What the heck is Fangraphs, and why do people care?

[Monkeypaws]

Seems like a buttload of rubbish everytime I read it, yet it is posted as gospel. What gives?

 

Are these pro scouts, or pro bloggers?

[Brock Beauchamp]

They all live in their moms' basements, for sure.

[nicksaviking]

Seems like a buttload of rubbish everytime I read it, yet it is posted as gospel. What gives?

 

Are these pro scouts, or pro bloggers?

Depends which team you ask. Some teams use them for employee recruitment.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/job-posting-astros-internship/

 

Personally, I've never seen rubbish there.

[jokin]

 

Depends which team you ask. Some teams use them for employee recruitment.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/job-posting-astros-internship/

Personally, I've never seen rubbish there.

 

It's called Revenge of the Nerds....

 

Fangraphs is Aaron Gleeman on steroids...

 

The Twins FO are Neanderthals or Dead Men Walking by comparison- as baseball is morphing into a self-contained quantum physics real-time laboratory.

 

Not really a buttload of rubbish- although Twins management seems too inclined to all too often come to such a conclusion- they've been far behind the trend curve on the mathematical aspects of where baseball is heading- for years on end.

[iron wolf]

Buttload of rubbish?  Hardly. Indispensable information used by so many front offices in baseball and those of us who are stat geeks.  

 

If you want to dig deeper into why certain players will outperform or underperform expectations, or simply learn what type of metrics to look for when evaluating a player, check it out.

 

Obviously, it's not the gospel. It can't measure adjustments players make---which happens all the time---and it can't measure character, specifically the willingness of a player to work hard to improve his game and learn from his coaches.  But it's a useful tool nonetheless.

[USAFChief]

Buttload of rubbish? Hardly. Indispensable information used by so many front offices in baseball and those of us who are stat geeks.

 

If you want to dig deeper into why certain players will outperform or underperform expectations, or simply learn what type of metrics to look for when evaluating a player, check it out.

 

Obviously, it's not the gospel. It can't measure adjustments players make---which happens all the time---and it can't measure character, specifically the willingness of a player to work hard to improve his game and learn from his coaches. But it's a useful tool nonetheless.

1. I would be surprised if many front offices rely on Fangraphs for their indispensable information. I presume they rely on themselves for the majority of it.

 

2. I would frame paragraph two more as "dig deeper into some theories about why certain players might over or under perform expectations." But even that is problematic. Which expectations? Mine? Yours? Their own?

 

3. I also think "add some possibly valuable additional metrics for evaluating players" might be more accurate.

 

Describing "Fangraphs" in absolute terms, either as "rubbish" or "indispensible information" jumps the gun, IMO. Neither viewpoint has fact on their side.

[Brock Beauchamp]

It's called Revenge of the Nerds....

 

Fangraphs is Aaron Gleeman on steroids...

 

The Twins FO are Neanderthals or Dead Men Walking by comparison- as baseball is morphing into a self-contained quantum physics real-time laboratory.

 

Not really a buttload of rubbish- although Twins management seems too inclined to all too often come to such a conclusion- they've been far behind the trend curve on the mathematical aspects of where baseball is heading- for years on end.

Fangraphs has been quite bullish on the Twins system and many of its young players. They seem to be pretty big fans of a lot of what Ryan has done in recent years.

 

So many you should hold off on the "Neanderthal" comments and stop taking potshots at the team every other post.

[nytwinsfan]

Who the heck are these kids on my lawn, and why won't they get off it?

[Thrylos]

Fangraphs is a site.  Like this site.  Lots of people writing there and have lots of different, often conflicting, points of view.  Like this site.   One can disagree with a particular individual's opinion, but not the site.  Fangraphs has no opinion.  In addition to the individual opinions, it has facts (stats and projections - numbers) that are the results of certain mathematical equations.  One can argue about the use of those stats and projections and argue what they can possibly mean, but if one disagrees on whether or not 1+1 = 2 or 3/6 = .500, it is a totally different story.

 

 

[nicksaviking]

1. I would be surprised if many front offices rely on Fangraphs for their indispensable information. I presume they rely on themselves for the majority of it.

2. I would frame paragraph two more as "dig deeper into some theories about why certain players might over or under perform expectations." But even that is problematic. Which expectations? Mine? Yours? Their own?

3. I also think "add some possibly valuable additional metrics for evaluating players" might be more accurate.

Describing "Fangraphs" in absolute terms, either as "rubbish" or "indispensible information" jumps the gun, IMO. Neither viewpoint has fact on their side.

I agree. Front offices should have their own data bases and projections to rely on.

 

Not saying that front offices shouldn't read it for news and alternate ideas though. I wouldn't trust a front office that couldn't find value in reading Fangraphs any more than I'd trust a stock broker who couldn't find value in reading The Wall Street Journal.

[jimmer]

Fangraphs is a site that has quite a few writers that MLB teams recruit.  And some have actually worked for teams in various roles, whether it's part of the FO or as scouts.  

[jimmer]

 

I agree. Front offices should have their own data bases and projections to rely on.

 

Or they can just steal Fangraphs writers and let those guys create them :-)

[Otto von Ballpark]

"What the heck is Fangraphs?"

 

I understand it is a series of tubes...

[Celebrity Weddings!]

It's been about five months since the Twins have played a game that counts, and fangraphs just posted - for free - a nearly 7000 word article going twenty-five players deep in the Twins system, complete with video for the top five, current/likely/ceiling grades of every tool for the full twenty-five, and an extensive miscellany section that included a thorough consideration of the future of Niko Goodrum.

 

Until we get to games that actually matter and we can can spill each other's blood about whether Millone is inducing poor contact or just getting really lucky, Fangraphs just gave us Christmas in March. So why wouldn't I care? Why is enjoying the crap out of a delightfully well-timed flood of commentary mean anybody's treating it as "gospel?"

[Brock Beauchamp]

"What the heck is Fangraphs?"

 

I understand it is a series of tubes...

Well played, sir.

[Hrbowski]

I love reading Fangraphs. Great stuff.

[bird]

As a fan, I love Fangraphs. As for how much credibility one assigns to its content? To each his own. It seems to me that having a strong opinion about how much utility a MLB team might derive from Fangraphs is a bit presumptuous.

 

I personally learn something from the site. My only criticism is related to how people mention projections and then misconstrue them as being more "reliable" (i.e. predictive) and more valuable that they actually are. My complaint is not with the content itself.

 

One thing I found interesting was a couple of tweets, I think by a guy named Mike Newman, who was extremely critical of Farnsworth and what he published. He took special exception to what he claimed was Farnsworth's use and plagarization of scouting reports and videos that scouts had prepared and been paid pennies for, and turning them into free content on Fangraphs. Did others catch that?

[jokin]

 

Not saying that front offices shouldn't read it for news and alternate ideas though. I wouldn't trust a front office that couldn't find value in reading Fangraphs any more than I'd trust a stock broker who couldn't find value in reading The Wall Street Journal.

 

Nailed it, Nick.

[Jack Goin]

 

It's called Revenge of the Nerds....

 

Fangraphs is Aaron Gleeman on steroids...

 

The Twins FO are Neanderthals or Dead Men Walking by comparison- as baseball is morphing into a self-contained quantum physics real-time laboratory.

 

Not really a buttload of rubbish- although Twins management seems too inclined to all too often come to such a conclusion- they've been far behind the trend curve on the mathematical aspects of where baseball is heading- for years on end.

He we go again....

[TheLeviathan]

 

One thing I found interesting was a couple of tweets, I think by a guy named Mike Newman, who was extremely critical of Farnsworth and what he published. He took special exception to what he claimed was Farnsworth's use and plagarization of scouting reports and videos that scouts had prepared and been paid pennies for, and turning them into free content on Fangraphs. Did others catch that?

 

I saw that, I often wonder how people think these indepth reports on hundreds of players come straight from one writer.  I don't think the scope of minor league scouting is appreciated and people put far too much stock into what they read.

 

The examples are numerous when you think back on all the players we read were good or bad at something and then came up and you couldn't tell what the hell people were talking about.  Delmon Young was once considered such an adequate CF that he'd be a plus corner guy.

 

That's what happens when you see a small sample size and draw conclusions.  It's a bit of a house of cards that people have too much confidence in for my liking.

[biggentleben]

I saw that, I often wonder how people think these indepth reports on hundreds of players come straight from one writer. I don't think the scope of minor league scouting is appreciated and people put far too much stock into what they read.

 

The examples are numerous when you think back on all the players we read were good or bad at something and then came up and you couldn't tell what the hell people were talking about. Delmon Young was once considered such an adequate CF that he'd be a plus corner guy.

 

That's what happens when you see a small sample size and draw conclusions. It's a bit of a house of cards that people have too much confidence in for my liking.

That's why I stick to at least three starts for pitchers, 5 appearances for relievers, and 6 games of video for a hitter as my minimum for a report.

[Squirrel]

He we go again....

No, we aren't going there again. It's been 'dealt with' ... this time.

[jorgenswest]

The pitch level data from fangraphs is easy to find and use.

 

There is a lot of data on fangraphs. Interpretations of that data are often significantly flawed. Watch any broadcast to see the significant lack of understanding of data and samples. The larger problem is a population that has not had very much training in the use of data. Too often statements are made based on the data that are really not supported without a much larger sample or investigation into the biases of the sample.

[Jack Goin]

 

No, we aren't going there again. It's been 'dealt with' ... this time.

Are you Chris Partlow or Snoop?

[nicksaviking]

Nailed it, Nick.

I appreciate the sentiment, but I wasn't implying the Twins don't read it, I was just contradicting the idea that it wasn't worth reading. My guess is it is a commonly bookmarked website among front office personnel league wide, including the Twins.

[Squirrel]

Are you Chris Partlow or Snoop?

Yes.

[DaveW]

ChiTwinsfan is the Omar of this site.

Brock meanwhile is the Ziggy Zobotka of this site.

I will take the title of McNulty as I am usually drunk and full of ****. However every once in a while I have a good idea.

[USAFChief]

Yes.

No.

[TheLeviathan]

 

That's why I stick to at least three starts for pitchers, 5 appearances for relievers, and 6 games of video for a hitter as my minimum for a report.

 

I appreciate that you try to do that, I worry sometimes how high the standards are for many scouts.  I worry even more about those guys that are basically leaching off of scout's work.

 

Even your standard is still a very small sample, so while your observations are certainly helpful, it's still something I'd take with a large grain of salt.

[jorgenswest]

While data needs a large sample to become reliable, the assessment of a skilled observer can be reliable in a small number of observations.