of a group of people. Now, not just any group, but given the choice between listening to one superfan, or 44 NSBB fans, I'll take the 44 fans here.

 

***

 

What is interesting is that these message boards are aimed at fans talking to other fans about their opinions on their team, players, and games. All I'm doing is collecting some of that information. If you don't care what your fellow fans are thinking, that's fine.

[goonys evil twin]

It would be interesting to see how many people voted for players on every team, how many people voted for just one team, etc.

 

If you read the project:

http://www.tangotiger.net/scouting/

 

You would know I said this:

 

What I would like to do now is tap that pool of talent. I want you to tell me what your eyes see. I want you to tell me how good or bad a fielder is. Go down, and start selecting the team(s) that you watch all the time. For any player that you've seen play in at least 10 games in 2006, I want you to judge his performance in 7 specific fielding categories.

 

So, it's only fans of the Cubs that would evaluate the Cub players.

 

If you don't mind, please stop insinuating I did not read the project. You act as if anybody who questions the project either is not smart enough to understand, or didn't actually read it.

 

So were people not allowed to rank an opposing player? If not, then there's no control over whether or not people followed your directions.

 

 

There is of course a team-bias issue, which I calibrate that each team is equally biased. (For example the average score was 3.3 for each team, which I reset down to a 3.0. But, perhaps some team fans are more biased than others.)

 

On my blog, I go through all the possible issues of the project.

 

***

 

As for the "you", most of the comments made were dismissive rather than skeptical. Comments on Jeter clearly show that no effort was made to look at the results. Earlier comments came in with preconceived notions on the project, likening it to ESPN, without any questions as to who the voters are, or the quality control I institute.

 

If you don't see any benefit from the outset, this project is not for you.

 

If you see potential, but are worried about bias and other sampling issues, this project is for you. Detail your concerns, and we can try to handle them. If you think results at the player level will be sketchy, but at the group level (say like, how are SS perceived relative to 1B), then that's another benefit. If you think seeing who else Juan Pierre or Aaron Rowand compares to, this is for you.

 

***

 

As for USSoccer's comment about what is clear about Ramirez: you've illustrated my point that you should ignore the opinion of any one person, in favor of a group of people. Now, not just any group, but given the choice between listening to one superfan, or 44 NSBB fans, I'll take the 44 fans here.

 

***

 

What is interesting is that these message boards are aimed at fans talking to other fans about their opinions on their team, players, and games. All I'm doing is collecting some of that information. If you don't care what your fellow fans are thinking, that's fine.

 

Again, what is the fascinating part about Pierre? What would you have wanted to know about him before 2006 that we didn't know before seeing something like this?

 

This is an opinion poll. You seem to take offense and dismiss as amateurs those who think so. I read through the project. I did when I first saw it, and I did when I saw it again. Yet you insist on acting as though anybody who questions the point of such a poll must not have even taken a look.

[USSoccer]

 

As for the "you", most of the comments made were dismissive rather than skeptical. Comments on Jeter clearly show that no effort was made to look at the results. Earlier comments came in with preconceived notions on the project, likening it to ESPN, without any questions as to who the voters are, or the quality control I institute.

 

If you don't see any benefit from the outset, this project is not for you.

 

 

As for USSoccer's comment about what is clear about Ramirez: you've illustrated my point that you should ignore the opinion of any one person, in favor of a group of people. Now, not just any group, but given the choice between listening to one superfan, or 44 NSBB fans, I'll take the 44 fans here.

 

First off, my Jeter comment was an example of specific plays influencing opinion.

 

Second of all, I have read your survey instructions, and it's still unclear about methodology. What is your control? What is your margin of error? In your Ramirez comment, you're choosing what could be a mass delusion over a singular truth. I'm not saying that my opinion of his fielding is gospel, because fielding ability is pretty subjective-the variables are too many to quantify by most metrics accurately, but what I am saying is that choosing the popular opinion is not always accurate.

 

What bothers me and what's making me question the validity of this entire project is that it's just an opinion poll. There's seemingly nothing scientific about your ratings, or the method of collection. If's a very detailed opinion poll, but in the end it's asking 50 people their opinion, which is not a statistically valid sample size, nor are the questions being asked easily answered in opinion form.

 

Finally, you keep pointing out change from year to year, but are you asking the exact same people year in and year out their opinions on the same players? If you're asking different people, how is any movement in the ratings statistically signifigant? It's just 50 other people's opinions.

 

I'll ask you directly: What is the goal of your survey?

[tangotiger]

Goal: I've already answered that question. So, let me repeat my answers, and expand some:

1. Collect data from hardcore fans, as a way to represent how a hardcore fan thinks

2. Use this data as a historical reference point

3. Use this data to find similar players on other teams

4. Use this data to compare players across positions

5. Use this data to see how opposing fans think of their own players

6. Compare this scouting data to performance data (like UZR and Dewan)

 

The last one is interesting. UZR correlates year-to-year with an r=.50 (r-squared = .25). Fans to UZR correlates at r=.35 (r-squared of .12). When I run UZR+Fans against next year's UZR, I get an r of .60 (r-squared of .36). If the Fans and UZR were completely independent (that is, Fans are not influenced by the data as UZR sees it), we would have expected an r-squared of .37. If Fans were completely dependent on UZR, it would have remained at .25. We got .36. The Fans are providing additional information that UZR would need so that it has a better population to regress to.

 

As for your points, they are valid. I don't disagree with them.

 

***

 

99%+ of the respondents evaluated only one team.

[goonys evil twin]

Goal: I've already answered that question. So, let me repeat my answers, and expand some:

1. Collect data from hardcore fans, as a way to represent how a hardcore fan thinks

2. Use this data as a historical reference point

3. Use this data to find similar players on other teams

 

Doesn't it really just find players who are evaluated similiary by fans of other teams?

[tangotiger]

Oh, one of the issues that I'm addressing is the validity of the Fans' opinions (as this has been discussed on my site at length). What I'll be doing is canvassing for "superfans", fans that would be considered amateur scouts, dedicated to baseball, and spending the extra time to collect information. This will form a basis against which the hardcore fans will be compared to.

 

***

 

I've seen professional scouting reports from MLB teams. One thing is clear is that scouts are overworked, providing limited useful information, when they focus on players for jsut a game or two. For one player, the scout changed his opinion on Francoeur's arm from "average" to "great" in the span of 3 months. Other reports that I saw also had that kind of inconsistency. A more focused look, like the superfan being told to just focus on the Cub infielders for 30 games, would be much more insightful.

 

***

 

Any suggestions you'd like to present to improve the project, I'd be interested in.

[tangotiger]

Doesn't it really just find players who are evaluated similiary by fans of other teams?

 

Yes.