http://m.marlins.mlb.com/news/2014/03/08/68954576/phil-rogers-miami-marlins-coach-perry-hill-not-swayed-by-shift-in-thinking

 

Pretty good article that explains his thoughts about shifts, situations, etc. While his thoughts on WAR might be wrong, I can appreciate where he's coming from here...

Perry Hill is a moron and extremely overrated IMO

Perry Hill is a moron and extremely overrated IMO

 

Seems a bit harsh, beyond his misunderstanding of sabermetrics, I don't see anything wrong with the guy and I appreciate him being a Marlin.

Perry Hill is a moron and extremely overrated IMO

 

Certainly not the case when all the guys that produce exceptional results under his watch each credit Hill and go out of their way to do so...

 

I was watching MLB Tonight just a few days ago and Mike Lowell and Harold Reynolds were going through fielding demonstrations. Lowell mentioned Hill by name as the most important person in his career to teach him the correct positions and angles to the ball.

Perry Hill is a moron and extremely overrated IMO

No, Hill is extremely good at what he teaches and craft.

His job is to make the IF better, not be a stat watcher. The stat watchers can slam him all they want for not agreeing with their way of thinking. Apparently it dosen't bother him. Knowing how each hitter is going to react to each pitch depending on the count and/or circumstance, and then placing the IF to respond to that is just his way of doing things. It seems to work. He's right, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

 

I liked his comments about Lee. It's hitting on what I've always said. A great 1B will make your IF look better. Put a bad to mediocre 1B over there and watch the throwing errors mount up along with the IF hits.

I saw the article a few days ago and rolled my eyes when I read the title. When you actually read it, it doesn't really sound backasswards like the title indicates. His method may not be a 'shift' in the usual sense, but I feel like it uses statistics more than the article might let on. Either way, I think changing your positioning based on counts is a good way to approach defense.

Its almost like Perry Hill does use sabermetrics without even realizing it, and then awkwardly condemns sabermetrics as being sent from hell.

 

Does that make sense?

Its almost like Perry Hill does use sabermetrics without even realizing it, and then awkwardly condemns sabermetrics as being sent from hell.

 

Does that make sense?

It does make sense. Kinda funny in a way, too.

It does make sense. Kinda funny in a way, too.

 

It almost makes Hill a pioneer and one of the first in baseball to actually use sabermetrics... again, without knowing it. lol.

Perry Hill and Bill James: two peas in a pod.

It'd be funny if someone sarcastically gives Hill an award for his use of sabermetrics. Just to literally see the look on his face.

I wouldn't really call that approach reminiscent of sabermetrics unless Hill is compiling the numbers into larger data sets for future analysis.

Its almost like Perry Hill does use sabermetrics without even realizing it, and then awkwardly condemns sabermetrics as being sent from hell.

 

Does that make sense?

This happens with a lot of the 'old school' guys. They use advanced metrics without even realizing it and then turn around and claim they're a bunch of garbage and worthless.

How exactly does this qualify as "advanced metrics?"

How exactly does this qualify as "advanced metrics?"

We're not specifically saying Hill uses advanced metrics for sure... its just the slightly amusing fact that Hill admits he sits down with a bunch of colored markers and writes down where every single batted ball went and every other detail. At its core, he's closer to sabermetrics than he cares to admit... and then of course he turns and bashes the concept of sabermetrics.

I guess maybe I don't really consider making those notations with colored markers to be quintessential examples of what sabermetrics is. It's more the rigorous analysis of those data sets, which is what Hill isn't doing.