Analytics have taken over baseball and not everyone is thrilled about it, as Nick Cafardo of The Boston Globe writes in today’s column.
“I’ve seen so many good baseball men who will be pushed out of the game, and never be allowed back, to make room for some of the huge analytical departments that these teams employ now,” said an American League GM. “And the question we all have: Has this made the game better? I’m not sure the answer to that is yes.”
Cafardo also broke down MLB’s teams in a T-chart of “Analytical” vs. “Traditional” and the split appears to be roughly 50/50. Interestingly, every team in the AL West is listed as an analytical club while the entire NL East is in the traditional column.
Here’s more from Cafardo:
- There’s “some talk about” free agent Mike Napoli adding the catching position back into his arsenal, Cafardo writes. Playing as a first baseman/outfielder in the second half of the season, Napoli helped restore his value by hitting .295/.396/.513 with five homers for the Rangers across 78 plate appearances. Napoli would make sense as a right-handed-hitting complement to the club’s left-heavy lineup and GM Jon Daniels says that there is interest in a reunion.
- Agent John Boggs told Cafardo that client Shane Victorino wants to play in 2016. The agent added that Victorino is finally healthy and intends on getting back to switch-hitting. The Flyin’ Hawaiian hit just .230/.308/.292 in 2015 in 204 combined plate appearances for the Red Sox and Angels. Still, he’s only two years removed from his 2013 campaign in which he slashed .294/.351/.451 with 15 homers for Boston.
- Jonny Gomes would love to be a manager some day, but not just yet. “They’ll have to rip the jersey off my back,” the 34-year-old said. Last week, Gomes had his $3MM option declined by the Royals. On paper, that’s not an unreasonable sum for a platoon outfielder that posted a .371 OBP and a .185 isolated power (slugging minus batting average) against lefties, but KC opted for greater payroll flexibility. Gomes came to the Royals in an August deal with the Braves picking up half of his remaining salary.
- In his short time with the Red Sox, newly-minted Mariners GM Jerry Dipoto turned in a detailed report on the Sox organization from top to bottom, according to Red Sox top exec Dave Dombrowski. With that kind of intimate knowledge of the Sox, Cafardo speculates that it would make sense to watch for Mariners/Red Sox trade talks.
- Some have theorized that ex-Blue Jays GM Alex Anthopoulos will eventually become the GM of a Montreal franchise, whether it’s by expansion or the relocation of the Rays or A’s. While that could be a fit, Cafardo writes that AA is very likely to get a job before that takes place.
Hmm and the NL East was by far the weakest division in baseball…
I don’t think anyone is arguing that analytics don’t help teams win. The argument is whether it makes the entertainment product better, and I think that is questionable.
The media focussing on bat flips alone, have made the game more entertaining.
But they also had a team in the World Series.
I get a minus 1 for telling the truth. Okay whatever.
Because who does what in the playoffs doesn’t mean anything. The NL Central is the strongest division in baseball and anyone who doesn’t believe that is delusional, yet they had 2 teams out in the first round.
You could have stuck the Phillies in the playoffs and they still had a chance of winning the WS.
Yet the Mets are run by the man acknowledged as the ground-zero GM of analytics, Sandy Alderson; Paul DePodesta, who was the Peter Brand character in Moneyball, and JP Ricciardi, who was a total stats geek GM with Toronto. Outside of the Dodgers, there may not be a front office more front loaded with analytics types at the top than the Mets, so Carardo can list the Mets in the traditional column all he likes, but he’s flat out wrong. The differences between the “leans analytics” or “leans traditional” in most cases is irrelevant. Maybe the D’backs are totally still in the traditional side, and maybe the Astros are totally leaning heavy analytics. For the rest of the teams, it’s probably a pretty fine line.
All Gomes brings to the field is his mouth. He’s a 5th outfielder at best and a bat you get into a lineup in blowout games.
All Gomes brings to the field is veteran experience bolstered by playoff appearances with the MLBs youngest team, the MLB’s oldest team, and everything in between. He also rocks lefties.
Hit batted .227 against lefties in 2015. I think you meant USED TO rock lefties.
He had a .371 OBP and good power numbers. Who cares about the batting average.
I don’t, but the phrase was “rock” lefties, not “pad numbers with a couple of walks and 5 homers” versus lefties. Still had a sub-.800 OPS against LH
Yea how come he didn’t have one at bat in the World Series
Because the Royals live and die via speed.
Plus they didn’t need the bat off the bench. They have the DH in KC, and would have Morales off the bench in NY.
Its a big myth the A’s are losing money. they are making huge profits. The GS warrior owners offered to buy the A’s and were turned down. A’s owners are enjoying the profits of crying poor and getting MLB money. They could get their new stadium but would rather cry poverty and get compensation.
Yeah if I had to pick I’d say the Rays would be the favorite of the 2 [by far] to be moved, although I think an expansion is more likely. Still, the Rays payroll and attendance issues given the quality of the organization leaves much to be desired.
I think the Rays should try to move to San Jose. The Bay Area is vast enough to have 3 baseball teams. SJ is literally 50 miles away from SF.
Then you would have to realign divisions and put the Rays in the West for travel and television reasons. If they had to move, my preference would be to move the Rays to Charlotte. The southeast only really has the Braves. An AL team would be nice for the area. Florida doesn’t count either. It is not a southeastern state, it is a northeast state that just happens to be located in the south.
BTW, the Bay Area wouldn’t have 3 teams if the A’s moved also, so why not just move the A’s to San Jose?
Because the Giants refuse to let the A’s move there due to the A’s supporting them in 1992 when the Giants were all set to move to Tampa. They said “we will give you SJ” as an olive branch to help them stay in the Bay, and perhaps move to SJ. They did not move there, and yet are still holding that over them when its the A’s time to move.
Realigning wouldn’t be that big a deal, Texas and Colorado are not “west” they are central, move any or all of them to the central….or just totally do away with divisions and make it easier for everyone.
But SJ, while technically the “bay area” is not connected by the BART train like SF+OAK are, in addition to being 50 miles away from SF, its kind of its own place. SJ has shown they have a rabid fanbase with the Sharks, its a travesty that the Giants are refusing to let the A’s move, when the A’s did everything they could to help SF in their time of need.
Did you know they just passed a relocation in Tampa proposal for the rays, which was rejected but that was before they elected two to three relocation proponents to the city council. In all likelyhood they’ll be able to get a deal to move to Tampa. Increasing chances of improved attendance as the team will have more fan access. Which the trop lacks
No one is saying the A”s are losing money. They do indeed turn a profit every year. They also paid Billy Butler $30M, Jim Johnson $10M and Hiroyuki Nakajima $6M to play at AAA for 2 years. Your narrative is dated at best and just plain lies at worst.
The Giants keep standing in the way of the most logical move, 20 minutes south of Oakland, to San Jose. San Jose has more people, more money, more everything than Oakland OR San Francisco, as well as Portland, San Antonio, Montreal, basically anywhere people say want a team. Its absolutely pathetic that the most up and coming city in America is not allowed to have a MLB team because the Giants refuse to let Oakland move further away from them to SJ.
Statement I will use and like with regards to analytics only vs scouting only.. Your eyes won’t lie to you, but cluttering up your senses with so many numbers, including some a player can put up in a year, even a game can and will. A great play made is a fact as an example. Some numbers are nothing but randomness and should be treated as such.
Am begining to use some of these newer stats invented the last decade or 2, but it’s eyes 1st for me still.
“Your eyes won’t lie to you,” – you are wrong and I’ll prove it.
A good CF will take the most perfect route to a fly ball to catch it, and it will look like a normal, routine play. A bad CF (see: Byrnes, Eric) will take the incorrect route to the ball by either running late, or running to the wrong place, have to make an adjustment mid-run, and make a “spectacular” diving catch, when in actual fact, that catch should have just been a routine play. A lot of highlight reel plays are indeed your eyes lying to you about how good a defender is, they are made because the player did not do his job right.
See also: Edmonds, Jim. The number of spectacular catches he made during his career is mind-boggling… the number of those that should have been routine in the first place is pretty stunning too.
Edmonds UZR/150 is 21st all time among OFers with at least 7500 innings
Nobody denies that Jim Edmonds was a good fielder or that he had a good arm. The question is whether he had good first-step and route efficiency, neither of which will show up in UZR if he makes the catch anyway. If you have data that shows he is superior in that regard I’m happy to look at it.
Yeah, it’s a weird myth that has developed that he didn’t have good range.
He played ridiculously shallow which did lead to some highlight plays near the track that otherwise would have bee easily caught if he were playing where a CF normally would. It wasn’t because lack of range.
Yeah I do not agree, Edmonds is not the type I’m referring to. His highlight reel plays could never have been made to look routine by anyone else.
It isn’t an either/or proposition. The most important point made in this piece is that when all teams are playing from the same analytical deck, how does any one team gain an advantage? The difference maker is having the experience and judgment to know when the numbers are telling you something useful.
I’ve wanted the Rays to move ever since they couldn’t get 20,000 people to show up for pennant race games in September.
Montreal shouldn’t even be discussed until there’s a viable plan for funding a stadium. The city will never finance another sports venue after The Big O and that’s a major roadblock standing in the way.
Montreal never had a chance with 2 of the lousiest stadiums in modern (post 1950) mlb history with 1st Jerry Park and then that useless discard 1976 leftover olympic stadium, used only to because tax dollars had to be shown then to have some lasting use.
Sports people get so weird about analytics (because the whole jocks/nerds thing will just never die, I guess), but is anyone really going to argue that defensive shifts, for example, haven’t worked out?
David Ortiz would be Ted Williams if the game got rid of analytics.
Well Ortiz career BABIP is .299, which even ranks ahead of Albert Pujols’. And just 2 years ago, Ortiz’s BABIP was .321.
The game was less analytical in 2001 and David Ortiz was not Ted Williams then.
No, but they do make the game less enjoyable / more confusing to watch for some people. Baseball has always been played with 3 outfielders and 4 infielders (2 on each side). It’s just weird when the third baseman plays shallow right field, whether it works or not.
Teams shifted against Ted Williams many decades ago. This isn’t new. Shifts appeared in Major League Baseball in the 1920s, actually.
People who aren’t dedicated fans often complain that baseball is boring and repetitive. How would shifting (which involves a lot of moving pieces and changes) not help that?
Cafardo proving again he constantly has no clue what he’s talking about. Remember when he would write an article talking about why the Red Sox made sense for Cole Hamels almost every single week only to see him go to Texas?
He is not trying to make sense, he’s trying to sell ads on the Globe site. And he’s once again succeeded.
Just because the Red Sox didn’t get Cole Hamels doesn’t mean it didn’t make sense…
Except it didn’t make sense, because the Phillies asking price was way more than Hamels value, as the Rangers will learn. If Cafardo understood analytics he will understand that.
Yeah that division title will teach them how low Hamels’ value is. That’ll show ’em.
Those dumb Boston papers always talk about moving the rays seems like they’re the only ones left talking about it. While the commissioner is talking about helping the situation in Tampa area. Ps st.Petersburg city council just added 2 or 3 proponents for a moving deal to explore tampa sites. So cafardo and fatty abraham can keep speculating. But it’s all bs
Same with Oakland, the commissioner has said outright he is dedicated to keeping them in Oakland as long as he is in power. Neither team is moving, and MLB is far more likely to expand to Cuba or Puerto Rico than Montreal.
I am less familiar with oakland situation but the Tampa situation is gaining traction and with election of new members to their city council a deal could be struck very soon to explore sites. Oakland situation is more complex because of the proximity to another major franchise. And aside from weak attendance in st.pete, they’re very popular on tv. 2nd in their market and 12th in the entire league in viewership. I’m sure Manfred will resolve both issues and 2 teams could be added to the league. One very well being Montreal
I can’t see Puerto Rico or Cuba happening. Mexico seems more likely
The Mexican economy still isn’t strong enough. In 2014, the Rochester Red Wings (Twins’ AAA affiliate) drew more than the Mexico City Red Devils, and the Red Devils tickets are cheaper than Rochester Red Wings tickets.
A lot of horse and buggy drivers lost their jobs when they couldn’t adapt to cars coming out. It’s not a new phenomenon.
“I’m not sure the answer is yes” means the same as “I’m not sure the answer is no.”
Who are we kidding, pushed out? If a MLB team wanted to employ both sets of people they could easily afford to do so, if they thought there was a benefit to be gained. They clearly don’t think that’s the case.
“Im sad because I’m seeing my friends, who are all over 50 years old and don’t know how to relate to millennials, lose power and because I am also old I will soon lose my job too, because I didn’t adapt to the changing game and instead wrote hate articles about it like the bratty baby boomer I am”.
I also cannot stand the idea that there’s a clear dichotomy between “analytics” and “eye test” guys, as if one sits at a computer and one sits in the stands at games. Any good scout does both, a bad scout doesn’t and the reality is that the “computer” guys are the ones at games WITH their computers, the bad ones are the pen and paper guys who say stupid things like “too short” (Sonny Gray) “bad body” (Kyle Schwarber) aka as things baseball doesn’t need anymore and never did.
True. But you also need those judgements you mention (short, unathletic etc) in order to project them. A players physical make-up whilst it can be overcome is a key factor in their success and longevity
“I’ve seen so many good baseball men”
What does this even mean? Real talk: “good baseball men” = my friends who pretty much always stunk at their job but they’re my friends so I have to cry about them getting lesser roles because they don’t understand the modern game.
“Has this made the game better? I’m not sure the answer to that is yes.”
I love how dumb that question sounds “Is the game better?” Better how? I At some point Cafardo is going to have to learn how to write in terms that aren’t just lowest common denominator cliches.
Okay, I can’t see a team wanting Jonny Gomes as a manager. But there’s a huge part of me that would pay good money to see his post game press conference.
How is GMs no longer making trades at the bar a bad thing? Last thing we need is Theo Epstein drowning a couple shots and trading Bryant to Cincy for Homer Bailey. No clue why Cafardo is arguing that’s a bad thing, it’s not, just proves GMs take their jobs more seriously now.
A healthy blend of both analytics and traditional methods should be the goal. I don’t know why this debate continues to surface. It makes no sense.
Because some people have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the new way of doing business because they’re still under the guise of “old = better”
And other people are under the delusion that no one knew anything about the game before 2002. You will never change the minds of older people in anything, nor will your mind be changed by the next generation (because that will happen a lot sooner than you think). The only way things truly change is after a generation completely dies off, but by that point you are the older person that some kid considers out of date and uninformed.
I agree 100 %. There are good aspects of both. Analytics does not have all the answers, nor does traditional scouting. Analytics devalues the pitcher who does not strikeout a ton of batters. There have been many successful pitchers who pitch to contact. Analytics does show more appreciation of the “well rounded” player, like Ben Zobrist. Can’t they both just get along?
Analytics can help bridge the gap and answer questions traditional methods can’t. You can use the analytics to really hone in on what you are looking for. Likewise, traditional methods can help answer questions analytics cannot.
I see where some purists come from in the sense that you can’t discount some methods that have stood the test of time. But ultimately it comes down to adapting to the modern game. Some people are 100% traditional and some people are 100% analytic. That’s totally fine. A good baseball ops leader is one who is able to understand the information from both sides, figure out how everything fits together, and utilize what’s available to put the best product on the field.
Just because a team is ‘analytical’ doesn’t mean they know how to be a top notch organization.
For example, the Rangers traded and/or gave away more every day players/SP and good relievers than any team I can remember over the last 5 years or so, and its not even close.
You are referring to the FIRST PLACE Texas Rangers, right?
Even Ruben Amaro made it to the playoffs 3 times.
The Rangers have traded/given away Odubel Herrera, CJ Edwards, Mike Olt, Craig Gentry, Jorge Alfaro, Joe Wieland, Jake Thompson, Nick WIlliams, Jerad Eickoff, Chris Davis, Tommy Hunter, Justin Grimm, Neil Ramirez, Kyle Hendricks and Darren O’Day in the last 5-6 years.
Thats a lot of talent to give up to have so little to show for it.
They ended up with a few mediocre months of Matt Garza, Ryan Dempster, Koji Uehara, and the back end of Cole Hamels’ contract.
Brixton,
They turned Mark Teixeira into a bunch of players who helped that team make two consecutive World Series appearances.
Napoli back at catcher? Yeah, I don’t think so.
Every person in every profession has to grow, learn, and better themselves for their job. MLB must be the only business in the world where people actually think things should be done and evaluated the same way it was 40 years ago.
If you are “a great baseball man” you would grow and adapt with the game, not throw in the towel because it’s different than when you played.
Exactly, this is a worldwide phenomena that pertains to every job on earth, not just baseball. Its just so arrogant to say “Yes, technology is advancing every day in every sector, new knowledge is coming to light and we as a society are moving forward, but that is causing things that made no sense in the first place to be phased out and I don’t like that, so I’m going to kick and scream so everyone knows how mad I am that I can’t have things the same way as I had them when I was young!”
Seems like Cafardo whiffed on a couple of the teams – the two that played in this last World Series. DMGM and Kansas City have a strong analytics department that drove their strategy to develop and acquire players with low K-rates, strong range, defense, and baserunning. It also allowed them to focus on developing a strong bullpen. Sandy Alderson is the father of “Moneyball” – he’s the one who taught Billy Beane to focus on acquiring undervalued assets by looking at players through a different lens.
The whole article is a whiff.
That is not exactly Carardo’s best work. Coaches on the field are all baseball men, not analytics men. Teams trending towards analytics in the front office should not be impacting the teaching of fundamentals on the MLB field down through the minors. Silly conclusion on his part. Worse, his selection on which teams are analytics driven and which teams are traditional driven is way too simplistic. Analytics and scouting work together. Viewing them as one or the other is about 15 years out of date. The Red Sox? Are we really to believe they have suddenly flipped off the analytics switch and have moved completely into the traditional ledger. Hardly.
So let me get this straight. The three men at the top of the Mets front office, led by Sandy Alderson, the father of analytics in baseball, who taught Billy Beane to be, well, Billy Beane; Paul DePodesta, who is the real-life Peter Brand character portrayed by Jonah Hill in Moneyball; and JP Ricciardi, the former analytics GM who ran the Blue Jays and hired Keith Law, is not an analytics-driven organization? Good one, Nick.