The Twins don't use advanced metrics

[Nick Nelson]

I'm pretty skeptical of much "advanced metrics," at least much of the defensive stuff, and the attempts to arrive at definitive "worths," and/or "wins" from data.

 

But even I think the Twins as an organization could benefit from an infusion of new thinking. Or at the least I wish I felt confident they had thoroughly investigated everything themselves and arrived at informed conclusions, but I don't. I feel like they intentionally ignore stuff almost out of spiteful arrogance.

 

I tend to agree with this. I don't care much if the Twins are looking hard at WAR and wOBA and UZR. I just want them to modernize some of their philosophies, e.g. - devaluing the "proven closer" label, recognizing the importance of strikeouts and secondary numbers for pitchers, emphasizing plate discipline for hitters, etc.

 

My concern isn't that the Twins aren't looking at advanced stats. It's that they're looking at the wrong basic stats.

[TheLeviathan]

can only tell you with clarity what has happened and what is likely to happen if the stats are repeated. They can not tell you if the player will continue to increase their ability or if they will maintain that ability to put up the same stats. That is where scouts come in.

 

We can all agree not to throw the baby out with the bath water, but your post has a real fundamental misunderstanding. Scouting, just like stats, are interpretations. In fact, scouting is much more about interpretation than stats. Scouts also only provide limited observance/data whereas stats can take at least one part of the whole picture.

 

As jay astutely said earlier, the cost to really use advanced metrics on par or beyond other teams pales in comparison to the scouting enterprise or player salaries. It isn't going to break the organization and they needn't pull anything from scouting to better utilize this route.

 

if you disagree about their prescriptive value, fine. But we are very clearly lagging behind many other teams. I don't like always being the last to catch on.

[Brock Beauchamp]

As jay astutely said earlier, the cost to really use advanced metrics on par or beyond other teams pales in comparison to the scouting enterprise or player salaries. It isn't going to break the organization and they needn't pull anything from scouting to better utilize this route.

 

This is what baffles me the most. You can field a room of competent mathematicians for less than half a million dollars a year.

 

The Twins paid Drew Butera $700,000 this season.

 

It's absolutely ludicrous not to test the waters and see if there's truth to this cybermetrics stuff. Give it a whirl for a half decade. All it will cost the team is half of Kevin Correia's 2013 salary.

[LaBombo]

Front office or not, the dugout is certainly one place where the Twins could use a few philosophical shifts. Gardy gets respect in the league, but it's painful to watch him get outmanaged by some of the forward thinkers.

jay, I feel guilty about shattering your faith in mankind with some of my earlier posts, so I'm going to go out on a limb and share with you what I feel might be one of my precious few insights about the Twins, though I may well be mocked and ridiculed. Even more than usual.

 

I think Ron Gardenhire could be the best bench coach in major league baseball.

 

Want an inspiring locker room speech before ALDS Game 1 against the Yankees? Gardy's not your guy. Need a clutch decision on whether to go for the bunt or the big inning? Gardy's not your guy, unless you stopped reading that sentence after the word "bunt".

 

But when the team is flying back to Minnie late at night after being swept in Boston and needs a little boost, like the kind they get by seeing Casey Fien wake up to find that he's wearing a tiara made of empty pretzel bags and Mauer's jock, well, that's pretty much right up Gardy's alley.

 

Even BProp acknowledged that while they've been hard on his strategy, he's been really good at getting guys to stick together (or at least not kill each other) for over a decade now, and that's empirically harder to do in baseball than it is in any other sport, by a factor of two.

[old nurse]

Oakland is praised for their use of statistics. Anyone care to explain in Billy Beanes tenure why out of his first round draft choices, Mulder, Zito, Swisher and Street were the only ones to pan out? His second round picks, about the same number. Total combined WAR round 3, -1.4. I am not saying there is anything wrong with metrics. The application does seem to have a limitation.

[Mr. Brooks]

I feel like I will leave two cents.

 

The Twins do use advanced metrics. That is obvious. Do they use them enough? Only time will tell. Did Billy Beane's advance metrics blow it when they let Willingham go? I bet they would have like his stat line last year. Did they predict he would get hurt and suffer this year? I don't know. Is it fair to say that Ryan isn't using them because his team has lost 90 games the last 3 years. Absolutely not. First of all, he took over at the end of the first season and has increased the talent in the minors a ton. All the praise people give Houston is due to them. They have lost a lot more then the Twins have.

 

The true issue at hand is if they Twins are using enough of the advanced metrics and since none of us are baseball executives, we need to go by the results. Any advanced statistical analysis would tell you that our sample size is too small. We need more time and data to determine if they way they are using enough advanced metrics is right.

 

Ryan obviously puts a lot of faith in Goin, the article is clear on that. Whether or not Ryan understands the metrics is a different story, but from what I have gathered and based on my opinions of the man, he likes to play dumb in certain arenas to get the old school "one up" or "poker hand" approach. Gardenhire is a different story all together and that I will not touch, I just don't like him at all.

 

I believe like most things, there is a happy medium that isn't discussed. The Astros also spend a ton of money on their scouts and put a lot of credence to them.

 

Stats are very helpful and will provide a ton of insight. At the end of the day, stats can only tell you with clarity what has happened and what is likely to happen if the stats are repeated. They can not tell you if the player will continue to increase their ability or if they will maintain that ability to put up the same stats. That is where scouts come in.

 

So, in conclusion, I am somewhere in the middle. Stats are very helpful but are based on interpretation. I believe the Twins should have more "stats guys". But, I wouldn't want someone making decisions on player development, drafting, signings, or lineups based solely on stats. There has to be a mixture of evaluation and stats.

 

I'm pretty sure nobody is arguing that they should.

[jay]

Even BProp acknowledged that while they've been hard on his strategy, he's been really good at getting guys to stick together (or at least not kill each other) for over a decade now, and that's empirically harder to do in baseball than it is in any other sport, by a factor of two.

 

I appreciate the effort to restore my faith. I can give Gardy credit for things like this.

 

However, to many of Nick's points about the mythical value of a proven closer, plate discipline, etc., you can only pin a portion of that on the front office providing the right skill sets while a majority of it is on the coaching staff and how they use/teach their players.

 

For example the front office pieced together what turned out to be an effective bullpen, yet I still despise seeing less than our best pitcher(s) in the highest leverage situations.

[TheLeviathan]

I am not saying there is anything wrong with metrics. The application does seem to have a limitation.

 

Who is disagreeing with this exactly?

 

In fact, I'd argue advanced metrics don't apply to drafting anyway. (Or at least, significantly less so) I'd say their most useful application would be on minor league players. The data from high schools and some colleges just isn't all that reliable.

 

Advanced metrics should also help you recognize market inefficiencies and undervalued players among those already playing professional ball.

[Mr. Brooks]

The first article mentioned was old. Changes have been made since then. The article I pointed out was clearly written after the one that stated the Twins do not use metrics. To many the second article would lead one to believe they are working on it. To some, they will believe what they want. After all, there is a flat earth society.

 

Who stated that the Twins do not use them?

[jay]

Advanced metrics should also help you recognize market inefficiencies and undervalued players among those already playing professional ball.

 

Given how well TR has snagged lower minors talent that turned into MLB talent, it'd be hard to fault him on this one.

 

I'd certainly hope the Twins develop "player models" for what they are looking for and can use advanced stats to identify when a player might provide more value to their team than others based on team philosophy.

[TheLeviathan]

Given how well TR has snagged lower minors talent that turned into MLB talent, it'd be hard to fault him on this one.

 

I'd certainly hope the Twins develop "player models" for what they are looking for and can use advanced stats to identify when a player might provide more value to their team than others based on team philosophy.

 

Absolutely. In fact, being more involved in this may actually confirm in the positive some of the things the Twins do well and make it easier for them to accomplish.

[jay]

Absolutely. In fact, being more involved in this may actually confirm in the positive some of the things the Twins do well and make it easier for them to accomplish.

 

Excellent scouting complemented by in-depth statistical analysis to identify additional focal points? Too peppery!

 

When the statistical revolution came around, the tone was a little too strong against the old school scouting approach. I think that has tamed down as we're seeing exemplified here. I continue to hope that those against the stats approach can take the time to understand it and see value.

[Alex]

Given how well TR has snagged lower minors talent that turned into MLB talent, it'd be hard to fault him on this one.

 

 

Help me out. Who are we talking about here? Or are we referring to his past tenure, which I think is becoming less and less relevant, especially in this discussion.

[drjim]

I tend to agree with this. I don't care much if the Twins are looking hard at WAR and wOBA and UZR. I just want them to modernize some of their philosophies, e.g. - devaluing the "proven closer" label, recognizing the importance of strikeouts and secondary numbers for pitchers, emphasizing plate discipline for hitters, etc.

 

My concern isn't that the Twins aren't looking at advanced stats. It's that they're looking at the wrong basic stats.

 

These accusations could open up a whole boatload of new conversations.

 

My first objection would be that it would be very difficult to prove, statistically or through Terry Ryan quotes, that the Twins don't place an emphasis on plate discipline.

[Mike Sixel]

Oakland is praised for their use of statistics. Anyone care to explain in Billy Beanes tenure why out of his first round draft choices, Mulder, Zito, Swisher and Street were the only ones to pan out? His second round picks, about the same number. Total combined WAR round 3, -1.4. I am not saying there is anything wrong with metrics. The application does seem to have a limitation.

 

Do I need to list all the teams that scout, and their failures? Neither of these (scouting or statistics) will always be right. This argument that anectdotes prove stuff is depressing to me.

[jay]

Help me out. Who are we talking about here

 

TR acquired the following players that were in A ball at the time: Francisco Liriano (H-A), Alexi Casilla (H-A), Kyle Lohse (H-A), Johan Santana (A), Lew Ford (A), Jason Bartlett (H-A), Cristian Guzman (H-A), Joe Mays (H-A), David Ortiz (A).

 

Not all were super studs, but far more MLBers than the average that make it from A. I would downright fear trading a guy in A-ball to Terry Ryan as a fellow GM.

[ThePuck]

TR acquired the following players that were in A ball at the time: Francisco Liriano (H-A), Alexi Casilla (H-A), Kyle Lohse (H-A), Johan Santana (A), Lew Ford (A), Jason Bartlett (H-A), Cristian Guzman (H-A), Joe Mays (H-A), David Ortiz (A).

 

Not all were super studs, but far more MLBers than the average that make it from A. I would downright fear trading a guy in A-ball to Terry Ryan as a fellow GM.

 

How do you think that compares to other teams? I'd think this info, while certainly interesting, doesn't tell us much unless compared to how other teams do in the same situation.

[jay]

How do you think that compares to other teams? I'd think this info, while certainly interesting, doesn't tell us much unless compared to how other teams do in the same situation.

 

I'd wager that it compares extremely well. It seems pretty intuitive that acquiring 9 future MLBers from A-ball in that time frame is impressive, but I'd welcome evidence to the contrary.

[ThePuck]

I'd wager that it compares extremely well. It seems pretty intuitive that acquiring 9 future MLBers from A-ball in that time frame is impressive, but I'd welcome evidence to the contrary.

 

All I was saying is if one is to draw conclusions based on the info you threw out there, one would also have to look at how all the other teams have done in that regard over the same time frame that Ryan has been GM and compare. Just pointing out 9 guys over 15 years as GM doesn't give us anything to rate it against.

[Alex]

TR acquired the following players that were in A ball at the time: Francisco Liriano (H-A), Alexi Casilla (H-A), Kyle Lohse (H-A), Johan Santana (A), Lew Ford (A), Jason Bartlett (H-A), Cristian Guzman (H-A), Joe Mays (H-A), David Ortiz (A).

 

Not all were super studs, but far more MLBers than the average that make it from A. I would downright fear trading a guy in A-ball to Terry Ryan as a fellow GM.

 

As I added in my edit, I assumed that you're talking about the past here, which is less relevant now for a lot of reasons.

 

One of which, while not part of this discussion, is that teams are valuing prospects far more than they used to. Relevant to this discussion may be that teams are using better evaluative tools now then they were at the time.

 

While I'll agree he was good at it in his first go round, I'd agree with ThePuck that simply calling it above average and using the words "far more" than other teams without a basis for comparison isn't really helpful, especially when you consider that the Twins were often trading away veterans they couldn't sign for prospects, not something that has happened here all that much lately.

 

In fact, this is a major concern that a lot of people have that Ryan has done little to disprove so far: In a lot of areas (evaluation, free agency, trading), the landscape has changed but that Ryan hasn't.

[jay]

As I added in my edit, I assumed that you're talking about the past here, which is less relevant now for a lot of reasons.

 

One of which, while not part of this discussion, is that teams are valuing prospects far more than they used to. Relevant to this discussion may be that teams are using better evaluative tools now then they were at the time.

 

While I'll agree he was good at it in his first go round, I'd agree with ThePuck that simply calling it above average and using the words "far more" than other teams without a basis for comparison isn't really helpful, especially when you consider that the Twins were often trading away veterans they couldn't sign for prospects, not something that has happened here all that much lately.

 

In fact, this is a major concern that a lot of people have that Ryan has done little to disprove so far: In a lot of areas (evaluation, free agency, trading), the landscape has changed but that Ryan hasn't.

 

I could also make counterpoints that would require you to complete hours of research to support your point, but that wouldn't be very fair for either of us to do... now would it?

[Nick Nelson]

My first objection would be that it would be very difficult to prove, statistically or through Terry Ryan quotes, that the Twins don't place an emphasis on plate discipline.

 

From a coaching standpoint they very well might emphasize it. From a player acquisition standpoint? I dunno. They traded Garza for Young. They traded Santana for Gomez. They seem to be under the impression that Florimon can turn into a useful hitter. Rarely do you see them go after a guy who might be undervalued because his strike zone control exceeds his other skills. Although I feel less strongly about this point than the two that preceded it.

[nicksaviking]

These accusations could open up a whole boatload of new conversations.

 

My first objection would be that it would be very difficult to prove, statistically or through Terry Ryan quotes, that the Twins don't place an emphasis on plate discipline.

 

No disagreement here, the Twins surely do value plate discipline. It is one of the tennents Sabrmetrics and old school baseball have in common.

[Alex]

I could also make counterpoints that would require you to complete hours of research to support your point, but that wouldn't be very fair for either of us to do... now would it?

 

No, but you made the comparison to other teams first. If you're going to make statements like "by far" and put "far" in bold, I'd assume you have numbers or read something somewhere that support your point.

 

All I asked was who we were discussing as I wasn't sure who I could be missing in the current Terry Ryan era, or if we were talking about the previous, which, again, has no real relevance to me at this point -- and that was my main point.

[launchingthrees]

I'm pretty skeptical of much "advanced metrics," at least much of the defensive stuff, and the attempts to arrive at definitive "worths," and/or "wins" from data.

 

Teams have access to fieldf/x. They don't need use imperfect publicly available fielding metrics.

[jay]

In fact, this is a major concern that a lot of people have that Ryan has done little to disprove so far: In a lot of areas (evaluation, free agency, trading), the landscape has changed but that Ryan hasn't.

 

Bottom line, I don't disagree with your point and I've been saying all along here that the line of thought needs to advance throughout the org.

 

However, you're also right that we haven't seen many of these types of deals yet since TR re-took the helm. We don't know how relevant his previous success is today given that the landscape may have changed, but at the same time, we simply don't have evidence to suggest that he can't still get value in trade transactions...

[Alex]

Bottom line, I don't disagree with your point and I've been saying all along here that the line of thought needs to advance throughout the org.

 

However, you're also right that we haven't seen many of these types of deals yet since TR re-took the helm. We don't know how relevant his previous success is today given that the landscape may have changed, but at the same time, we simply don't have evidence to suggest that he can't still get value in trade transactions...

 

Fair enough. I agree that at this point it would be difficult to get concrete evidence about an inability to get trade value because maybe that's true of everyone, but that is just one specific concern regarding larger concerns that Ryan (and the front office in general) may be stuck, to some extent, in the past.

[AROG]

We can all agree not to throw the baby out with the bath water, but your post has a real fundamental misunderstanding. Scouting, just like stats, are interpretations. In fact, scouting is much more about interpretation than stats. Scouts also only provide limited observance/data whereas stats can take at least one part of the whole picture.

 

As jay astutely said earlier, the cost to really use advanced metrics on par or beyond other teams pales in comparison to the scouting enterprise or player salaries. It isn't going to break the organization and they needn't pull anything from scouting to better utilize this route.

 

if you disagree about their prescriptive value, fine. But we are very clearly lagging behind many other teams. I don't like always being the last to catch on.

 

I didn't mention scouting as being left up to interpretation because I felt as if that would be redundant. My post was long enough, I am not calling for scouting only, but a balanced approach which would include more statistical analysis. Do we disagree?

[Thegrin]

All I was saying is if one is to draw conclusions based on the info you threw out there, one would also have to look at how all the other teams have done in that regard over the same time frame that Ryan has been GM and compare. Just pointing out 9 guys over 15 years as GM doesn't give us anything to rate it against.

 

Do you realize how much research it would take to confirm or refute these arguments ? My gut tells me that Terry Ryan is an excellent GM. Your gut tells you the opposite. Can it be proved by statistics ? Could you even agree on what makes a good GM ?

Currently people are arguing that because the Twins won-loss record has been so terrible that the GM and manager should be fired. But isn't this like a pitchers won-loss record? Most people no longer consider a pitchers won-loss record as the main way to judge a pitchers effectiveness, (Otherwise King Felix would never have won the Cy Young award) and the same could be said for a teams won-loss record as a method to judge the effectiveness of a manager or a front office.

Probably, but it would take would take a team of statisticians to compile a database that would rate Managers and General Managers. And the haters would still hate, because their gut tells them something different or they wouldn't agree on the criterion of what makes a good GM.

 

So we argue endlessly and when one poster uses an example of success or failure, the other side dismisses it due to the small sample size.

 

Here is one area where Sabermetrics could provide insight to the fans.

[AROG]

From a coaching standpoint they very well might emphasize it. From a player acquisition standpoint? I dunno. They traded Garza for Young. They traded Santana for Gomez. They seem to be under the impression that Florimon can turn into a useful hitter. Rarely do you see them go after a guy who might be undervalued because his strike zone control exceeds his other skills. Although I feel less strongly about this point than the two that preceded it.

 

That is the area I would like to see TR grow. He seems to still believe that we are a small market team, not a medium market team.