Shanks Follows Up On His Heyward Article

Pompous jackass like he's always been. Someone had an awesome comment though:

"speaking of expectations.... I expected a well written article. I didn't read one."

I can't think of anyone who says Heyward is "great:, aside from may be some hardcore fanboys. Most "statheads" simply point out that he has been very good at a very young age. Even if he's never a superstar, he's still a very good player.
 
I'm not a stathead and I think it was a terrible article/comparison.

I also think Bill needs to develop thicker skin if he's going to continue to be publish these columns. He still comes across as a guy that HATES to be criticized.

Bottom line is Heyward is a young player still trying to figure things out. He was in the majors at the age of 20 and has had only one bad season. This one looks like it's going to end up being ok when all is said and done. Not bad, not great, just ok.

I'd love to ask Bill why he doesn't feel we should remain patient with young players anymore. What has changed? That used to be his stance all the time on players he liked. Remember how we were supposed to be patient with Davies, Reyes, Francoeur, KJ, LaRoche, etc?

Also he needs to stop acting like the difference in walks isn't a big deal, it's huge. Heyward sees the ball well out of the pitchers hand, Francoeur never did. I hold Francoeur personally responsible for how I view hitters now. Walking is one of the first things I look at. I used to think it didn't matter, now I do. You simply can't be a free swinger and be successful as a major league hitter. You have to show some sort of plate discipline. The fact that Heyward has already mastered this skill should have everyone excited about his future. There is so much talent here, it's amazing to me anyone would want to give up on him. He also works really hard and gives 100%, he's easy to pull for. I have no idea why Bill doesn't like him but it's pretty obvious he doesn't. All the things he's saying about Heyward now, he wasn't saying about Francoeur. He was solidly in his corner up until the day he was traded.
 
ChapelHillMatt said:
I'm not a stathead and I think it was a terrible article/comparison.

I also think Bill needs to develop thicker skin if he's going to continue to be publish these columns. He still comes across as a guy that HATES to be criticized.

Bottom line is Heyward is a young player still trying to figure things out. He was in the majors at the age of 20 and has had only one bad season. This one looks like it's going to end up being ok when all is said and done. Not bad, not great, just ok.

I'd love to ask Bill why he doesn't feel we should remain patient with young players anymore. What has changed? That used to be his stance all the time on players he liked. Remember how we were supposed to be patient with Davies, Reyes, Francoeur, KJ, LaRoche, etc?

Also he needs to stop acting like the difference in walks isn't a big deal, it's huge. Heyward sees the ball well out of the pitchers hand, Francoeur never did. I hold Francoeur personally responsible for how I view hitters now. Walking is one of the first things I look at. I used to think it didn't matter, now I do. You simply can't be a free swinger and be successful as a major league hitter. You have to show some sort of plate discipline. The fact that Heyward has already mastered this skill should have everyone excited about his future. There is so much talent here, it's amazing to me anyone would want to give up on him. He also works really hard and gives 100%, he's easy to pull for. I have no idea why Bill doesn't like him but it's pretty obvious he doesn't. All the things he's saying about Heyward now, he wasn't saying about Francoeur. He was solidly in his corner up until the day he was traded.
Click to expand...

You always hate to play this card, but pretty much all of those players have one obvious thing in common (well except for Reyes perhaps, but Bill was never really high on him as I recall).
 
Its silly to ignore stats at this point. Every front office in the game have a few guys who are analytical. Bill needs to get into the modern times.
 
One of the guys from Talking Chop (formerly Capitol Avenue Club) writes a rebuttal to Bill's lousy excuse for an article.

http://www.talkingchop.com/2013/7/8/4504196/how-not-to-be-a-journalist

Now that would just make the article bad. What makes the article laughably bad is the hubris that allows someone to write an article entirely about himself, and publish it in a small town paper. Bill devotes an entire paragraph about why he supposes that statheads don't like him. Which his belief is that it's due to him writing an anti-Moneyball book 8 years ago. I'll say that based on the book's sales, it's not even possible that this is a main (let alone the primary) reason why he's disliked. I've never even read Moneyball, and I don't even actually know anybody that read his anti-Moneyball book personally. I don't even dislike Bill Shanks, I think he's just incredibly awful at his job (unless that is, if his actual job is being unintentionally hilariously bad at his nominal job).
Click to expand...

In all honesty, does Bill really think statheads hate him because he wrote Scout's Honor? I never read it. I think Neyer wrote a piece on hit and blasting it, but as far as I know, no one else has ever even mentioned the book.
 
Gary82 said:
One of the guys from Talking Chop (formerly Capitol Avenue Club) writes a rebuttal to Bill's lousy excuse for an article.

http://www.talkingchop.com/2013/7/8/4504196/how-not-to-be-a-journalist

In all honesty, does Bill really think statheads hate him because he wrote Scout's Honor? I never read it. I think Neyer wrote a piece on hit and blasting it, but as far as I know, no one else has ever even mentioned the book.
Click to expand...

That was just a book plug. All the guy does is try to plug a ten year old book because he can't write anything else.
 
I'm one of the apparently small number of people who has read Scout's Honor. It is a pretty good read and I enjoyed it. It has lots of great stories about how scouts found various Braves prospects and how they evaluate players in general. It increased my appreciation of scouts.

Bill seems to think it was a refutation of Moneyball. I don't think so. I'm not sure Bill even understands what the "market inefficiency" approach is. And the idea that there is some sort of war between statheads and traditional scouting is a red herring/strawman/whatever you want to call it. Any decent front office will combine both strands of information.
 
The fact he can "stomach" OBP, just goes to show he still hasn't gotten over this false war between statheads and scouts. When was the last time someone tried to argue against OBP!? Most people have moved on from that ridiculous debate.

He mentions that he looks at RBI. smh
 
nsacpi said:
I'm one of the apparently small number of people who has read Scout's Honor. It is a pretty good read and I enjoyed it. It has lots of great stories about how scouts found various Braves prospects and how they evaluate players in general. It increased my appreciation of scouts.

Bill seems to think it was a refutation of Moneyball. I don't think so. I'm not sure Bill even understands what the "market inefficiency" approach is. And the idea that there is some war between statheads and traditional scouting is a red herring/strawman/whatever you want to call it. Any decent front office will combine both strands of information.
Click to expand...

I've actually read Scout's Honor also and I completely agree with your assessment. Bill actually did something decent with that book, and now has resorted to penning silly little newspaper articles for hits.
 
I enjoyed scouts honor just because of the stories. But Bill needs to break out of tge stoneage....you need stats to evaulate.
 
Stats are fine, to a point. I like seeing what a player’s batting average is, how many home runs and RBI he has and can even stomach seeing what the on-base percentage is. But get too far past that, and it is just gets to be too much. Let the young kids sit with their calculators and watch the games. That’s fine. I don’t need that and neither do most who watch baseball.

Read more here: http://www.macon.com/2013/07/08/2548583/statheads-see-a-different-game.html#storylink=cpy
Click to expand...

This quote contains the limits of Bill's baseball intelligence and a prime example of his petulance.
 
nsacpi said:
I'm one of the apparently small number of people who has read Scout's Honor. It is a pretty good read and I enjoyed it. It has lots of great stories about how scouts found various Braves prospects and how they evaluate players in general. It increased my appreciation of scouts.

Bill seems to think it was a refutation of Moneyball. I don't think so. I'm not sure Bill even understands what the "market inefficiency" approach is. And the idea that there is some sort of war between statheads and traditional scouting is a red herring/strawman/whatever you want to call it. Any decent front office will combine both strands of information.
Click to expand...

At the time he wrote the book which I think was 2004-2005, there were still some front offices that you could tell had major scout favoritism over saber. Jocketty in St. Louis, Ryan in Minnesota, JS in Atlanta. There were only a handful of Moneyball GM's at that time as well. Now it's more accepted in the game, but back at the time he wrote it I think he felt it was a refutation of Moneyball because there was somewhat of a debate back then.
 
Carp said:
You always hate to play this card, but pretty much all of those players have one obvious thing in common (well except for Reyes perhaps, but Bill was never really high on him as I recall).
Click to expand...

Bill was stupid high on Reyes. I was one of the few who thought he was a bum and would stay it. Bill had everyone drooling over his fastball and I said it stank.
 
nsacpi said:
I'm one of the apparently small number of people who has read Scout's Honor. It is a pretty good read and I enjoyed it. It has lots of great stories about how scouts found various Braves prospects and how they evaluate players in general. It increased my appreciation of scouts.

Bill seems to think it was a refutation of Moneyball. I don't think so. I'm not sure Bill even understands what the "market inefficiency" approach is. And the idea that there is some sort of war between statheads and traditional scouting is a red herring/strawman/whatever you want to call it. Any decent front office will combine both strands of information.
Click to expand...

I read it and thought it was a cool read on the Braves history during the run with a little insight into scouting. It's attempts to refute Moneyball is where I think it failed as a book. He never grasped the market inefficiency route. Even if that's the route the Braves have been taking for the last few years.
 
I'm not sure Bill even read Moneyball. It's kinda hard to refute something if you don't know what it is.
 
BravesFanInSAV said:
At the time he wrote the book which I think was 2004-2005, there were still some front offices that you could tell had major scout favoritism over saber. Jocketty in St. Louis, Ryan in Minnesota, JS in Atlanta. There were only a handful of Moneyball GM's at that time as well. Now it's more accepted in the game, but back at the time he wrote it I think he felt it was a refutation of Moneyball because there was somewhat of a debate back then.
Click to expand...

I think that's right. Things started to change for the Braves around 2006. Here is an interview with John Copollella, who I believe has helped to meld the two approaches for the Braves.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/09/gm-candidate-john-coppolella.html

Also an interesting chat with Copollella:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/chat/chat.php?chatId=868

If you read what he has to say you will see how much the Braves value both statistics and scouting. Combining the two infuses everything the Braves do.
 
I bought and read Scout's Honor. I enjoyed the stories but I was expecting a more cohesive book, not a few random stories from Braves scouts with very little connecting thread. It seemed underdone and under-edited, like it was rushed before the writer had a clear idea of what he was trying to say.

For Braves fans it's still a good read but it doesn't hold up as an important baseball book, or a thorough and well thought out counter argument to Moneyball, and that's the way it was presented at Scout.com.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top