Q.  ...I am pretty hard-core with the SABR-analysis.  And as you should know...Ron Shandler is not.  He's a numbers guy, but that doesn't make him a scientist when it comes to this sort of discussion (whether Yusmeiro Petit will have a career).

..........

Appreciate your having my back on Yusmeiro Petit :- ) and that only shows your emerging excellent judgment ;- ) ;- )

Let's not sell Mr. HQ short, though, on three counts.   Anybody who wants to claim sensei position to Mr. Shandler's kohai-ness better deal with three things first..

"As I should know," HQ can run with the big dogs... b'lee dat...

.

=== Money Where Our Mouth Is, Dept. ===

Shandler crushes the most hardcore fantasy baseball leagues there are.  You and I have our hands full with the locals ... need we go into detail here?  :- )

The national, high-visibility, sell-your-books smackdowns that Shandler wins -- he is going against teams of analysts who use all the info at Hardball Times, Baseball Prospectus, etc etc., and then their own private stuff.

It's one thing to say that you or I could finish 3rd (or 1st) against a field of 12 very sharp players like Cool Papa, Taro, Dr. Naka, etc.  But Shandler can and does go up against analysts chosen to represent Baseball Prospectus, Sports Weekly, Baseball America, etc. 

Shandler's track record is arguably better than any other single analyst (team's).

..........

Shandler accomplishes this how?  Precisely by calling his shots on Yusmeiro Petit more often than they do.

Rotisserie is, at bottom, a prediction contest.   It tells you who the best are, at guessing which hitters and pitchers will have good years.

Guys who refuse to compete at rotisserie, notably old-school scouts, are in the Bruce Lee category :- ) ... they look great on film, and they've got great reps, but we still wonder why the guy didn't want to get into the ring against a #50-ranked contender.

Give Dr. D (or Cool Papa, or Mikey Jay) a simple contest, line these 20 pitchers up in order of value for 2010, and we'll put our reps on the line against anybody. 

It's called accountability.  Shandler doesn't just (present company excepted) write up opinions on this or that pitcher's value, and then sneer at anybody who disagrees.  Shandler takes the mound and competes in full view of anybody who wants to watch.  He walks the walk.  He doesn't just talk the talk.

(The first thing that would happen, if your favorite internet analyst started competing in hardcore roto leagues, would be that he'd lose the dogmatism.  Instantly.  Defeat has a way of teaching you your limitations.)

.

=== Resume Dept. ===

Shandler worked for the Cardinals, and we can assure you that they were very happy with the quality of his work.   It was he who wasn't real happy with the quality of theirs.

At that time, anyway, the mid-aughts, the Cards were shockingly old-school about listening to "scientists" who won rotisserie leagues.  Shandler got enough on it and went back to his day job.

IIRC, Shandler sold baseballhq.com for well over $1,000,000 a few years ago, and is still "employed" handsomely to write on it.

....

Before we start condescending too much to Mr. Shandler, we might want to take his MLB references into consideration.  Not to mention his bank account, if we're still working for $20 an hour.  :- )

.

=== Lab Coat Dept. ===

Not sure how much chance amigos have had to read the first 50 pages of his Forecaster book.  Much of it are "Research Abstracts," as he calls them, in which he and his team use statistical regression, controlled studies, etc., to figure out whether age 29-34 players are the most reliable or whether 31-34 players are the most reliable.

Guys like John Burnson, Patrick Davitt, Rick Wilton, Ray Murphy, etc. employ studies of the very same type as done at Hardball Times to produce the "toolbox" that Shandler uses to crush his big-name competitors.

Ron Shandler and Bill James probably can't integrate an equation as quickly as you or I, but they may be more scientific than the average sabermetrician -- simply because they have the right attitude of (1) setting a hypothesis and then, skeptically, (2) trying to disprove it.

Far more important to a scientist, than rigorous math skills, is a clear understanding that he's usually wrong.

.

Don't undersell the non-math majors!  Zduriencik isn't one.

Personally would rather have Shandler's and James' judgment on an Edwin Jackson before I'd want a postgrad math T.A.'s.   Shandler mighta got it wrong on Petit :- ) but there is only one $25 I'm certain to spend every year.  Shandler's book.

Cheers,

Dr D