It uses an unreasonable example. People who support observation aren’t claiming that watching an extraordinarily short performance provides evidence for a conclusion.

They’re used to stats that can be very misleading, and so they insist the same about all stats, even though sabermetric stats are designed to avoid the pitfalls of more conventional stats.

This as an argument based on two false assumptions. One that people who value observation as a means of evaluation do so because some stats are incomplete. The other is that “sabermetric” stats avoid those pitfalls. Good luck coming up with science to support that.

There’s still a place for observation as well, although it’s more important in some contexts than others. Talking about a player’s achievements after he’s retired isn’t one of them.

And that if you want lots of data, statistics is exactly what you’re looking for.

But I’ll argue that the main advantage of scouting is that you get to watch the process, not just the outcomes. You get to see how a hitters’ swing adapts to a curveball, a fastball, and a slider in the dirt. You get to see how quickly a second baseman gets a jump on a ground ball. You get to see if a pitcher is maximizing his velocity or if he’ll benefit from changes in mechanics. Whether the hitter actually crushes a fastball, whether the second baseman actually ends up tracking down the ground ball, or whether the pitcher actually manages to blow a fastball by the hitter is irrelevant to scouting. I don’t think sabermetricians would disagree that it’s about the process, not the outcome.

That being said, most amateur scouts (i.e. fans) are really bad at what they claim to be doing. Your eyes don’t tell you “that guy’s a good fielder” or “that guy’s a good hitter”. They tell you “wow, that guy made an acrobatic dive” and “that guy just put a sweet swing on that fastball in an important situation”. Those things are positives, but only small pieces of the puzzle and mostly results-oriented. Your eyes provide data, but your head has to know what to look for, what’s important, and how to analyze what you see. Most fans don’t know how to do that, and neither do I. The difference between them and me is that I know my limitations.

i know something is dumb when i see it.

For numbers to really matter, there needs to be ~600 AB or BF to really start getting good numbers for a batter or a pitcher ability. Anything less than that is could be noise. Scouting really comes into play when sample size is less than ~600 AB or BF and results (numbers) are more useful after that point.

Beane liked college players because he had enough data to tell if the talent was any good. With HS and Latin America players, scouts are more important. With HS talent, they are such heads and tails better than the people they play against, it is tough to get a true gauge of there ability, except in All-Star tournaments where there is a small sample size.

that someone who could make use of both sabermetric stats and a keen scouting eye wouldn’t be significantly better equipped than a person who could only do one?

Obviously they’ve both got merit. But to someone like me who doesn’t scout baseball for a living, I just watch it as a fan, the stats help me understand some of the things I might observe, but not be able to understand or explain.

The eyes, for major league vets, for me, would probably be there to tell me WHY the stats are changing as opposed to IF the stats will change or what the stats will be.

That’s almost a Russian Reversal!