ESPN- The Great Analytics Rankings... The Twins are not so Great

[Otto von Ballpark]

Nothing in the past suggests to me that the Twins will put a premium on OF defense.  Cuddy, Kubel, Willingham, a 39 year old Hunter, Arcia, etc. 

Agreed, post-2005 or so.  Cuddy taking over in 2006, and Kubel the next year, and Delmon the year after... they really started piling bats in the OF at that time.  Which was especially strange since the bats in question weren't really all-star level strong to compensate for the bad defense, nor did they seek particularly strong everyday DH options either.

 

Gomez, Span, and Revere briefly felt like some pushback against that -- until all 3 were traded, with Hicks as the only decent glove replacement added to the mix, hardly enough to offset Willingham, Doumit, Parmlelee, Arcia, etc.

 

It's quite clearly not a one-offseason thing, Hunter vs. Rasmus/Bourjous/whomever.  Kinda like how our SP woes were not isolated to Correia vs. Edwin Jackson at one moment in time either.

[jimmer]

Like I've said before, I think Ryan has a better idea about what to expect from Arcia and Hunter than any of us sitting there staring at the screen on our laptop. I know, blasphemous words.

 

That's an appeal to authority argument. Are you under the impression he always makes the right call or makes the right assessment? Cause, really, if you don't believe that why say it sometimes and not others during a debate about an issue?  It really only holds weight if you use it across the board.

 

Did you say that when he signed Pelfrey not once but twice and when he signed Correia or Marquis? 

 

He's going to get things right and wrong. Saying Ryan for sure knows better than all the guys sitting on their computer as an argument, I don't know, when clearly those people behind the computer have gotten some things right that he's gotten wrong. Like Pelfrey, Correia, Marquis, just to name a few. 

[tobi0040]

Agreed, post-2005 or so.  Cuddy taking over in 2006, and Kubel the next year, and Delmon the year after... they really started piling bats in the OF at that time.  Which was especially strange since the bats in question weren't really all-star level strong to compensate for the bad defense, nor did they seek particularly strong everyday DH options either.

 

Gomez, Span, and Revere briefly felt like some pushback against that -- until all 3 were traded, with Hicks as the only decent glove replacement added to the mix, hardly enough to offset Willingham, Doumit, Parmlelee, Arcia, etc.

 

It's quite clearly not a one-offseason thing, Hunter vs. Rasmus/Bourjous/whomever.  Kinda like how our SP woes were not isolated to Correia vs. Edwin Jackson at one moment in time either.

 

But it seems like the value teams place on defense has increased since about 2010 or so.  Lots of new stats developed and quantified.  The Twins clearly have not bought in. It could play a role in our losses and why our pitching has been so bad. Not the only reason why we have been so bad and why our piching has been so bad. It is mostly because we had bad pitchers.  But I can't help but think we have lost a few extra games a year as a result.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Also, defensively, by DRS I notice that Hunter took his first real dip in 2010 (perhaps not coincidentally, the year he began moving off CF).

 

2011-2012 he graded well in RF playing next to Bourjous/Trout.

 

Then 2013-2014 he declined next to mainly Jackson but also some Don Kelly, Avisail Garcia, and Rajai Davis, who did't grade out well in CF and perhaps had to compensate more for the left fielders...?

 

So even if you don't fully "buy" the measure of Hunter's defense the past two years, I don't know if he's a good fit for a full-time spot in our outfield mix, where our CF will likely be tentative (Hicks), inexperienced (Rosario), or mediocre (Schafer), and there may be a lot of LF hand-holding and compensation required.  And perhaps four other bats clamoring for DH at-bats (Vargas, Pinto, and Arcia, plus Mauer for health).

[jimmer]

Also, defensively, by DRS I notice that Hunter took his first real dip in 2010 (perhaps not coincidentally, the year he began moving off CF).

 

 

Could be all that important mentoring of Trout took it's toll and affected Hunter's own defense. :-) 

[Thrylos]

Not that I disagree with the conclusion of that ESPN ranking, but any article that is talking about "Analytics" and "ERA" in the same area code, kinda makes me skeptical about how many feet into Analytics its author has...

 

And as far as Perkins and his "Analytics" job aspirations go,  I'd rather see him go back to school and get a MS into statistical modeling, before he (or anyone else in the Twins' Front Office) does that job.

[Hugh Morris]

Wasn't going to dive in but might as well post. It's not like I had plans beyond binging House of Cards tonight anyways. Saw the article when it was posted on ESPN. Knew the TD topic would be robust because how could it not be? Between Front Office Critics and Defenders _{(Haters and Lapdogs? I'm all out of invective tonight)}, the SABR-minded, the Scouting-Focused and the UZR-Truthers, the only way that you could have drenched the last embers of the Hot Stove here with more gasoline is including something about Mauer.

 

I've got major issues with a few portions of the article (more below)-as well as how it's been used as a cudgel or jumping off point to make assertions that aren't supported by the thin premise of the rankings to begin with. As always, the above functions as a TL;DR, and I take no offense because this got needlessly wordy in a hurry. _{Which may as well be my sig.}

The ESPN analysts have, I think correctly, identified the Twins as one of the teams behind the curve on cutting edge statistical analysis. 

Though we're rarely in agreement jokin _{(not that you'd be aware, given how rarely I drop my lurker status)}, I do respect your passion for the club, your desire to see them improve and your knowledge of the sport. I also believe you when you say you think that ESPN's analysts identified the Twins correctly. I'm wondering if that's not the problem for you (and others) as it comes to these rankings. You've been given a piece of information that validates your preconceived notion. I imagine you'd quickly find a few flaws to identify in the methodology (even with the limited insight given) if the Twins had been placed in Tier 2 instead. I don't post to pick on you specifically, it just helps to have an exact quote as opposed to engaging in strawman-prone paraphrasing.

 

A tremendous chunk of their ranking is based solely on reputation-which tends to lag behind reality _{(#6org, anyone?)}. I'd be willing to wager there's a strong positive correlation between the media-friendliness of an organization's Quant department and their ranking on this list. While that won't prove causation-it does suggest a relationship and the narrative explanation sure makes sense. The problem is-there's no strategic benefit to discussing your process. Why would you show your hand, tip your pitches, _{[insert other metaphor here]}? This is compounded when the rankings are (at minimum) compiled by a gentleman who spent eight years in the league and has been out for the last three. Re-read the skeptics section. How many of those blurbs could be summed up by "[i/our sources] don't really know these guys. But before they were hired, this team was thought of as weak in analytics. So they're skeptics." Allow me to again say a quick prayer of thanks that I don't work in an industry where my value is judged by the school I attend(ed) and the number of press releases written about me. 

 

To dive a little deeper into my objections, the Twins hired a coach in 2014 to take charge of a variety of facets-one of which was defensive positioning. Their usage of shifts went up fivefold, to the top half of the league. This staffer was then promoted to Manager. In the world of this article, that's balanced by "but they don't strike many guys out". Even by the lowered standards of SouthParkian "The Truth is in the Middle" balance from what portrays itself as 'news' _{(or worse, 'sports news')} today, that's flagrantly disregarding actual data related to the ranking's purpose (current usage of analytics) for a vague assessment of historical reputation that's impacted by a dozen variables. I'm SABRinclined... but I don't recall where "dismiss or underweight actual evidence when compared to information reflecting multiple confounding factors that backs up my biases" is considered methodologically sound.

 

_{[to disclaim-I'm not casting aspersions on jokin or those who agree with the rankings with the lines above-the vitriol is solely at the ESPN staffers. I am merely somewhat disappointed that it's being used in cudgely fashion given its vapidity]}

 

We know that their #2 in command and recent interim GM (presumably with TR's blessing) went on the record as preferring RBI to SLG as a predictive statistic in 2010.

 

i have to imagine they are better than that now, but dismissing defensive metrics for the "eye test" still seems very plausible for this front office.

Any insight on how much of his job, at the time of the interview, was regarding player evaluation and selection? It is (and was) a clearly outdated sentiment, but it might help knowing if this the equivalent of mocking the drivetrain designer at Chevy for not being up to speed on the latest research with aerodynamics. The recent pieces on Bill Smith's role in the new complex in FL certainly suggest there are people listed in the Baseball department who have no impact on the onfield product. Might be a productive question for Jack Goin next time he pokes his head in-or the next time Dave's willing to talk to someone.

 

Regarding the second point-it's a sentiment similar to the one I object to in jokin's post. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I'm curious.... how low have you set the bar for plausibility when it comes to the FO? Would you expect an article about the Twins being at the forefront of incorporating phrenology to be in the Onion _{(RIP print edition)} or on C1 of the Star Tribune? _{(and really, I just welcome any excuse to type out phrenology. Unfortunate such an entertaining word has such an ugly history-especially in this country)} Certainly "The Twins are behind the leaders" is a defensible (and likely correct) opinion-but when that assumption is used to fill in colossal information gaps rather than a benefit of the doubt and/or more neutral analysis... well, if it builds for a decade... you've got a "Longtime Firsttime" on KFAN's afternoon drivetime_{(or possibly a contributor to to its 9am counterpart?  )}

 

The forum tells me i'm over my quotelimit. Which is awfully passive-aggressive as a way to tell me to shut up! The following refers to Thrylos' post immediately above my own. As of when I started writing this. It might be three pages away by now.

 

Wanted to end this on a happy note-as Thrylos drives the nail on my point home . That's more the sort of attitude I was hoping to see from the folks at TD who are on the more apathy/antipathy side of the scale with the front office. Mind, with the author's experience I'm more confident than Thrylos that he knows better, but it's the sort of fluff-over-substance piece that ESPN's been cranking out on 538 ever since they snagged Silver. _{If only he'd have stayed at the Times and ESPN had thrown their cash at Klein. We'd be spared Vox and still have a wonky 538!} 

 

Regarding the last point-I understand the concern about Perkins (or anyone) taking a deeply quant role without a narrowly targeted advanced degree. However-based on my read of it, it sounds like Glen's talking more about serving as ambassador/translator for Jack's crew to the Clubhouse. That seems like a job that's more in line with Glen's demonstrated functional understanding of (and passion for) the AdvStats than it does one that requires intimacy with the theoretical underpinnings of modelling the league's new version of SportsVU. 

[USAFChief]

But it seems like the value teams place on defense has increased since about 2010 or so.  Lots of new stats developed and quantified.

It's possible big league teams have undervalued defense for 150 years.

 

I think it's more likely the value metric-friendly websites place on defense has increased in recent years.

[tobi0040]

Chief,

 

Could be. But up to 10 or 15 years ago, baseball was looking at really odd things like average alone. Ben revere for example would have been an all star with a 300/330/630 line before that time.

[USAFChief]

Chief,

Could be. But up to 10 or 15 years ago, baseball was looking at really odd things like average alone. Ben revere for example would have been an all star with a 300/330/630 line before that time.

Possibly so.

 

But that doesn't necessarily mean teams didnt value offense then, or value it more now. It means they might use different metrics now to asses that value. Or better understand the value of the metrics themselves.

 

I haven't been around 150 years (although I plan to be ;-) ), but never in my lifetime have teams not had to balance the worth of a player based on multiple factors, including the balance between what they bring to the table on offense as well as defense. "Strong up the middle defensively" has been an accepted strategy for a long time.

[jay]

Fear that it won't be one year? Fear that he will continue to undervalue defense? Boredom with old guys, when there are young guys to give a shot? Tiredness with marketing over quality of play?

Boy, oh, boy does that feel like stretching for something to grasp at...

 

The first, third and fourth points will depend much more on the development of guys like Buxton, Hicks, Rosario and even Sano (Plouffe to a corner, anyone?) than a one-year contract.

[bird]

That's an appeal to authority argument. Are you under the impression he always makes the right call or makes the right assessment? Cause, really, if you don't believe that why say it sometimes and not others during a debate about an issue?  It really only holds weight if you use it across the board.

 

Did you say that when he signed Pelfrey not once but twice and when he signed Correia or Marquis? 

 

He's going to get things right and wrong. Saying Ryan for sure knows better than all the guys sitting on their computer as an argument, I don't know, when clearly those people behind the computer have gotten some things right that he's gotten wrong. Like Pelfrey, Correia, Marquis, just to name a few. 

 

No it's not. I was fairly specific about why, in the instance I described, that Ryan knows better than you what to expect regarding the defense of both Arcia and Hunter.

 

In this case, I believe Ryan and company see things that don't show up on your laptop. For example, Arcia's minor league outfield play over a few seasons.

 

We disagree with Ryan all the time on TD. I disagree less often than you. Sometimes Ryan is right, and less often, you and I are right, in my opinion, but that doesn't qualify as an appeal to authority on my part, jimmer.

[Squirrel]

Guys … let's try not to make this a personal debate between two posters.  Yes, you disagree with one another, but I don't want this to turn into a two-person discussion so let's move this back to generalities even if your disagreement is with one, as I don't think either one of you is alone in your sides of thinking here.

[jimmer]

Guys … let's try not to make this a personal debate between two posters.  Yes, you disagree with one another, but I don't want this to turn into a two-person discussion so let's move this back to generalities even if your disagreement is with one, as I don't think either one of you is alone in your sides of thinking here.

you're right and I deleted the post because of that.

[Mike Sixel]

Boy, oh, boy does that feel like stretching for something to grasp at...

 

The first, third and fourth points will depend much more on the development of guys like Buxton, Hicks, Rosario and even Sano (Plouffe to a corner, anyone?) than a one-year contract.

 

didn't say those were my ideas.....was just trying to answer the question.

 

I don't like the signing because it screams marketing>>>>>quality play. I might be wrong on that, but that's how it smells to me.

[jay]

didn't say those were my ideas.....was just trying to answer the question.

 

Right, right... but I think that highlights that the response from some corners has been >>>>>>> the reality of it.

[Mike Sixel]

Right, right... but I think that highlights that the response from some corners has been >>>>>>> the reality of it.

 

 

Admittedly, we have spent insane numbers of bits and bytes on this topic........but remember, last year, we were told not to worry about the 25th man on the roster.