Originally Posted by RedsBaron
Thanks for posting WOY.
While James isn't shy about expressing his opinions, he has also had a humility about the limits of sabermetric research. Unlike pretty much everyone else in the human race, he also has the ability to admit that he was wrong rather than keep defending an original position. I can remember an article he wrote a few years ago when he discussed a prior position he had taken on something and then said that maybe "I didn't know what the hell I was talking about."
Actually James knows more than just about anyone who ever lived about the sabermetric aspect of the game, and he is a joy to read.
I found the part on evaluating college players by using stats and scouting, and what the ratio should be.
Q: Generally, who should have a larger role in evaluating college and minor league players: scouts or stat guys?
A: Ninety-five percent scouts, five percent stats. The thing is that — with the exception of a very few players like Ryan Braun — college players are so far away from the major leagues that even the best of them will have to improve tremendously in order to survive as major league players — thus, the knowledge of who will improve is vastly more important than the knowledge of who is good. Stats can tell you who is good, but they’re almost 100 percent useless when it comes to who will improve.
In addition to that, college baseball is substantially different from pro baseball, because of the non-wooden bats and because of the scheduling of games. So … you have to pretty much let the scouts do that.
He also talked about the Cubs history and them resisting a farm system setting them back for a long while.