Mackey: Twins lack innovation

[Winston Smith]

http://murmolka.com/img/l/s46.radikal.ru/i114/0807/ab/c1d2cf87cb41.jpg

[TheLeviathan]

Sticks and stones. Winning takes care of everything and winning is not that far off. The Pirate and Royal Faithful waited forever, our wait will be much shorter and the ensuing success just as well deserved.

 

And talk is cheap. Until the results happen its hot air you are spewing, it is irrelevant to evaluating the present.

[Alex]

I'm always hesitant to get too high on my horse about this issue, because the chasm between reality and perception is just so far apart. We're reading tea leaves here, people. I'll give an example.

 

If the Twins wanted to end this sort of article for good, the solution would be fairly easy - just go out and hire a high profile guy from Baseball Prospectus to serve as a consultant to their analytics area.

 

Instantly the perception would change. There would be a flood of stories about the Twins figuring things out. Better yet, hire that person as a spokesperson for what they're trying to accomplish, giving very little information but toeing the sabrmetric line on how important strikeouts are or how fx data can be used or catcher framing or the next hot topic. But it wouldn't necessarily change anything but the perception.

 

And my second point....

 

As I read this, I wondered if most of the teams mentioned - the Rays, Indians, Pirates, A's - also had something else in common: they went through a dry spell. And in each case, it lasted a lot longer than three years. And that includes the Twins back when they were getting rave reviews a half dozen years ago; they had success after a long dry spell too.

 

Perhaps success in MLB is just plain cyclical, and after a decade of success, there is going to be a dry spell while an organization reloads. That doesn't mean they shouldn't investigate ways to improve like Mackey is suggesting. They should. That's part of what losing teams should be doing that makes them better. But I'm hesitant to attach too much importance to visible hires of sabrmetric darlings.

 

Whie I understand your point, it's more than just analytics where the organization is stuck in traditional thought patterns (platoons being our latest example). The sabermetric piece is certainly a notable element, especially as it's now a pretty basic element of scouting, but hiring from within, rehiring the same coaching staff, etc...it all gives the appearance of a stagnant organization.

[howieramone1406390264]

John made a very good point and not unlike an article I read in BA sometime ago. A mid-market team needs to reload at some point in time by getting high draft choices. They can not afford to buy their way out of it long term like the Yankees, Red Sox etc. Once there, the key is to stick to the 5 year plan and not succumb to more immediate pressures.

[ThePuck]

John made a very good point and not unlike an article I read in BA sometime ago. A mid-market team needs to reload at some point in time by getting high draft choices. They can not afford to buy their way out of it long term like the Yankees, Red Sox etc. Once there, the key is to stick to the 5 year plan and not succumb to more immediate pressures.

 

So, we're on a 5 year rebuild plan? I thought earlier you said Ryan has only rebuilt once...and he was successful. Didn't that take closer to 10 years? How is this plan a five year plan? Has he put that out there...said he has a 5 year plan? Where does that number come from?

[Major League Ready]

Perhaps success in MLB is just plain cyclical, and after a decade of success, there is going to be a dry spell while an organization reloads. That doesn't mean they shouldn't investigate ways to improve like Mackey is suggesting. They should. That's part of what losing teams should be doing that makes them better. But I'm hesitant to attach too much importance to visible hires of sabrmetric darlings.

 

This is a pretty pragmatic view but Mackey's point here is pretty sweeping. I do this type of thing for a living and it is essential to benchmark the organization and make adjustments. And, while there is definetly merit in a policy of hiring from within, it is also essesntial to bring in new talent with a fresh perspective. Their contribuition goes beyond their individual contribution. They can make everyone better. For example, we have been exceptionally poor at developing SPs for quite some time. IMO, this is the number one contributor to our futility over the past few years. At some point you have to either replace or supplement the staff that has proven to be ineffective in this specific area. I would be recruiting hard from the teams that have been effective and offering a handsome salary to

attract those people.

 

I would love to know what the twins have done in terms of melding scout with analytics. It is not much of a leap to believe arming scouts by training in quantitative analysis would make for a better scouting dept. These things don't cost much and the bottom line is competing against big market teams requires more production per dollar of salary.

[Pius Jefferson]

According to Phil Mackey the Twins 'sabremetrics' guy is consulted in every potential trade the Twins make. He didn't say how much influence actually exists, but I thought it was an interesting bit of information.

[drivlikejehu]

Success in baseball in not cyclical. That argument gets trotted out a lot with respect to the Twins but it is not really an accurate way of looking at what happens.

 

Now, it is hard for teams with limited resources to win indefinitely. The margin for error is much lower than with the Yankees. Once a few things go wrong, it can knock the franchise out of immediate contention and precipitate a rebuild. But it isn't really cyclical so much as it reflects the fact that winning is difficult in a competitive environment. Organizations might 'sell out' to win in the short-term at the expense of future years, which again appears to be cyclical but really is just an inter-period transfer of resources.

 

In any case, the Twins have been exceptionally bad in the past 3 seasons - far worse than even most rebuilding teams. Oakland never sunk to such depths during their 5-year rebuilding period (Beane has been GM since '98 and has never had a single season as bad as the Twins last 3). Rebuilding is hard enough, but many fans are in denial about how far the Twins have fallen, and how unlikely it is they can recover in this decade.

[Dman]

I think Ryan simply believes the team has a talent problem. When Gardy had some good pitching and decent players the Twins were successful. In general teams that have good to great pitching will be successful. I think he just likes to keep it simple and doesn't believe sabermetrics and FA and other things are as relevant as just getting good to great players on your team. Oh and they have to be cheap as well.

 

That being said there were some fairly huge errors or bad luck in player development while we were winning which I blame Ryan for to the point we pretty much had depleted our farm system and now we need to be in rebuild mode and replenish the talent level. Who really knows how long that will take?

 

It would be nice if Ryan would use sabermetrics more and be less old school, but I still believe in the guy and I think this team will be just fine in the next few years. Hopefully around 2017 the young pitchers we have will be up and be dominant and we can make another run for 6 to 8 years.

[Guest USAFChief]

If the Twins wanted to end this sort of article for good, the solution would be fairly easy - just go out and hire a high profile guy from Baseball Prospectus to serve as a consultant to their analytics area.

 

Instantly the perception would change. There would be a flood of stories about the Twins figuring things out. Better yet, hire that person as a spokesperson for what they're trying to accomplish, giving very little information but toeing the sabrmetric line on how important strikeouts are or how fx data can be used or catcher framing or the next hot topic. But it wouldn't necessarily change anything but the perception.

 

I don't care much if they hire a name or two or ten. I care that they are actively trying to use every method at their disposal to put a better team on the major league field.

 

Changing perceptions isn't the problem, IMO. Changing a culture in which Rob Antony doesn't know what the acronym BABIP stands for IS a problem. I can accept "we've looked at this or that pretty thoroughly and here's what we don't like about it." Heck, I'm pretty skeptical of many things SABREmetric myself. But it strikes me as pretty arrogant for people in charge of an organization to be so sure of themselves that they haven't even bothered to look into industry developments enough to even know what a pretty basic acronym stands for, much less how it might be of use.

 

And it further strikes me as unlikely that "the stats guy" is paid much attention in that environment.

 

Note: I'm too lazy to go find it, but referenced interview was published a couple years ago on another Twins site, which I won't name.

[CharacterGroove]

I'm sorry, but utilizing a cheap bullpen, playing defense and trying to throw strikes and limit walks do not even remotely count as innovative. There are no teams in baseball who do not want to play good defense or avoid walks. There really are no teams spending an inordinate amount of money on their bullpen. Basically you just listed some things that every single team in baseball does, and the Twins don't even do those things very well.

 

I don't share Brandon's unimpeachable support for Terry Ryan and the "Twins Way," but I don't think you're reading his post fairly.

 

The "innovation," if you can call it that, is the Twins focus on the personnel that exhibit the small-ball qualities, not a desire for the results. Yes, everybody wants hitters that get on base and hit home runs (and pitchers that avoid walks and strike batters out), but with limited resources, you often can't have players that do both.

 

To the larger point, I want the Twins to be flexible in their approach based on changing circumstances; and more to this article, for them to put themselves in a situation where they can control their own destiny through the most thorough player evaluation available.

[Alex]

I don't share Brandon's unimpeachable support for Terry Ryan and the "Twins Way," but I don't think you're reading his post fairly.

 

The "innovation," if you can call it that, is the Twins focus on the personnel that exhibit the small-ball qualities, not a desire for the results. Yes, everybody wants hitters that get on base and hit home runs (and pitchers that avoid walks and strike batters out), but with limited resources, you often can't have players that do both.

 

To the larger point, I want the Twins to be flexible in their approach based on changing circumstances; and more to this article, for them to put themselves in a situation where they can control their own destiny through the most thorough player evaluation available.

 

The irony, of course, is that while the Twins did have elements of their lineups on winning teams that were "small ball" and get a lot of credit for that they certainly weren't bereft of sluggers and OBP guys. The more small ball type teams, that were winning teams, had trouble getting anywhere in the playoffs. The teams that did do deep were some of the best hitting teams in the organizatio

[Alex]

John made a very good point and not unlike an article I read in BA sometime ago. A mid-market team needs to reload at some point in time by getting high draft choices. They can not afford to buy their way out of it long term like the Yankees, Red Sox etc. Once there, the key is to stick to the 5 year plan and not succumb to more immediate pressures.

 

If you want to continue to a) say it is a five year plan and indicate this is normal for mid market teams in this situation, please feel free to give evidence so we can discuss it further.

 

For example, the Twins have recently been compared to more mid-market teams like the Cardinals and Braves How many 90 loss seasons have the Cards had since 1990? 1, and they've only been below .500 a handful of times. How about Atlanta? 2 90 loss seasons.

 

This cyclical idea just doesn't hold water, folks, at least to the point where you have to bottom out like the Twins have.

 

There are teams (not named the Yankees or Red Sox) that have been good or competitive for a long time without bottoming out multiple years in a row. Sure there are teams that have been bad that whole time, but to say this isn't doable or is normal if just false. Look up some records, please.

 

Edit: Oh, and the A's who are in a worse situation than the Twins financially without a doubt haven't had to bottom out either. They had two 90 loss seasons (1993 and 1997). Yes, they've had several losing seasons. but they've had a lot of successful ones, too and are typically winning 45% of their games or more.

 

So, that makes three exceptions to the rule so far of teams in situations currently similar (and one worse) to the Twins that have not even had 3 90 loss seasons in 23 years, much less three in a row (and probably a fourth).

[old nurse]

According to Phil Mackey the Twins 'sabremetrics' guy is consulted in every potential trade the Twins make. He didn't say how much influence actually exists, but I thought it was an interesting bit of information.

IIRC Ryan said he runs everything past the stats guy as a sort of veto if it is a bad idea stats wise.

[LaBombo]

And it further strikes me as unlikely that "the stats guy" is paid much attention in that environment.

Almost everything I've read of what little is known about Goin tells me that he's the public relations and due diligence equivalent of a kid's toothbrush splashed with water and put back in its place to give the appearance of having brushed their teeth.

[ThePuck]

"We had plenty going around down there in that Nashville suite (at the Winter Meetings)," Ryan said. "(It was) 'OK, Jack, what do you think?' He gives us his input, and some guys don't believe it and some do. But he is an integral part of this baseball operation. I don't think I'd do a thing on a trade scenario or a free agent acquisitionhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png without giving him his due on exactly what he thinks."

 

He's never, ever, said Jack Goin has veto power...

 

QUOTE TO NOTE: "Back when I was over at the Metrodome in '07, we did a lot of stat work, but it wasn't with the depth that he certainly provides for us. It's different. And he's got some statistical things that I don't believe in, and he's got a lot of things that I do believe in." -- General manager Terry Ryan, on the team's work with advanced statistics and the influence of Jack Goin, the team's director of baseball research.

[old nurse]

"We had plenty going around down there in that Nashville suite (at the Winter Meetings)," Ryan said. "(It was) 'OK, Jack, what do you think?' He gives us his input, and some guys don't believe it and some do. But he is an integral part of this baseball operation. I don't think I'd do a thing on a trade scenario or a free agent acquisitionhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png without giving him his due on exactly what he thinks."

 

He's never, ever, said Jack Goin has veto power...

 

One I said SORT OF veto power. SORT OF. Not has. Sort of. Do you think if Ryan is told the trade is bad he would do it anyway? Yes, there are those here who would say yes.

[ThePuck]

One I said SORT OF veto power. SORT OF. Not has. Sort of. Do you think if Ryan is told the trade is bad he would do it anyway? Yes, there are those here who would say yes.

 

I added another quote, here it is: QUOTE TO NOTE: "Back when I was over at the Metrodome in '07, we did a lot of stat work, but it wasn't with the depth that he certainly provides for us. It's different. And he's got some statistical things that I don't believe in, and he's got a lot of things that I do believe in." -- General manager Terry Ryan, on the team's work with advanced statistics and the influence of Jack Goin, the team's director of baseball research.

 

And I don't know what sort of veto power is or where it's been said Jack Goin has it. Having said that, yes, I do think Ryan is going to, in the end, go with his own judgement. As he said in the quote above, there are things he doesn't believe in that Goin shows him. If one of the things Ryan doesn't believe in is why Goin is saying it's a bad personnel move, Ryan is going to do it anyway...since he's the boss.

[old nurse]

I added another quote, here it is: QUOTE TO NOTE: "Back when I was over at the Metrodome in '07, we did a lot of stat work, but it wasn't with the depth that he certainly provides for us. It's different. And he's got some statistical things that I don't believe in, and he's got a lot of things that I do believe in." -- General manager Terry Ryan, on the team's work with advanced statistics and the influence of Jack Goin, the team's director of baseball research.

 

And I don't know what sort of veto power is or where it's been said Jack Goin has it. Having said that, yes, I do think Ryan is going to, in the end, go with his own judgement. As he said in the quote above, there are things he doesn't believe in that Goin shows him. If one of the things Ryan doesn't believe in is why Goin is saying it's a bad personnel move, Ryan is going to do it anyway...since he's the boss.

 

As your quote is from last winter that would be considered a long time ago. The front office could have learned in the past 10 months.

[Shane Wahl]

Cyclical? Sure it can be cyclical if a team relies almost exclusively on the draft. A team that pursues free agents, spends some money, uses those free agents or flips them for more youth like the Twins do . . . oh wait. They don't do that. And now Terry Ryan is essentially a Supreme Court justice for this organization. So that cycle . . . it gonna last 10 years total?

 

Cyclical? How many teams have had three 96+ seasons in a row in MLB?

[JB_Iowa]

A little off the subject but Howard Sinker was tweeting about the Season Ticket Holder phone call with Ryan, Gardenhire, St. Peter (I think) and others.

 

Someone apparently asked about this article by Mackey and here's what Howard tweeted:

 

"Ryan asked about excellent (my opinion) @PMac21 column on innovation and ends reply with, "sometimes I think he wants a job here."

​Anybody know what Ryan's entire response was?

[ThePuck]

As your quote is from last winter that would be considered a long time ago. It is called learning. Some may do very little in a lifetime, others do more.

 

So you have no actual proof he has 'sort of veto power' based on any quotes, you discard actual quotes I do provide, and you can't explain what 'sort of veto power' entails based on situations where it happened? What makes you believe he has sort of veto power?

[Riverbrian]

Almost everything I've read of what little is known about Goin tells me that he's the public relations and due diligence equivalent of a kid's toothbrush splashed with water and put back in its place to give the appearance of having brushed their teeth.

 

lol... I don't agree with that you said... But it was very amusing... I tip my hat. I'm going to steal that line from you and use it when appropriate at work.

[old nurse]

Cyclical? Sure it can be cyclical if a team relies almost exclusively on the draft. A team that pursues free agents, spends some money, uses those free agents or flips them for more youth like the Twins do . . . oh wait. They don't do that. And now Terry Ryan is essentially a Supreme Court justice for this organization. So that cycle . . . it gonna last 10 years total?

 

Cyclical? How many teams have had three 96+ seasons in a row in MLB?

 

Atlanta 1987 to 1990,

Houston the last 3 years

KC 04-06

Mets 77-79, never mind 4 of the first 5 years.

Those were the first 4 bad teams I could think of. Oakland was probably that bad after all their players left in the 70's

Drop your demand to 3 90+ loss seasons and you would find almost all team would have that kind of down cycle at some point. I don't think there is a whole lot of difference between 90 and 96 losses, your team is bad.

[Shane Wahl]

Two since 1990. I know there are bound to be others.

 

Yeah, just a cycle!!!!

[Shane Wahl]

This "cycle" stuff takes the cake. I think I am going to have to leave Twins Daily for a few days to get my flabbergasted head in order. This was the last straw in the tortured defense of the status quo.

[Alex]

Atlanta 1987 to 1990,

Houston the last 3 years

KC 04-06

Mets 77-79, never mind 4 of the first 5 years.

Those were the first 4 bad teams I could think of. Oakland was probably that bad after all their players left in the 70's

Drop your demand to 3 90+ loss seasons and you would find almost all team would have that kind of down cycle at some point. I don't think there is a whole lot of difference between 90 and 96 losses, your team is bad.

 

Did you read my post? Three teams I checked didn't have three 90+ in the last two decades. Sure, maybe somewhere in their history, but that's no evidence of a cycle, which should be repeatable.

 

My hunch, based on teams I've looked at, is that only organizations deemed "terrible" would have multiple 90 loss seasons in a half decade --- those that have a history of losing. Please, share them if you have them.

 

It's one thing to say winning/drafting talent is cyclical, but to say the three horrific seasons of the Twins is a common occurrence and pattern for any/all decent organizations just isn't true.

 

I'm tempted to go team by team, but I might have more luck chasing down Bigfoot.

[Alex]

This "cycle" stuff takes the cake. I think I am going to have to leave Twins Daily for a few days to get my flabbergasted head in order. This was the last straw in the tortured defense of the status quo.

 

Some examples would be nice, wouldn't they? At some point a bad team is a bad team. The more I look the more I struggle to find a team that has been as awful as the Twins for as long that hasn't been terrible for a very long time (Royals, Pittsburgh, etc...)

 

This cycle narrative has no merit until someone produces some solid evidence to the contrary. I've already shown several teams that are in situations similar to the Twins and could add others (like the Giants) that avoid the rock bottom the Twins are in.

[LaBombo]

This "cycle" stuff takes the cake. I think I am going to have to leave Twins Daily for a few days to get my flabbergasted head in order. This was the last straw in the tortured defense of the status quo.

Can't 'like' this because it might imply that we don't want you around for more fun discussing the Twins' future...

http://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/stg.ign.com/2013/02/misery-kathy-bates-1.jpg

[jokin]

Did you read my post? Three teams I checked didn't have one in the last two decades. My hunch is that only organizations deemed "terrible" would have them --- those that have a history of losing. Please, share them if you have them.

 

it's one thing to say winning is cyclical, but to say the three horrific seasons of the twins is a common occurrence for any decent organization just isn't true.

 

 

Some examples would be nice, wouldn't they? At some point a bad team. The more I look the more I struggle to find a team that has been as awful as the Twins for as long that hasn't been terrible for a very long time (Royals, Pittsburgh, etc...)

 

This cycle narrative has no merit until someone produces some solid evidence to the contrary. I've already shown several teams that are in situations similar to the Twins and could add others (like the Giants) that avoid the rock bottom the Twins are in.

 

 

Even moreso with a club basking in the glow and revenue-super-boost from a new stadium.....ie, the Orioles had a 6-year run of W-L success coinciding with the opening of Camden Yards....the Giants with a 5-year run after AT&T opened. Does anyone wish to defend the lack of linkage between team success and the extraordinary increase in revenue streams and quantum jump in the franchise's net worth with the advent of TF? Seems more than just cyclical......