Neal Huntington And Jack Zduriencik: Process Or Results?
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 13, 2010 3:59 AM EDT
Email
PrintYesterday there was an interesting discussion about the Mariners' failed season in the FanPosts, and in the comment thread there was some stuff about Dave Cameron, who writes for FanGraphs and USS Mariner, and his role in hyping the Mariners and their general manager, Jack Zduriencik.
As for Cameron's specific arguments before the season, I'm mostly going to stay out of it. I really like his writing (he's an entertaining polemicist, if nothing else), but I didn't pay close enough attention at the time. Since then, though, he's received a ton of criticism, at least by baseball-blogger standards, and much of it focused on his March article that called the Mariners the sixth-best organization in baseball.
Everyone who has blogged about baseball for more than a few weeks knows that it's easy to get things wrong, and it happens all the time. For example, I liked Andy LaRoche a lot and completely missed the boat on Jose Bautista. That sort of thing happens constantly, and when you have the courage to say what you think will happen, you have to deal with possibility that you'll miss. No one gets them all.
That said, I'm glad I've never had to defend an article like the one Cameron wrote. To his credit, he did defend it, and the defense goes in some interesting directions.
I’m of the opinion that we should see everything in shades of probability. Since we don’t know what’s going to happen, I don’t find a lot of value in predictions. They are, for all intents and purposes, just guesses, some more informed than others. For instance, in my pre-season just for fun predictions post, I named Josh Hamilton as my AL MVP. I thought he was in store for a pretty good year. I had no idea he was going to go nuts like he has, of course, and I don’t think he’s proven that I had some special insight into how his season was going to go.
So, when people point to the Mariners record and how 2010 has turned out, I don’t look at it as proof that this result was inevitable. It was one of many possible outcomes, and one I tried to make clear was possible ahead of time.
Right. Cameron's hype of Zduriencik was a bit much to begin with, but it wouldn't have looked so silly if the M's hadn't been much worse than anyone had predicted. Only so much of what happens in any given season is foreseeable, and even then, it's imprecise. For the Pirates this year, the emergences of James McDonald and Evan Meek weren't inevitable. The implosion of Charlie Morton wasn't inevitable. They were simply outcomes, among many others that could have happened but didn't.
Yes, teams with bad processes get lucky sometimes. If you watch enough poker, you’ll see a lot of bad players beat good players with hands they should have never been involved in to begin with. But the good players are good players because the understand that small advantages add up over time, and they’re willing to put their money on the line when they have an advantage because, more often than not, they’ll win.
More often than not, the good process teams beat the bad process teams. It won’t always work out that way, because there are far too many variables that clubs cannot control, but you want to bet on the teams that are doing things the right way, not on teams that are relying on career years from unexpected sources.
I love poker analogies, both because I'm interested in poker and because it's really similar to general managing. You only have so much control over the results. All you can do is improve your odds by playing well. And if you play a lot, you learn that it isn't even particularly healthy to worry about the results, at least not on a day-to-day basis. You should only worry about getting your money in good and playing well.
The question, when evaluating a GM, is not, "Is he getting good results?" but rather, "Is he playing well?" That's counterintuitive (because obviously the temptation to judge the GM based solely on how the team is doing is so enormous), and complicated (because figuring out if a GM is playing well is a lot more difficult than figuring out if he's getting good results). Also, we can't see all the GM's cards, and so sometimes we have to look at the results to see how he's playing.
The point, though, is that the process is what we should focus on, and it's no accident that Neal Huntington and Frank Coonelly talk about it all the time. There are only so many outcomes they can control, so they just have to focus on those. And when people here defend Huntington, I think what they're mostly saying is that he's getting the process right, not that the results are necessarily going to turn out perfectly.
That might sound like excuse-making, or like this, but it isn't. If Major League Baseball were like a poker tournament, the Pirates would be one of the shortest stacks at the table. With good play and some excellent luck, they could come out on top. But because they can make so few moves and have to depend so heavily on the whims of chance, the distribution of possible outcomes is still skewed toward failure. I'm probably known as one of Huntington's biggest supporters, and even I don't think it's very likely he'll even be able to lead the Bucs to the playoffs. But I think that's largely a function of the size of his stack, rather than an inability to play.
Unless Major League Baseball makes a new tournament where everyone starts with the same number of chips, though, I think Huntington's plan of building through the minors is basically correct, and there's no reason to try something different. Although I have some qualms with many of Huntington's smaller decisions (fascination with guys who throw hard but can't pitch, inability to build benches thus far, the whole Akinori Iwamura debacle), I'll continue to give him the benefit of the doubt, because I think he's mostly playing strong poker.
288 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Full house
Good analysis and solid analogy with poker. Yes, the Bucs have a much shorter stack and also have a much smaller margin of error than big market teams. Other teams can afford to gamble and lose; the Pirates can’t have that happen too often. But I agree that Huntington is on the right track. Given the circumstances of the Pirates and baseball overall, what else could he do?
I've always used poker and financial market analogies (specifically investing) to explain to non fans...
…why Neal Huntington is doing the right thing. Generally more people understand poker and investing than they do how to run a small market baseball team in today’s environment.
Bottom line is with the rules of the game, resources available, information available, Neal Huntington is doing close to the best that he possible can. Those that don’t see that are either biased or uneducated in my opinion.
"Those that don’t see that are either biased or uneducated in my opinion."
I totally agree with this. I’m the only one who knows anything about the Pirates at my place of employment and am usually the person someone comes to to sound off about their opinion about X Pirate issue. I’m totally through trying to use anything to compare what’s going on with the team to anything else. I just nod my head, say a few ‘uh huh’s and change the subject. The Pirates have been bad for years now and nothing short of 3 straight world series titles will convince these people that Nutting and the management team are anything but money grubbing imbesiles.
"So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded?! Yea. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets do a sample. There are 4 of us an you're retarded. Thats 25 percent." Southpark; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce
RIP Corey Keller, James Taylor, M. Jay Darby, Derek Davis.
by gorillakilla34 on Oct 13, 2010 10:42 PM EDT up reply actions
This is a good way to think about it
But, the questions I keep coming back to are these: Why shouldn’t we give credit to FC for his process, but continue to question whether the processes NH uses to evaluate players and trades are significantly flawed? Why shouldn’t we consider the possibility that the processes that NH uses to manage and interact with other people (agents, coaches, players, reporters) are too rigid, immature, and ultimately counterproductive?
Unfair Treatment
Why shouldn’t we consider the possibility that the processes that NH uses to manage and interact with other people (agents, coaches, players, reporters) are too rigid, immature, and ultimately counterproductive?
I have had the feeling while completely unsubstantiated by fact that Huntington is criticized unfairly in this regard. A number of things indicate him being a cordial person. I cannot think of one instances where someone in the organization has criticized him from the top (Nutting and Coonelly) or from below (Russell) except for the AA manager. I think part of it is posturing in regards to other teams. He is indicating the small market team is not going to be pushed around. I remember during the Jason Bay deal talks that other GMs were complaining about Huntington’s asking price. Apparently they were overlooking the fact that Bay was the team’s biggest asset and that he was likely one of the best 30 position players in the league at the time as he showed in Boston. Also, there is the spat with Sano’s agent. However, that seemed to be more of an issue between Gayo and the agent than Huntington who simply did not want to bid against himself. The agent didn’t like the meddling from the Pirates through Gayo. For the most part it seems like his hardball tactics have worked in several cases judging by his continued ability to get more than he otherwise should have. Maybe that’s how you have to play the game when you have a small stack.
Sure, it's a possibility.
Just like it’s possible that he has a SS uniform in his closet at home, or that he’s secretly a child molester.
But most people would want some kind of actual evidence before throwing that kind of accusation around. And no, having problems dealing with Rob Plummer doesn’t count, unless you think that every other person who’s ever dealt with Plummer was equally “rigid” and “immature”.
It wasn't a problem for the Twins
And the Pirates are one of the only teams to almost go to arbitration over the manner in which an agreement with another prized talent was reached. And the Pirates are the only team I’ve heard of that had a draft pick say he felt a ball team wasn’t being straight with him after he reached an agreement with the team. All this in three years.
From something you said earlier, it appears you are 20-something. Nothing wrong with that, obviously. But I read these discussions on here and at Pirates Prospects and onlybucs around draft time in which signing bonuses in the $250k-$750k range are compared to the value of college scholarships and, in all of these discussions, I’ve never seen one of the posters point out that these bonuses are basically cut in half by taxes.
It seems to me that many if not most of the posters on here who defend NH’s approach to these types of matters have very little experience with managing adults or negotiating over large sums of money. Defending NH’s approach makes a lot more sense if you’ve only thought about doing those kinds of things in the abstract, where real world issues, even obvious one like taxes, don’t exist.
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 13, 2010 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions
the Pirates are one of the only teams to almost go to arbitration over the manner in which an agreement with another prized talent was reached
Heh. Have you ever heard of Scott Boras?
And the Pirates are the only team I’ve heard of that had a draft pick say he felt a ball team wasn’t being straight with him after he reached an agreement with the team.
Yeah, that was a little weird, but it seems like the delay in that case was being enforced by MLB, because the Pirates wanted to give Kime an above-slot bonus. Not really something they could’ve controlled, and not something that MLB tried to do even five years ago, so the opportunities for relevant past precedents are somewhat limited.
From something you said earlier, it appears you are 20-something.
Heh, I wish. I’m in my 30s.
But I read these discussions on here and at Pirates Prospects and onlybucs around draft time in which signing bonuses in the $250k-$750k range are compared to the value of college scholarships and, in all of these discussions, I’ve never seen one of the posters point out that these bonuses are basically cut in half by taxes.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but personally I never mentioned that because I thought it was obvious. That’s just how taxes work, y’know? We don’t mention the actual cost of a college education, either, if you take out student loans rather than paying the whole nut up-front.
Taxes would have to be factored in for it to be meaningful
If I get a scholarship for tuition, fees, room and board at a decent university, like Rice, that thing has to be worth somewhere around $50,000 – $60,000 per year, times four years (with, if anything, an anticipated slight increase in its yearly true value over those four years, as college tuition rates are increasing at rates higher than inflation and expected returns on investment).
If I try to compare the value of that to the value of a $400,000 signing bonus without factoring into account taxes, I’ve done a pretty bad job of it, haven’t I? Not only have I reached the wrong conclusion (that the signing bonus is worth more), it wasn’t even that close the way I did the math.
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 13, 2010 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Two problems ...
1. It’s not taxed at 50 percent.
2. The college education is included in nearly all deals for top HS guys.
So it’s not like you are giving up the education if the team will pay for it later.
By the time you add
State taxes (which obviously vary by state), payroll taxes, and any municipal taxes, it can be pretty reasonably rounded to 50%.
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 13, 2010 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions
If the Bush Tax Cuts expire the top tax bracket depending on your state
after all other taxes included are going to be between 43%-49%. I’m not going political here, I’m just saying what they would be for the top tax bracket, which is where many of these bonuses will fall.
But they didn't expire this year ...
which was my point. Fifty percent is way too high.
I'll take our word for it ...
but I’d think a smart “adviser” would make sure the person was a legal resident of FL.
I live in Pennsylvania.
Every bonus I’ve ever received (obviously nowhere near the size of draft bonuses) gets an automatic 40 per cent federal tax taken out because they see a bonus as something that isn’t an earned wage. I’m sure there are exceptions where bonuses are taxed different. But after my union dues, state tax, social security, and municipality are taken out, it is very close to 50 percent.
"So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded?! Yea. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets do a sample. There are 4 of us an you're retarded. Thats 25 percent." Southpark; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce
RIP Corey Keller, James Taylor, M. Jay Darby, Derek Davis.
by gorillakilla34 on Oct 13, 2010 10:55 PM EDT up reply actions
That's part of it ...
Supplemental income is taxed at the higher rate. Initially.
But everything over your tax bracket (say 25 percent) is returned next year.
It’s an illusion. Hence the reason, I suspect, that you receive a generous federal return the following year.
When’s the last time you saw a discussion of MLB player salaries where people mentioned taxes?
by WTM on Oct 13, 2010 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Missing point
If you are comparing the value of pre-tax income to the value of not having to pay a cost (i.e., a college scholarship), you have to account for taxes.
I’ve also seen people compare the value of a bonus to the anticipated increase in earnings from having a college degree. Apart from the fact that this is a much weaker way to estimate the value of a college scholarship, you still have huge tax issues. $60k/year over ten years for a singleman or family is going to be taxed at a much, much lower rate (the deductions will eat up a huge chunk of it) than $400k in one year for a single man.
When is the last time I saw someone compare a player’s earnings to receiving a gift on what would otherwise be a post-tax expense? A: Only when people compare bonuses to college scholarships.
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 13, 2010 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions
What does this have to do with the Pirates?
Everyone pays taxes and talking about bonuses after taxes would just complicate things unecessarily.
Tony Sanchez got a $2.4M bonus, ZVR got a $1.2M bonus, there’s no need for us to know how much each paid in state and municipal taxes.
The issue comes up
When people discuss whether such and such player is sensible to go to college or take the money, and comparisons are made. Like Dace Kime turning down a $400,000 (net $240,000, ok, Bernie?) to go to college.
My point is that the failure (at all, not just not reflexively) to consider the implications of taxes on the bonus by the people who do it indicates lack of sophistication (mostly due to age or having more noble pursuits, like journalism). The lack of sophistication in turn (my thesis) explains why NH’s actions (including not just those cited above, but also his control-freakish nature when it comes to the minors) don’t scream inexperienced and in over his head to these posters.
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 13, 2010 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions
The lack of sophistication in turn (my thesis) explains why NH’s actions (including not just those cited above, but also his control-freakish nature when it comes to the minors) don’t scream inexperienced and in over his head to these posters.
Really, all one can do is laugh.
Aren’t you the same guy who accused Rene Gayo a few months ago of deliberately swindling Heredia out of a big slice of his bonus money for signing with a Mexican club, when in fact MLB teams aren’t allowed to directly sign Mexican amateurs (per an agreement with MLB and the LMP)? And now, you’re saying that your assessment of NH is superior because you have a better knowledge of business details than the rest of the board?
Rafael
Since Kime’s contract would have included a clause to go to college, I don’t see your point.
It’s either a free education now or a free education later.
Kime’s an especially bad example because his complaints were contradicted by the known facts. He claimed the Pirates and not MLB were holding up approval of his contract. As we learned, however, MLB this year exercised greater control than ever over the timing of above-slot contracts, holding up all of them until the last few days. BA wrote repeatedly about this.
There was still an obvious communication problem
Even if that was the problem, which is just speculation.
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 13, 2010 8:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Kime ...
also is the one who backed out of a verbal agreement. Not the Bucs.
So maybe Kime should be the one blamed?
Moreover, he was naive, at best, if he thought the Pirates could expedite the above-slot process.
As WTM notes, MLB was incredibly deliberate over it.
If he couldn’t understand it, I’m not sure what to say. Other than I hope college works out for him.
Although your thesis is almost entirely devoid of factual support, there’s one thing here worth a response—
his control-freakish nature when it comes to the minors
I watched the Pirates ruin Bobby Bradley due to the absence of mandatory pitch counts. (Even better, Orioles then-top-prospect Eric Bedard actually blew out his elbow in AA literally 2-3 pitches after he’d exceeded a mandatory pitch count, which got the manager reassigned and the pitching coach fired.) I’m thankful for the high degree of control exercised by current mgmt. We’ve also watched a number of pitching prospects turn their careers completely around under these guys, like Rudy Owens, Mike Crotta, Jeff Locke, Tony Watson, Nate Adcock, and Ramon Aguero. A lot of this happened after a couple articles in the PG featuring a lot of grousing about pitch counts and pitchers not being allowed to throw sinkers all the time (Crotta being one example that was given). All I can say is, I’m thankful the current FO isn’t listening to complaints like yours.
I wouldn't count pitch counts as control-freakish
That’s a safety standard (of sorts), so, whether it has any scientific basis or not, you stick to it rigidly if you impose it.
The two incidents that come to mind are: (a) Neal Walker being publicly scolded for not running out an infield fly rule pop-up (which I assumes only applies to the minors, as Bowker really botched it at the majors and wasn’t disciplined at all); and (b) the firing of Wallbeck over, among the few specifics reported, the failure to adhere to the regime for extra ground-ball work. I heard nothing of Wallbeck and pitch counts.
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 14, 2010 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t see either incident as control-freakish. Disciplinary standards are completely different between the majors and minors, for the obvious reason that minor league players don’t have a union. This is true in every system. A lot of teams also require minor leaguers to wear high socks, but major league teams don’t. Are they all “control-freakish,” or is there nothing to see here?
As for Walbeck, we don’t really know what happened. They never explained it in any detail. Dejan made it clear he’d heard more than he was able to report. That’s undoubtedly because it doesn’t help you recruit minor league staff—an area where every organization has constant turnover—if you dump all over the guys who leave. What I DO know is that the Pirates are doing a dramatically better job of developing prospects now, and if a minor league staff member is unwilling to follow the program in any way, shape or form, I don’t have the slightest problem with them replacing him. There’ve been various people online, most notably the execrable Jake, whining and moaning about NH’s minor league staff hiring, yet all I’m seeing are players turning their careers around. If that’s control-freakish, we need lots more of it.
How strange to think that someone might get fired for not following orders from management. I’m sure most people have had to do quite a few things that they thought were kind of worthless just because their boss told them to. But unless what your boss is asking you to do is illegal or immoral, you go ahead and do it anyway because that’s the way the world works.
To me, it really reflects poorly on Walbeck that he was directed to give his infielders extra ground ball work and declined to do so. I’d certainly be leery of hiring for a minor league managing position in my organization.
If it had been reported a year ago that Walbeck wasn’t following management directives, with Altoona coming off the worst season in franchise history (thanks to its roster being loaded with leftovers from the Littlefield Glory Years), he’d be screaming about how NH was too gutless to run a farm system.
Exactly
I don’t know of too many jobs where employees can just ignore what management tells them.
Also, an 18-year-old athlete needs guidance.
Just think of the dumb things we all did at that age.
If the coach tells a kid to pull up his socks, and he doesn’t I have no problem with him being punished.
The problem is when you ignore these incidents and have players who tune out their coaches.
Perhaps the reason ...
Texas fired him two years before.
Only one problem with that...
the next day…Cory Giger from the Altoona newspaper talked to two Curve players (one for Walbeck and the other one hated him) who both agreed that if anything…the players were OVERWORKED prior to games…not under worked.
I actually don’t see the point of this whole tax thing. If you’re saying that all fans who fail to include taxes in discussions of player salaries and/or draft bonuses are too stupid to have legitimate points of view, you’ve just eliminated all discussions of players salaries and/or draft bonuses. How exactly it qualifies as a valid means of attacking Vlad’s post (aside from the entirely irrelevant, ad hominem nature of it) also escapes me, since I don’t recall Vlad participating in any discussions of college tuition.
Rec'd.
Absolute horsebleep.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 15, 2010 6:51 PM EDT up reply actions
If you try to account for the full package...
…you also need to considerably cut the value of the college scholarship to account for the fact that athletic scholarships aren’t guaranteed for four years. A coach can drop a player if his play isn’t up to snuff. To mention just one factor you didn’t cite.
So yeah, if that’s all you did, you did a pretty bad job.
Plus
NCAA scholarships aren’t typically full rides anyway. A guy like Dace Kime will probably get a half scholie, three quarters at most.
Yep.
I don’t know exactly what kind of ride Rice offers, but a lot of baseball schools are the way that Maguro describes. The son of one of my co-workers just earned a baseball scholarship to a D-II program this year, and they were concerned for a while as to whether he’d be able to accept it, because it’s a fairly pricey school and carrying even half the cost was going to be a tall order for them.
It depends on the player
I believe they offered Taillon a full scholarship (very rare) and a half scholarship for Kubitza, which is more typical since each team only has 10 or 11 scholies total.
10 or 11
I wasn’t aware of that rule.
I can tell you of a family I know and the MLB teams are promising to pay for his college if he gives up an SEC scholarship.
Also, I know of former students who got generous awards for bypassing school on the understanding that the $ would go to college.
If a team wants you, that’s not going to be a deal breaker.
Vlad
You know this: Most top HS picks have a clause that pays for their education if they sign a pro contract.
As a result, the team is financially obligated to pay for college tuition. (I know someone who will make this decision next summer (go to an SEC school or go pro).
As a result, you actually do better signing the pro contract. You are guaranteed an education.
As you note, a college can drop you at any time.
It's a complicated calculation.
The team guarantees you a college education, but they may restrict your choice of schools. So you have to weigh the x% chance of a full ride at an expensive school vs. a guaranteed full ride on the team’s dime at State U.
Which is why people mostly don’t get into these details in discussions – they get bogged down in this kind of crap, and the discussion never goes anywhere.
There's also the fact that it kinda sucks and is a bit creepy
to live in a dorm room at age 23.
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 14, 2010 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions
That's just stupid
You are at college to get an education. I’ve taught kids at college who are 17. I’ve taught people who were 60.
There is nothing creepy about it at all.
In fact, the older students tend to be grateful for the opportunity.
I can think of a perfect reason for being in a dorm at 23.
Like giving 4 years to your country in the military before you go to college. In some areas…dormitory residence may be cheaper than renting an apartment. But, I guess finances shouldn’t be a consideration in your mind. Because of my military time, I was almost 27 before I graduated from college. I did have the option of living in the dorms, but opted to be on my own. Mainly because I’d already had 4 years of dorm life in the military.
Seriously ...
you haven’t heard of Boras and his other “arbitration” cases.
Also, that draft pick backed out of the deal, not the Pirates.
Finally, I’m not sure how you get that the player loses 50 percent in taxes. I don’t see that rate on the IRS chart.
No, it would in fact be about that much or more
If you include the state and local taxes (depending on what state you reside in). The highest federal tax bracket is: 35%. Then add in state and local. For PA you would be at an additional 4.07%. However, if you were in NYC it would be as high as 55% total on a bonus of over 1 million.
Ohh yeah, we also didn’t even include the “advisor” bonus factored in.
Strat
You are right. It is possible to get to 50 percent.
My wife is an accountant. I should have checked with her.
That being said, I’d be surprised if a player with a good “adviser” paid anywhere close to that if you structured the payments properly and if you had the person as a resident of FL or TX.
Good post
Good article and the link to the ONN News story on the randomness of life is hysterical. I like the idea of thinking of the process vs. the results separately. At some point we will have to put process and results together, I don’t think we are there yet. A lot of people are great at theory or “process” but can never actually put it together. The jury is still out IMO on NH in this regard but I’m optimistic he can. With Jack Z I think the scope of his failure is so large I doubt he can recover in Seattle.
Yinzers uber alles
Wow
Charlie,
You are dead on in identifying that the reason the current management team has so much support from the sophisticated diehard fans is because the process – regardless of execution – is sensical. Obviously judgement based on the results needs to occur at some point; the question is “when?”.
The more sophisticated fans seem to have more patience because they better understand the process. In fact, 3 years into the process it continues to be a relief that the correct process is being finally being utilized by the Bucs. By contrast, the yinzer crowd expects talent evaluation (and money, but that is a different subject) to be the primary (if not only) factor in on-field performance. Thus there is little patience when there is not an almost immediate, massive improvement in the on-field product.
To be sure, I still think it is reasonable to expect a team’s talent evaluators to be better than average and thereby increase the odds of success while utilizing the process. I still think it reasonable and, in fact critical, that the owner have appropriate financial wherewithal to not unduly retard the team’s odds.
Your post enunciates those distinctions beautifully. Good on ya.
I’m a regular reader and semi-regular poster for more than 2 years and I believe that was the best post I have ever read on this or any Pirates blog (which is saying something given the quality of this blog, WHYGAVS, & Pirates Prospects).
Good day.
+1000
Great post, Charlie. Should be required reading for all PBC Blog readers.
I have one question though: You mention that you are still skeptical as to whether NH can ultimately see the process through to the point where the club can field a playoff-caliber team. Just wondering if you mean that you’re skeptical about Huntington’s chances of being around long enough to see it or if you mean you’re skeptical of a winner EVER happening at all in the current Pittsburgh baseball climate?
Again, a really great read. Thanks.
Mostly the former, but I guess also a little bit of both.
Thanks for the kind words.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 13, 2010 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions
Charlie you rock!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is one of the best ever !!!!!!!!
Possible outcomes
I’m fond of occasionally needling my daughter about how many tiny things had to go right or she wouldn’t exist. I met her mom (Mrs. Daddy) at a Christmas party she really didn’t want to go to, but her mom made her go because it as her cousin’s party. There’s really no reason whatsoever we would have met otherwise.
I can look back at that and at a half dozen (easy) other seemingy mundane (at the time) forks in the road I came to in my life and know now that if I had gone the other direction at any one of them, it would have tangentially or directly affected the lives of hundreds of people. Hell, depending on the fork, I might not even be alive now.
And that’s just one of a myriad possible outcomes for one guy. A GM is juggling the fate and futures of hundreds of people in hopes of finding 25 who can play ball a little. Every move he makes places a player at a fork in the road, and sometimes the player is (even unwittingly) going to take the wrong fork. Facing a new set of circumstances, a seemingly productive player is going to become unproductive, and vice versa.
Charlie, you might add craps to your poker analogy, cause NH really rolls the dice on some guys, like Milledge. Eleven possible number combinations when you roll two dice, and how many of them are winners? Not many, or the house would lose, and the house never loses. The house can’t lose.
Yeah.
My best friend’s parents met at my parents wedding. If not for my parents getting together neither he nor I would exist…
by IAPiratesFan on Oct 13, 2010 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions
The way that I was told...
…my parents met because my dad’s roommate met one of my mom’s friends at a party, wrote her phone number on a cigarette (the only paper thing he had on hand at the moment), absent-mindedly smoked it later that night, and then some time later heard that the friend was going to be at a different party and dragged my dad along.
Wow, cool.
That kind of story makes me glad that I have a cell phone. Whenever somebody gives me their number, I just put it in my phone. The downside is that it totally eliminates that kind of cool story.
The weird thing is that I was friends with this woman who dragged me to a bar that she knew this guy she wanted to hang out with was at. She wanted me there in case she ran out of things to talk about. I ended up meeting her hot co-worker there that night and we got together. For about 4 months. I proposed to her and she said no and I haven’t talked to her since then. That was 5 years ago. Now both those women are married and neither of them will talk to me. I’m not entirely sure what I did to get the silent treatment from both of them for over 4 and and a half years. I suppose it’s better than the ex who asked for a $23,000 loan because her baby’s dad is to lazy to work or the ex who cheated on me and then dumped me. It makes me wonder how people stay in relationships.
Oh well, C’est la vie…
by IAPiratesFan on Oct 13, 2010 10:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Is winning naturally on its way?
1) We get high draft picks.
2) Everyone knows when you don’t have a lot of money, you build from within. Ex. Twins, Rays, etc.
3) You may say we screwed up for 18 years but now the owner puts forth the money to sign guys. Not hard to tell that Alvarez and Tallion are good. Just takes the money to get them signed.
4) Aquiring players from the foreign market. We have been active in aquire players from Latin America but when you have the freedom to spend, it doesn’t take an epiphany to realize the talent there.
5) Not hard to realize the trades had to go with aging players and expiring contracts.
6) Only one way to go, up. With the Pirates losing for so long, it would be considered a miracle (and a miracle worker) to put a .500 team on the field. With high pick after high pick and willingness to spend the money, it is inevitable.
7) The draft falls on the Scouting Director and all the scouts surrounding him. The GM has very little say unless it is a top pick. When you have the 1 or 2 pick, how hard is it to select an elite player?
8) It comes down to talent evaluation at the major league level for the GM. All of these trades and players aquired through free agency should be the way the GM is evaluated. IMO, all the players brought in have accumulated to a C-/D+ grade. Now, is that the best offers on the table for the Bays, Nadys, McLouths, Sanchez, etc? Maybe, maybe not.
Is the C-/D+ grade on the current talent of those acquisitions?
How would you grade the talent of Bay, Nady, McClouth, Sanchez and Wilson?
by Wizard of Woz on Oct 13, 2010 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Just think.......
If I were born in the Bronx NY I would have been a fan of the Yankees. My team would be in the playoffs constantly. Money to spend on any player they wanted, I wouldn’t have to wait decades for my team to have a 500 record. If only my grandparents would have stayed in NY when they got off that boat on Ellis Island….ahh…. such is fate……..
by oldfrothingslosh on Oct 13, 2010 11:47 AM EDT reply actions
how hard is it to select an elite player?
Apparently, its close to a coin flip. That’s not very easy at all.
All of these trades and players aquired through free agency should be the way the GM is evaluated.
That would ignore player development, which although not the direct responsibility of the GM is still a key responsibility.
all the players brought in have accumulated to a C-/D+ grade
It’d help if you explained your thinking (since its not clear how you reached the grade), but again, you don’t look at the average grade of all the players. If in 5 single player trades, you get 3 solid above average regulars, and one star level player, I’d argue that you were doing a good job.
Trades
The grade didn’t have any science to it. You are right in that you could recieve a low % of quality players but those that do click could be quite important to success. Iwamura, Milledge, Cedeno, LaRoche, Moss, Hanson, and Crosby haven’t turned out well. The Verdict is STILL out on Ohlendorf, Morton, Locke, Pribanic, Morris. Tabata and Hanrahan have been great. Ohlendorf and Morton could be pieces but have a history; both positive and negative.
process or results
interesting piece, but a season’s outcome is stochastic, not probabilistic.
comparing baseball to a poker game is asinine. in poker, players know the range of cards available to the others.
and how in the sweet jesus fucking hell isn’t the general manager responsible for what is drafted, unless there is a president of baseball responsible for everything?
the gm deferring to the director of scouting?
my gosh, isn’t someone responsible for talent acquisition?
hey, after 19 years (come 2011), shouldn’t some one ask this question?
a season’s outcome is stochastic, not probabilistic.
Uh, what? A stochastic process can be (and in the usual case, is) probabilistic. The opposite of stochastic is deterministic and no one is making the claim that a season’s outcome is deterministic.
comparing baseball to a poker game is asinine. in poker, players know the range of cards available to the others.
And, of course, in baseball, the other teams players/assets are kept under wraps till the moment you step on the field and they show their hand.
how in the sweet jesus fucking hell isn’t the general manager responsible for what is drafted
Who said he isnt?
after 19 years (come 2011), shouldn’t some one ask this question?
Which question? Rather, which useful question?
by BurgherKing on Oct 13, 2010 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions
hey, after 19 years (come 2011), shouldn’t some one ask this question?
I believe we’ve gone through multiple owners, GMs and coaches in those 19 years. Maybe the question we should ask is “Are all his thoughts as incoherent at that post and his screen name?”
by Wizard of Woz on Oct 13, 2010 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions
"For example, I liked Andy LaRoche a lot and completely missed the boat on Jose Bautista."
I think LaRoche could have been a better player but his career appears derailed by back and hand injuries, to go along with what appears to be a lack of self-confidence.
And nobody saw Bautista’s 2010 coming-no one.
Nutting is too cheap to hire phychics.
by Wizard of Woz on Oct 13, 2010 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Since when is Andy"s career derailed by a back injury?
There were many, many scouts who thought andy’s Triple-A performance would not translate to major league success. Andy played miserably the few times he was given ML chances before the Bucs acquired him. He has played like some scouts expected him to and this “back injury” has nothing to do with it. Kevin Orie is a comparable player.
Not talented enough. The responsibility of the General Manager is to identify talent better than his colleagues and acquire that talent. This article excuses bad talent evaluation as if its all a crap shoot. Its not fucking cards where there are only so many outcomes and random chance will always play a factor. In baseball, if you acquire better players, you will win more games.
The Pirates and the Mariners did bad jobs with both. Jack Z could have watched Chone Figgins and determined that his numbers were a collection of smoke and mirrors. He could have watched Milton Bradley and identified a mediocre slugger with a 10 cent head who would wreck his season. Sabermetrics is a small part of the battle and that a luck only offer a small excuse for general incompetence.
Jack Z could have watched Chone Figgins and determined that his numbers were a collection of smoke and mirrors. He could have watched Milton Bradley and identified a mediocre slugger with a 10 cent head who would wreck his season.
Right, he could have but he didn’t. Nearly everything Jack Z tried this year blew up in his face. Figgins. Bradley. Kotchman. Re-singning Ken Griffey. Not re-signing Russell Branyan. Eric Byrnes. Trading Brandon Morrow for Brandon League. One disaster after another.
And yet, he’s the same guy that had the golden touch last year and turned Bavasi’s 61-win shitpile into the #6org in baseball. He made a great trade to get Franklin Gutierrez and Jason Vargas for JJ Putz. He signed Branyan to a cheap deal, traded for David Aardsma. In the offseason he got Cliff Lee for 3 mediocre prospects.
So what happened, did Jack Z get hit with a ball peen hammer sometime during the offseason and suddenly turn from smart to stupid?
Or maybe identifying talent better than your colleagues isn’t as easy as it sounds. After all, their jobs depend on being able to identify talent better than you.
Of course its not as easy as it sounds...
But any executive is essentially judged based upon how successful they are at evaluating talent and wins and losses. Jack Z made some good decisions on a limited low risk basis when he arrived. His major decisions were a disaster.
I’m not saying he should be fired. However, he must be held accountable and not given a pass because of the “process” he uses and how in vogue his decision makers are. The deals for Bradley, figgins and not re-signing Branyan were part of the “process” but were bad decisions whom other baseball people would and could have identified. if he presents another year of almost 100 losses with no hope on the horizon he should be out, regardless of how promising his process looks. Looks are quite deceiving sometimes, I used to think Kenny Williams was not bright and he went and built a world championship team. But I bet many don’t like his scouting based “process”.
Figgins had a bad year ...
but he’s still a solid player.
Imagine if the Pirates got him what the reaction here would be.
I'm not saying Andy LaRoche was going to be Brooks Robinson.
I’m not even implying he was going to be better than Joe Randa.
What I am trying to say though is that LaRoche’s back woes have taken away from his performance on the field. We saw it in ’09 and we saw it again this season after he had a nice run with the bat.
I disagree...
but you could be right. i think bank injury or not he was a Quad-4 who used hitter friendly parks and a couple of nice BA and BP rankings to inflate his prospect status. His flop in the majors was not unexpected by some.
Kevin Orie
Have you looked at what other prospects hit in those same environments?
Coming up through the system, LaRoche was putting up basically the same numbers as Kemp, and generally much better ones than Loney. Those guys had the advantage of the same friendly environments that he did. As such, it should be pretty obvious that he wasn’t just a creation of his ballpark.
Aki
If Aki would have been any where near his career averages he would have made the biggest difference in Huntingtons tenure.
Think about it, If Aki works out, Walker can play 3rd, Alvarez can play 1st, Aki 2nd. Jones in right. That means the only position player that Neal should be looking for in the off season would have been a SS. He would have had quality at all the corners.
Neal knew what he was doing, just did not work out.
Aki would have been an FA after the season. The biggest difference Aki would have made would have been netting a legit prospect at the trade deadline.
There’s a strong case to be made though, that if Aki did play to his career averages, Walker wouldnt have been in Pittsburgh. Or actually, maybe he would have been and in RF, and providing more value in the field.
by BurgherKing on Oct 13, 2010 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions
uhh...
aki would have been traded at the deadline like all of our other veteran signings. if ryan church did manage to hit well, do you think he’d be here blocking tabata?
No one but Tampa...
…who gave him a complete workup before activating him from the DL, wherupon he came back and played regularly for them during the tail end of a playoff run.
Now Vlad ...
I don’t want us to have another long debate over Aki.
But he did not play regularly for them at the end of the season.
He started 21 of a possible 35 games after coming back.
Exactly 60%. Which for most people, I think, would qualify as “regular” duty. Particularly given that the guy who started at 2B while he was hurt, Zobrist, put up a 149 OPS+ and finished eighth in the league MVP voting. As such, it’s not like they had no choice but to use Iwamura at 2B. They went to the trouble of moving their emerging star to another position in order to get Iwamura into the lineup in the majority of their remaining games.
I hate to admit it ...
but you are right here.
I remember him playing part time. Sixty percent was higher than I recalled. He did do a decent amount of spot starting and pinch hitting.
But I’ll give you this one.
Iwamura...
played 3 consecutive games one time after his return…and usually alternated games with Zobrist in September, when the Rays were already out of the race. He had a 2 day and a 3 day break in there as well. That’s not a sign of being healthy.
Zobrist was a better player by the numbers…offensively and defensively…than Iwamura…both before and after Iwamura’s injury. The other RF on the Rays in 2009, Gabe Gross (.227 BA) and Gabe Kapler (.239 BA) were so weak, that it made sense for Zobrist to play there as much as possible.
One might also notice where Zobrist has played THIS season. He has 79 starts in RF, and only 45 at 2B. I guess that Sean Rodriguez (78 starts at 2B) and Reid Brignac (39 starts) must be emerging stars as well, since Zobrist isn’t playing 2B very often.
If the Rays didn't believe Iwamura was start-worthy...
…they could have used Aybar as their regular at 2B instead. He was young and fairly well-regarded, a switch-hitter, and he put up a .747 OPS that year, perfectly adequate for a 2B.
Also, by using only Kapler’s BA, you do him a disservice. In spite of his low BA, he was good for a 99 OPS+ that year. Iwamura’s ML OPS+ coming into 2009 was 98. You don’t force an injured player into the lineup and displace a star from his natural position in order to get a guy out of the lineup who’s already hitting just like the injured guy you’re forcing into the lineup.
The Rays didn’t play Iwamura because they had no other choice. They played him in spite of having other viable options, because they thought that he was healthy and could help them win.
Actually...
Zobrist’s natural position…is shortstop. He played 327 of his 340 minor league games at SS. In the majors, he’d started 4 games at 2B before the 2009 season, and has played only a third of his starts at 2B this season.
Kapler was a vital cog the second half of the 2009 season for Tampa. In 122 plate appearances from July 1st onward, he hit .229/.322/.371. That would likely give you an OPS+ around 82 or so for that period. Gross was even worse in the 2nd half…hitting…from July 1st onward, .171/.255/.271 which is an OPS+ somewhere in the 40s. But I can’t consider how they were performing when Iwamura returned valid, because I must consider the entire season, or so I have been told.
They likely played Iwamura because he was considered likely to provide more offense at 2B than what Kapler and Gross had provided in RF over the previous 2 months. Aybar has started 34 games at 2B in the majors in 6 seasons…and 2/3 of his starts in the minors at 2B were in 2004, so he wasn’t a premium candidate to play there. Zobrist played 2B in 2009 because of Iwamura’s injury…and being a SS…the most likely to be able to provide adequate fielding…but it was by no means his normal position.
But I can’t consider how they were performing when Iwamura returned valid, because I must consider the entire season, or so I have been told.
You can consider it – you should just weight it appropriately. In this case, the appropriate weight for Kapler being a little cool for a month and a half is “very little”.
Aybar has started 34 games at 2B in the majors in 6 seasons…and 2/3 of his starts in the minors at 2B were in 2004, so he wasn’t a premium candidate to play there.
Aybar had only started 34, but he’d played in 59, for a total of about 330 defensive innings. That’s not an inconsiderable amount of experience. To say nothing of his 181 games at the position in the minor leagues. And if the Rays were supposedly so concerned about Aybar’s defense at 2B, why were they giving him occasional starts at the position earlier in the season?
They likely played Iwamura because he was considered likely to provide more offense at 2B than what Kapler and Gross had provided in RF over the previous 2 months.
If the Rays were at all concerned about Iwamura, but for whatever reason were unreasonably even more freaked out about Kapler and Aybar, they still had other options. They had Matt Joyce sitting around filing his nails in AAA – Joyce had put up a .252/.339/.492 line as a half-season starter for the Tigers the season before, and then had been acquired at considerable expense in an offseason trade (for Edwin Jackson, a valuable commodity). They also had top CF prospect Desmond Jennings available for a callup – Jennings had hit .318/.401/.487 between AA and AAA that year, with a 52/7 SB/CS and sparkling defense. Either of those two would have been very solid RF options down the stretch. And of course, the Rays also had the option of trading for a RF or a 2B at the deadline.
The fact that they did none of these things, but rather gave Iwamura the bulk of the starts at 2B, suggests that (as I’ve been saying all along) they thought that Iwamura was healthy and was likely to be productive for them. They used him because they felt that he was useful, and the best tool for the task.
please stop it with the Aki non-physical stuff
he is NOT hurt… having a FAT ASS is not an injury!!!!! ARGHHHHHHHH
There are other types of evaluation besides a physical....
The Pirate staff should have done better homework. A large part of Aki’s failure is on Bucco management. Aki has a lot of the blame also. However, if the Red Soc had signed Aki no way he reports in shape for Sumo tryouts.
Should we create a new "process standings"?
Charlie, I understand your logic, but I don’t think you’re being “sophisticated” by embracing the process rather than the results. Having the deck stacked against you isn’t an anology that applies only to baseball, it applies to EVERYTHING in life. But, at some point, you either succeed or you fail, and quibbling over whether you did the right thing is somewhat irrelevant.
When evaluating Neal Huntington, it isn’t about being “fair”. It’s about getting results.
I’ll challenge your point in this way: let’s suppose Bob Nutting tells Neal that he has to win in 2011, and Neal crumbles under that pressure and goes out and signs 12 over-30-years-old free agents to long contracts and have them take the positions held by younger players. By some miracle, they all produce and the Pirates win 100 games in 2011.
Even though his process was terrible, would you call for his firing?
Of course you wouldn’t. You’d be ecstatic that the Pirates won 100 games and you would assume that the GM knew what he was doing in signing those FA. Process be damned. The team won.
Likewise, you can’t excuse a GM that has lost 95, 99 and 105 games, sequentially, on the basis that his “process is good”.
If you want to argue he needs more time, so be it. I disagree, but I can accept that rationale. But “the good process” is a poor excuse for failure.
I’ll challenge your point in this way: let’s suppose Bob Nutting tells Neal that he has to win in 2011, and Neal crumbles under that pressure and goes out and signs 12 over-30-years-old free agents to long contracts and have them take the positions held by younger players. By some miracle, they all produce and the Pirates win 100 games in 2011.
Even though his process was terrible, would you call for his firing?
Hmm. I’m not sure I’d be able to go with brains over heart if it actually happened, but I do think a GM who behaved that way should be fired.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 13, 2010 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions
how do you measure process?
It’s more than just heart vs. brains. How do you measure process? One of the problems with your argument is that your belief that the process is good is subjective and cannot be measured. It is intuitive to you, but that doesn’t necessarily make it right (no offense meant).
Goals need to be measurable and achievable. Thankfully, in baseball, goals are fairly cut-and-dry: you win or you lose. If the process — which should be factoring in all of the variables — does not achieve wins, then the process is bad … no matter how intuitive it may seem.
I’ll challenge your point in this way: let’s suppose Bob Nutting tells Neal that he has to win in 2011, and Neal crumbles under that pressure and goes out and signs 12 over-30-years-old free agents to long contracts and have them take the positions held by younger players. By some miracle, they all produce and the Pirates win 100 games in 2011.
Even though his process was terrible, would you call for his firing?
Nobody would, because it’d be impossible from a PR standpoint. But when the team embarked on a new 18-year losing streak starting in 2012, fans might eventually wish more attention had been paid to process.
The mistake is thinking things can be all process or all results. If you focus solely on results (like most fans), you end up making decisions based entirely on short term developments that have a large component of luck, and you end up with a disaster.
But you can’t focus solely on process, either. Ultimately, the results have to validate the process. In the end, the question has to be the point at which you require results, i.e., whether it’s too soon. There’s no getting around that. Personally, I think there’ve been some developments with the Pirates that show the process has flaws. But I also think it’s too soon to make a judgment. I continue to believe that people who think otherwise just aren’t grasping what a mess NH inherited. It was the toughest rebuilding job I’ve seen in 45 years of following MLB.
Likewise, you can’t excuse a GM that has lost 95, 99 and 105 games, sequentially, on the basis that his "process is good".
So, if the Pirates start contending for the post-season regularly in 2012, NH has still been a failure . . . ?
WTM, I didn’t say he was a failure. The point of the column was to absolve NH of his record on the basis that “the process is good”.
I think that is faulty logic.
The logic being: don’t worry about record.
To your point, if the Pirates start contending regularly in 2012, then NH is absolutely a success. But again, the metric you are using is Wins/Losses!!! That is my ONLY point: it’s about wins and losses.
I think you’re reading in something that’s not there. I didn’t understand the post to be about anything beyond judging what NH has done so far. I certainly don’t see anything in there “absolving” him of anything. But, at the risk of attempting to speak for Charlie, I think he’d agree with me that the record at this stage is still mainly the product of the disaster that McClatchy and Littlefield left behind.
And, ultimately, I don’t have a problem with judging by wins and losses, no. I just don’t think it’s that time yet.
Here are exact words from his column:
The point, though, is that the process is what we should focus on, and it’s no accident that Neal Huntington and Frank Coonelly talk about it all the time. There are only so many outcomes they can control, so they just have to focus on those.
****
I don’t think I’m reading too much into it.
Like I said earlier, I appreciate your belief that it’s not time yet to judge wins and losses.
apologies for the dovetail
… But when does the statute of limitations run out on blaming McClatchy and Littlefield for the team’s present woes? Seriously. 2011? 2012? 2013? I want to mark that on my calendar.
I figured their wrath would fade out as soon as remnants of their crap have left the Pirates org for good. Next year, if you will, since the majority of the line up will be Huntington draft picks/trade pieces.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
8 of 52
By my count, only 8 of the 52 players used this season were acquired by Dave Littlefield.
And before someone tries to make a case that more players should have been available, I’ll point out that Frank Coonley was congratulating Neal Huntington after the season for his role in developing Neal Walker and Andrew McCutchen — two players who were both in AAA before NH was hired. If Neal could make such a lasting impact on PRNW and Amac, surely he could have sprinkled some of his magic fairy dust on all of Littlefield’s other damaged goods…
…or even the 85% of the roster that he acquired…
surely he could have sprinkled some of his magic fairy dust on all of Littlefield’s other damaged goods
I’m not sure that anything short of divine intervention could have made a guy like Bullington or Felix or Bixler into a useful contributor.
Fairy Dust
I think he used it all on Walker, whose unwillingness to take a pitch (which he developed under DL) had him headed toward a AAAA career.
Duke, Maholm. Cutch, Walker, Pearce, Lincoln, Presley and Doumit.
That’s all that is left. Doumit, Duke and Maholm likely don’t finish 2011 in Pittsburgh. Pearce and Presley may not make the Opening Day roster. That leaves Cutch, Walker and Lincoln that can be blamed on Littlefield.
This is, for the most part…a Huntington/Coonelly roster. And considering that Cutch and Walker were two of the most positive points on the roster, I’d say that the FO should be taking the grief at the major league level…not Littlefield, from here on out.
But I guess the current FO should take credit for Walker, Lincoln and Cutch, even though they had little to do with it. In fact, they were willing to bury Walker until Aki made the hole at 2B so apparent that they had to think outside the box (probably the only time in 3 years it’s happened. Just like they will take credit for Moskos and Marte, if they develop into something special.
If they were "willing to bury Walker"...
…they wouldn’t have kept him on the 40-man roster over the offseason. Given how badly he’d played in 2008, and how little he’d rebounded in 2009, they would’ve been eminently justified in waiving him.
That leaves Cutch, Walker and Lincoln that can be blamed on Littlefield.
You forgot the enormous talent void in about three consecutive levels of the minor league system. That’s on their plate, too. With even an average farm, we would’ve come into 2010 in much better shape.
Why was there a talent void in the minor league system?? We had the same scouts recommending players to 2 different sets of front office people. Did the scouts suddenly improve their selection process with the hiring of FC and NH??
Unless that happened, that means you consider Littlefield and company to have ignored their scouts consistently. If that was the case…the ownership should have fired Littlefield and company long before they did.
Why was there a talent void in the minor league system??
Because Ed Creech wouldn’t recognize a ballplayer if one walked up and bit him on the ass.
Did the scouts suddenly improve their selection process with the hiring of FC and NH??
The scouts aren’t the ones making the picks in the draft room. The scouting director and GM are. The scouts who were retained (some, but not all were kept) presumably gave the same type of input that they had been giving previously. The improvement in our drafting procedure likely resulted from that input being interpreted and sorted and translated into a draft board by two people who weren’t total fucking morons.
You could assemble the best collection of scouts in the world, but if Walt Disney is the guy deciding whom to take, you’re still going to get a Mickey Mouse draft, y’know?
They are NOT the same scouts
I don’t know where this myth got started, but it’s false. Not only is the scouting director different, they’ve gone from three supervisors to six, with only one holdover. There’s also been about 50% turnover in the area scouts. In fact, probably more now, because I’m comparing the 2007 media guide to the 2010 one. The info in the latter is 8-9 months old now.
When Danny Moskos retires ...
that’s when it expires.
Actually ...
when Wieters retires. I think DM will be gone much faster.
The easy answer, I think...
…would be once the high school players from Huntington’s second draft class would be of an age where they’d be expected to reach the majors. At that point, the composition of the ML roster is going to be almost entirely his work, as will his resources on the farm. If he’s not getting the job done developmentally, it should be obvious by then.
The problem Vlad ...
and I agree with you is that NH isn’t going to be given that much time.
One year, maybe two. The team has to win 70 to 75 games to save his job.
It’s not out of the question. But he may not last to see the fruits of his labor.
I'm thinking next year the Pirates will have sufficient talent again in the farm system
to really go forward with the rebuilding process. What we have right now in the minors, and a handful of youngsters in Pittsburgh, is obviously not enough yet, but we’re getting there. (But the club has to stick to this same “build from within” for the foreseeable future.)
It’s going to take at least a couple more years at the big league level to see the results we all hope for, though.
Whether the Nuttings will pony up the money to field a competitive big league squad is doubtful, but a lot of BD regulars think we’re headed in the right direction.
Time will tell.
The end of the 2012 season.
What’s so unreasonable about a Five-year plan? Even Littlefield got that much time to destroy the minor-league system.
by Adam Reynolds on Oct 13, 2010 8:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, certainly NH will be judged on wins and losses, so there’s that.
These are complicated questions. I agree that Littlefield and McClatchy deserve the most blame for the Pirates’ record this year, but of course this doesn’t mean we can’t evaluate NH to some degree.
Ultimately, I think wins and losses are a consideration in whether a GM did his job well, mostly in that we don’t know everything and the GM has access to information that we don’t. And so when things go exceptionally well or exceptionally poorly, it might help to look back and ask if we better understood what the process was. But I also think that the wins and losses should be secondary to whether the GM did something that gave his team the best chance of winning. Cameron’s example of Milton Bradley is a good example of that – that move didn’t work, but I’m not sure that means Zduriencik made a bad decision.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 13, 2010 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Again, by what measurement?
Charlie, you write that wins and losses should be secondard to a GM giving his tema the best chance of winning, but — again — how are you measuring that “chance”?
That is extremely subjective.
Why should we make something unmeasurable the primary measuring stick?
Because no perfect measuring exists.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 13, 2010 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, no one will argue that. But like the Royals proved in 2003, more wins than losses can be a fluke.
Some GMs can win now (Amaro, Cashman), some have work to do (NH, Z), and some are just idiots (Colletti).
Thank you Ned Colletti.
by ryebr3ad on Oct 13, 2010 3:22 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
This is a good post
I agree with everything but the end, beginning with “But I also think it’s too soon to make a judgment.”
I tend to believe, unless you tell me otherwise, that of the 45 years you’ve spent following MLB, you’ve followed the Pirates more closely than other organizations, and that you’ve followed the “systems” of MLB teams (i.e., minors, the details of the draft beyond round one, LA acquisitions) more closely in the last eight to ten years (with help from the internet and motive to do so from blogging) than in the previous 35 to 37 years.
Besides all that, the pipeline in 2006/2007, as viewed in 2006/2007, was way, way more stocked than it is now, as viewed by any realistic lens. Of course, when we combine hindsight for 2006/2007 (those young pitchers mostly flamed out or rounded into mediocrities) with blind faith in the process now (surely Locke, Morris, Owens, McDonald, Ohlendorf are better than those guys, notwithstanding the fact that they are not more highly regarded), we get the sense that things are looking up.
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 13, 2010 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Besides all that, the pipeline in 2006/2007, as viewed in 2006/2007, was way, way more stocked than it is now, as viewed by any realistic lens.
I really, really strongly disagree with this.
Just as a reminder, here’s what our system looked like at the start of ’07.
Pipeline was the wrong word
I should have said the future looked brighter.
I was referring to the young talent in the big leagues combined with the minor league talent. The young pitchers already in the bigs then were way, way more promising than the combination of the one young pitcher in the bigs now plus the young pitchers at AA. The young position talent in the bigs then was roughly equivalent to the young talent in the bigs now, plus the minor league position players on your list were way, way better than the minor league position players in the system now.
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 13, 2010 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions
That young talent ...
has since proved that it was overrated.
Example: Ian Snell.
I’m pretty glad NH dealt him for a few prospects and got that contract off the books.
Sorry, I can’t take this post seriously. I don’t think DL’s mom would take this post seriously.
It didn't pan out
That’s the point.
We witness guys who pitch lights out in the minors and for half a season in the majors not pan out, but somehow we think that the Pirates have the right process because they’ve got four so-so prospects in AA?
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 13, 2010 8:20 PM EDT up reply actions
So-so prospects?
I disagree. They look much more promising than what we have.
I don’t see your argument.
They look less promising than the young pitchers in the majors in 2007
That’s the argument.
Bay 2006 looked like what we hope Alvarez 2012 looks like.
Sanchez 2006 looked like what we hope Tabata 2012 looks like.
Take any team’s best prospects — and the Pirates’ best prospects are really, still, by any reasonable measure putrid — and fantasize that they all hit, and the farm system and future look much better than it did when you reflect on guys who you know ended up being so-so at best.
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 13, 2010 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Doesn't make much sense to me
Bay was peaking at the time. Alvarez has finished four months.
Sanchez was peaking at the time. Tabata has finished four months.
And if you think the prospects are putrid, you need to review what experts have said.
They differ.
Which experts?
The two BA writers — one covering the FSL and one covering the EL — neither of whom had Jeff Locke in their league’s top 20? Or do you mean all the managers and scouts those guys interviewed?
Morris at 14, Marte at nothing, Sanchez at 6 in the FSL (after being #4 overall out of college), etc.? Are these the experts and rankings to which you refer?
What are they saying about Chambers, d’Arnaud, Justin Wilson, or Mel Rojas?
What are you people talking about?
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 13, 2010 8:44 PM EDT up reply actions
The three best prospects in the system...
…are guys who weren’t eligible for the league top 20 lists: Taillon, Allie, and Heredia.
So what are you talking about?
This actually supports my initial post and premise
If the three top prospects are teenagers who haven’t pitched professionally yet and who are universally highly regarded as prospects and cost a lot of money, then what we are actually saying is that we like and appreciate Frank Coonelly’s commitment to spending money on amateur acquisitions (players in all three cases that are highly regarded by everyone but costly) — not that Neal Huntington has distinguished himself (by process or results) in identifying talented young players who may have been overlooked by others.
We like the process of resource allocation. The money comes from FC and maybe above.
We don’t have any reason to like NH’s actual evaluation of talent. A GM with a good process would be revealed by his acquisitions generally outperforming the majority opinion of them at the time of the acquisition.
If the only feather in his cap is that he is acquiring players who are highly regarded (and continue to be highly regarded, as nothing has changed yet since they haven’t played) but costly, then we should credit the ones making those resources available, not the ones spending the resources on the consensus choices.
I also am beginning to regard your constant reference to me as a trolling as trolling itself. Surely people can disagree about whether NH has demonstrated any talent at finding talent or managing adults without being accused of trolling.
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 14, 2010 10:33 AM EDT up reply actions
I think you're mistaken, rafael
In your original post, you attribute credit for the overarching ‘process,’ or strategy of focusing on minor-league development and talent allocation entirely to Frank Coonelly, and not at all to NH. While it is theoretically possible that this would totally true, it is quite unlikely. What is most likely is that, when interviewing for the GM position, NH presented an outline of how he would reconstruct the team to achieve a winning, succesful Pirates team. FC and Nutting were evidently impressed, and gave NH the job, and thus the resources to carry out his plan. FC therefore has the role not of directly initiating baseball decisions, but in overseeing the implementation of NH’s process.
A good demonstration of this, and one that counters your view of things was the DOA Bay-for Lee trade, in which NH very clearly identified a prime talent in return for Bay; FC did not agree, and nixed the trade. Later down the line, NH again identified talent to get in return for Bay, and this time did not do as well. Note that he still has gained some value in return… Bryan Morriss may not be your idea of a great prospect, but he has substantial value. Hansen’s faliure so far can truly be attributed to bad luck. nonetheless, the that particular trade can be chalked up as a loss.
Looking at NH’s trade record as a whole, it frankly comes to something of a wash; there are very successful trades (Dotel for McDonald/Lambo), marginally successful trades (McClouth for Morton/Locke/Gorkys), marginally unsuccessful trades (Sanchez for Alderson), and some very bad trades (Gorzo for Ascanio/Hart). Ultimately, your view of the big picture is probably more based on emotional disposition towards the way things are going than anything; the objective picture is pretty well down the middle.
“We don’t have any reason to like NH’s actual evaluation of talent. A GM with a good process would be revealed by his acquisitions generally outperforming the majority opinion of them at the time of the acquisition.”
I don’t understand the reasoning behind this. Why should an acquisition need to outperform the majority opinion? All that matters is that you get appropriate value for the acquisition. For example, in the Dotel signing last year, Dotel basically did what just about everyone thought he would: got strikeouts, and did a pretty good job as closer, with occasional tense moments. Where he outperformed expectations was in his utility as a signing… i.e. getting a very very good return for a rental player trade. Had he not outperformed his utility, he still would have been a good signing.
In general, I think there is a good consensus that NH is good at finding value in the bullpen, and not on the bench.
The takeaway is this: in your original post you argued that the process is a good one on the whole, but that NH is the basic problem in the so-far-putrid results at the major league level. This however ignores Nh’s role in the good aspects of the process, and what many of us are trying to point out (including, I think, Charlie) is that NH’s performance so far merits cautious optimism, and a few more years of evaluation.
Redeemed.
Alvarez is more advanced than Bay was at the same age, as well. When Bay was 23, he hit .283/.376/.470 with 17 home runs between single-A and double-A.
Success at a younger age isn’t a guarantee, but it gives an inclination that Alvarez will have more room for maturity as a power hitter.
by Adam Reynolds on Oct 13, 2010 8:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, I say that success at the MLB level
is, by far, the best indicator of future success at the MLB level. Much better than going by age and a tiny bit of success (and some serious struggles) at the MLB level.
Regardless of age, Bay was under control for three seasons entering 2007, and he’d already proved that he could be a clean-up hitter at the MLB level.
Alvarez may be better (though it’s hard to imagine that he’d be much better), but he is much less likely to string together three consecutive wOBA .400 or above seasons than Bay was in 2007.
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 13, 2010 8:52 PM EDT up reply actions
They look less promising than the young pitchers in the majors in 2007
That’s the argument.
Yeah, but it’s not a good argument, because they don’t.
the Pirates’ best prospects are really, still, by any reasonable measure putrid
No, they aren’t. If you don’t understand that, that’s why you’re coming to crazy-ass conclusions like the ‘06/’07 talent being better.
Wow
Future looked brighter? By the beginning of the 2008 season, BA ranked the Pirates’ system 26th in MLB, a ranking with which I totally agreed. They’d have been even lower, but a couple of teams emptied out their systems trading for veterans. By that time, I thought the Pirates’ future looked like this:
We don't know what the beginning of the 2011 season will bring, do we?
The future obviously didn’t work. That my take home lesson keeps getting thrown in my face is somewhat ironic.
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 13, 2010 8:21 PM EDT up reply actions
We may not know exactly what 2011 will bring...
…but we know what 2007 and 2008 brought us. All these past prospects about whom you’re so unreasonably fired up developed into a last-place club.
And yet you’re still insisting that we’re worse off with the current bunch. It boggles the mind.
I'm wondering if you can follow an argument
Of course we know the young players in 2007 turned out to be crap as a group.
I’m not insisting that they will be better than the current group.
What I am insisting is that they looked as good then as the current group looks now. I’m proposing it as a reality check on our belief that NH has done well and whether we actually have any reason to be optimistic, not in defense of his predecessors.
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 14, 2010 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions
The team didn't look all that great ...
to nearly everyone on here.
If you want affirmation of how great that team was, go find the Bob Smizik blog.
In 2006/2007...
…most of the young talent in the system, major and minor leagues, had been brought in under Bonifay by the reasonably-competent Mickey White. The guys brought in by Littlefield and Creech were almost uniformly disasters. As such, if you were confident in the franchise’s future, you weren’t paying attention. It was obvious to outside observers that the pipeline was in imminent danger of running dry, particularly as Littlefield frittered away guys like Arroyo and Young and Bautista.
Mickey White ...
ruined, I think, JVB’s career. I think he should have stayed at 1b.
But he was reasonably competent.
And compared to Creech, he looks like a genius.
What idiot trades Chris Young for Matt Herges?
The funny thing is...
I have no idea what that is.
by IAPiratesFan on Oct 13, 2010 10:40 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s a hair dryer, which is a reference to Littlefield’s glorious mane.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 13, 2010 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh.
I was looking at it sideways. I thought it was some sort of drink dispenser.
by IAPiratesFan on Oct 13, 2010 10:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah.
Kinda like Bender and his Super Soaker of Fine Cognac.
by IAPiratesFan on Oct 13, 2010 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Who said anything about Littlefield?
And if the Pirates don’t have a desperate need for position players now — when they have absolutely nothing in the pipeline — because they’ve got Tabata and Alvarez, then why did they need more than Bay and Sanchez (both having just realized the kinds of seasons we hope Tabata and Alvarez will one day achieve)?
Are you saying that everything’s peachy because they’ve got four decent position players — only one of whom has .400 wOBA potential — and nothing else to go with no pitching and some so-so arms in AA and two power arms who haven’t played professionally.
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 13, 2010 8:25 PM EDT up reply actions
If you're talking about the "pipeline of talent"...
…then it’s highly relevant to consider whether the guy in charge of maintaining that pipeline is a drunken pyromaniac.
four decent position players — only one of whom has .400 wOBA potential — and nothing else to go with no pitching and some so-so arms in AA and two power arms who haven’t played professionally
That doesn’t sound like any team with which I’m familiar – we were talking about the Pirates. You shouldn’t jump topics like that. It’s very confusing.
What is it you see inthe Pirates?
More than four good position prospects?
You think the current crop of AA pitchers are better than so-so?
You think they have a good (or even average) SP currently on the MLB roster? Is it McDonald? Is that the crucial omission?
Are you agitated about the omission of high school arms, who are light years from the bigs?
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 14, 2010 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions
Let me note once more...
…that I’m continually surprised to find that there are people who think that Rafael isn’t trolling.
He’s thinking for himself and making real arguments, like the farm was better in 2007.
by Adam Reynolds on Oct 13, 2010 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions
The future*looked* brighter
Entering the 2007 season, the Pirates looked like this:
In the minors, the Pirates top three prospects — McCutchen, Lincoln, Walker — were ranked 13, 69, and 74. That’s roughly comparable to what they’ll have this year, with Taillon somewhere around the top 15, Sanchez likely in the 70s, and maybe Allie making it somewhere in the top 100.
On top of that, entering 2007, the Pirates had in the majors Duke (age 24, two years removed from pitching lights out), Maholm (age 25), Snell (age 25), and Gorzelanny (age 24). All four of these pitchers had performed better in the minors at higher levels than the pitchers currently in the minors, and of those four, one had had a great half-season, two were on the verge of great half-seasons, and the other was on the verge of becoming a legit MLB #2/3.
In addition, the Pirates had Jason Bay, age 27, coming off a 306/402/559 season, and they had three more years of control. Freddie Sanchez had just won the batting title, and he was under control forever. Jack Wilson played great defense and had a 791 OPS the year prior, and still under control for several years.
We know how that team ended up, and it’s ugly. But to claim that the future did not look as bright then as it does now — with four decent young position players but not one on the horizon, and only one with the potential to be as good as Bay already was, and some very average arms in AA with the only stars not in the bigs having yet to play out of high school — is to delude yourselves.
Go back and read Charlie’s reality-check optimistic stuff that he posted after Duke’s last start.
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 13, 2010 8:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Silly, silly
Limiting your analysis to top three prospects is silly.
All you have to do is look at the top 30 prospects in 2007 versus today to see dramatic improvement.
Hence the reason the system is rated better and praised by analysts.
Second, of the pitchers you mention, I only wish Gorzo were still with the team. All of the other guys looked like end-of-the-rotation guys by that time.
Third, Bay was nearing the end of his Pittsburgh tenure with zero chance of resigning.
Fourth, Sanchez was nearing the end of his Pittsburgh tenure with zero chance of resigning.
Fifth, Wilson was nearing the end of his Pittsburgh tenure with zero chance of resigning.
I’m not sure why you were so optimistic.
All of those guys could have stayed on for three more seasons
And the pitching was already in the majors.
Really, Bay, Sanchez, Wilson, Gorzo, Snell, Duke, and Maholm played in 2006 what we hope guys like Alvarez, Tabata, McCutchen, Owens, Morris, Locke, and Wilson will play like in 2012. If they do, the future that we hope for now will still be on track for whenever, but it won’t look better than it did then, and we will be two years closer to seeing that these kinds of players and this kind of “pipeline” doesn’t threaten .500, ever mind the playoffs.
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 13, 2010 8:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Rafael
I’ve played enough.
I think Vlad is right. You are trolling.
If you want to post a legitimate argument, I’m happy to respond.
Yes, of course, they could have signed Bay to a five-year deal.
And they’d be looking silly right now.
Just like it’s silly to compare Alvarez with your list of “stars.”
I give credit
for using “could have” instead of the much more often used “could of” that is prevalent today.
by BlindSquirrel on Oct 13, 2010 10:30 PM EDT up reply actions
urgh
maybe I need to better arrange my sentences.
by BlindSquirrel on Oct 13, 2010 10:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks ...
but I was a journalist. I should get that one right.
You missed the point
All those players were under team control for three more seasons at the beginning of 2007: 2007, 2008, 2009.
That’s all.
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 14, 2010 7:56 AM EDT up reply actions
Bay ...
I know. I had to watch them play through most of the contracts.
Bay, starting to show strong signs of decline before being traded with 1 1/2 years to go.
Sanchez, contract about to expire when traded.
Wilson, contract about to expire when traded.
You understand they were depreciating assets, right?
Their performance was no longer near what it was five years ago.
I think your optimism was misplaced.
Also, the Pirates top 30
is dramatically overrated by people here. All you have to do to see that is look at the BA minor league player rankings for each league.
They don’t have a single position player prospect with a chance to make an impact in the system. Tabata, Alvarez, McCutchen, and Walker as the four best hitters makes for a team that loses 90 games every single year.
Have people not looked at the line-ups of crappy ML teams?
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 13, 2010 8:40 PM EDT up reply actions
If you only look at the BA minor league player rankings for each league...
…you leave out Taillon, Allie, and Heredia, who are all on just about anybody’s list of the top five guys in the system. Plus Kingham, who’s another top 15 guy.
So, if you ignore a quarter of the team’s top prospects, the farm system looks skinnier than it is? Who could have known?
Again, those guys were high $$$, but universally highly regarded
Why is the acquisition of $$$ players who are universally highly regarded a feather in NH’s cap? Shouldn’t it be a feather in the cap of the people who allocated the money to him?
NH should be judged by general regard at the time of acquisition vs. performance after the acquisition. Credit for collecting players held in high regard by everyone at the time of acquisition (at whatever level they are acquired) should go to the person allocating the resources.
If you like the process of allocating resources to amateur acquisitions rather than mid-level FAs, then you like FC’s processes, not NH’s processes, whatever they may be, for evaluating talent.
On top of that, NH has not distinguished himself at reigning players in, even with money, having missed on Sano, almost missing on Pedro, and havign contributed very little to the signings of the others.
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 14, 2010 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions
Not quite
NH actually chose to go with Jameson. He didn’t choose Machado. He didn’t choose to pull a DL and go with a college slot pick.
He also chose to pick Allie when many teams didn’t think he’d sign.
In comparison, go check out DL’s draft record and look at the “universally highly regarded” guys he passed on so that he could sign a cheap college pitcher for slot.
Cherry-picking ad nauseum
Funny how you keep moving the goal post. First, the talent in the system is putrid, then when somebody points out the high-ceiling talent you’re ignoring, those guys don’t count because they were expensive. Just like your “theory” that the stats of whatever guys you think aren’t prospects don’t count in figuring home/road splits.
Where do you think the top talents come from? Round 10? The overwhelming majority go early in the draft. For whatever reason, all 29 other teams passed on Allie, some of them two, three, even four times. NH chose to take him and then got him signed. You keep claiming that NH doesn’t know how to negotiate. He got Allie done, and at a lower cost than many people thought it’d take. (Same is true of Taillon.) But I guess that doesn’t count, either.
I don't think so
1. The talent in the “system” is putrid if we are talking about guys actually in the system and especially if we are discussing the likelihood of the Pirates winning in the next few years. Not only are Taillon, Allie, and Heredia not “in the system” yet, they are light years removed from contributing to winning in Pittsburgh, and most of the players currently on the team will be gone or on the way out (like Bay was by 2007) by the time they arrive. Besides all that, I counted Taillon and Allie when comparing the pre-2007 Bucs’ BA top 100 prospects to the pre-2011 BA top prospects, without whom the advantage is overwhelmingly in favor of the pre-2007 group.
2. My consistent position is and has been that NH should be evaluated by what the players he acquired have done since he acquired them compared to the general regard they were held at the time he acquired them — which is usually reflected in the resources used to acquire them (i.e., the draft pick, money, or a combination of the two used to acquire the player). Otherwise, we end up praising him for being given more resources to work with. Who says that this isn’t FC’s doing?
After all, FC was intimately familiar with the process by which teams could go overslot to take highly regarded players in later rounds. It is this process, and the Pirates commitment to it — above anything else — that has fans here excited, and maybe rightfully so. But, going back to my original post (like #3 on this whole thread), why should NH get the credit for that process?
Why should NH get credit for any process until he demonstrates that he is doing his job right? Until we can look and say that the players he acquires are, in general or overall, performing as well as or better than one would expect given the resources used to acquire them, we should be cautious in praising his or anyone’s process.
Based on the early returns, in my view, NH’s acquisitions have generally underperformed the resources used to acquire them.
We can’t say anything about Taillon, Allie, or Heredia other than that they are (a) highly regarded now, just as they were at the time NH acquired them, and (b) he committed a lot of resources to them. (b) might weigh in favor of FC, if you favor a process that is tilted towards amateur acquisitions, but (a) does not tilt in favor of (or against) NH.
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 14, 2010 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Where to start
Those three guys are indeed “in the system.” They’re in fall instructionals now. This is just another of your artificial standards designed to ignore any evidence you find inconvenient. Dismissing them as being far from the majors is another.
As I already said, BA rated the Pirates’ system back in the “glory years” you miss so much as one of the crappiest in baseball. They’ll have a very different ranking now. You seem to like BA rankings when they suit your agenda, then discount them when they don’t. Still more cherry-picking.
Whether NH made good trades has nothing to do with the question whether the system is better now than in the Littlefield Glory Years. You’re moving the goal posts.
Whether FC deserves the credit or NH is sheer speculation on your part. You’ll look long and hard for anybody who actually knows anything about farm systems who thinks a CEO has more to do with the quality of a team’s system than the GM. By all accounts, for one thing, NH and not FC did the negotiating. The fact is, those guys are “in the system” now, Allie (ranked the 8th best prospect in the draft by BA—another inconvenient fact) in spite of the fact that 29 other teams could have added him to their systems.
And the idea that you don’t “credit” a GM for prospects because he spent money on them is just another way of rationalizing your pattern of ignoring inconvenient facts. Most of the top prospects in baseball got nice, tidy bonuses. You’ve just rationalized away every major league GM’s contribution to his team’s farm system.
Can we call them ...
the Littlefield Gory Years?
I don't miss the Littlefield years
I just haven’t seen any evidence that NH is doing a good job of evaluating players.
I’ve seen more resources dedicated to amateur acquisitions, to be sure, but there hasn’t been a single player acquired by NH who has outperformed expectations yet — unless you count GFJ and the modest improvement over zero expectations.
With four decent offensive players, only one of whom is potentially great, and nothing else, the outlook for the offense is bleak. With only one starting pitcher in the majors who could be described as promising, and a collection of what others view as mediocrities at AA, there is little hope for the pitching.
Things are bleak. We are hanging our hopes on a Mexican 16-year-old. How desperate is that?
Of course, NH has done a good job of getting high draft picks, so he has that “process” going for him still.
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 14, 2010 7:36 PM EDT up reply actions
I'll give you a few:
1. Tabata
2. Meek
3. Hanrahan
4. McDonald
5. Cedeno
They’ve all exceeded expectations. Locke and Morris are also likely to.
As for signing Taillon and Allie
I did not get any indication that either was difficult to sign. Allie looked like he might be until he was actually drafted and his dad started gushing about how he wanted to play pro ball.
Taillon, not so much. Even when taxes are taken into account ;-), the anticipated pay-off for a #2 overall vastly outstrips the value of a college scholarship, even a full ride to Rice, and only a fool would turn away from that.
Heredia doesn’t make up for the botching of Sano.
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 14, 2010 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Why is the acquisition of $$$ players who are universally highly regarded a feather in NH’s cap?
Because he could have spent the same $ on different amateurs who aren’t as good?
NH has not distinguished himself at reigning players in
Even if I take a guess at what you were trying to say, and substitute “reining” for “reigning”, this still doesn’t make any sense.
See Littlefield, Dave
And look for Bullington as an example of choosing a different amateur who wasn’t as good as other players.
But you don't know whether they are good
They haven’t done anything yet.
Yeah, reining. Reeling was the word I was looking for. Wrong recreational animal metaphor compounded by wrong spelling. Sue me.
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 14, 2010 7:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Walker/Cutch/Lincoln might be equivalent to Taillon/Sanchez/Allie, but there is much more high upside in players outside the top 100 in 2010 such as Luis Heredia and Von Rosenberg, then there was in 2007.
The lower-level pitching is no contest favoring 2010, but the upper-level pitching is similar. We got Ohlendorf, McDonald, and Lincoln up there, plus the Altoona threesome. Snell and Gorzelanny did have upside, but any more than McDonald/Morris?
The major-league position players definitely favors 2010, with Alvarez/Tabata younger (with more room for improvement) and under control for 6 more years. McCutchen and Walker are under control 5 more.
Bay/Sanchez/Wilson were under 3 more years, on the other hand. Alvarez is already at a 30-HR pace, so it’s not crazy to think he’ll outproduce Bay.
by Adam Reynolds on Oct 13, 2010 8:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Plus we can’t forget that Freddy and Jack were 29, which means they would decline somewhere in the next 2-4 seasons.
by Adam Reynolds on Oct 13, 2010 8:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Adam
There is no way I’d call Walker, Cutch, Lincoln comparable to the Pirates new big three.
Walker looked like a C+ prospect. Cutch looked like an A- one. Lincoln was unknown because of injury, but a B rating is equivalent.
All of the guys you mention have A potential.
I might agree with you. Cutch had star upside, Taillon and Allie have superstar upside (although, particularly with Allie, they’re less likely to reach the upside than Cutch).
Walker/Lincoln 2007 and Sanchez now look like solid players.
by Adam Reynolds on Oct 13, 2010 9:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Allie's upside is offset
by the unlikeliness of him being able to command his well pitches enough to make it to the big leagues.
If we are going by “upside” alone, then Mel Rojas — a guy who couldn’t hit in short-season ball after not being able to walk or avoid striking out in puny/fake-college ball — should be up there, because he’s toolsy. But that would be silly.
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 14, 2010 8:00 AM EDT up reply actions
I love it ...
when it’s determined, after a few months in the organization, that a teenager is unlikely to make MLB because of his command issues.
First, his control is not that bad.
Second, he only has say five years to correct it.
Third, he throws 100 mph.
Fourth, the scouts ranked him as the #2 HS pitcher in the draft. He feel because of $ demands. I’ll take that evaluation over yours. Sorry.
Finally, if you are giving up on Rojas after two months, you really are clueless.
I need to proofread better ...
for being a former journalist. Sloppy.
That’s fell.
Revisionist history
The team had almost nothing once you got past Bay and Sanchez. Wilson was coming off a 77 OPS+, which at that point was the second best season of a six-year career. No returning starter other than Bay and Sanchez had managed an OPS+ above 96. Duffy, Cota and Castillo had collapsed, Craig Wilson was gone, Bautista looked like a UT guy, Doumit and McLouth had done nothing and the manager disliked them, and Nady had never had much success in the majors.
The pitching staff was unimpressive. Duke and Maholm were barely average starters, Snell was regarded as a future reliever by most people, and the only thing remotely resembling a pitching prospect was Gorzelanny, aside from JVB and Bullington, both of whom had poor prospects of recovering from labrum surgery. They were barely able to assemble five starters, had no depth at all, and had nobody who figured to be more than a 4th starter. They ended up giving 32 starts the next year to Tony Armas Jr., Van Benschoten and Shane Youman.
Tony Armas, Jr.
I had blocked him from my mind.
Damn.
oh man
me too. every time i try to forget about a guy like armas (or jeff d’amico or omar olivares) it comes up somewhere and makes me cringe.
Agreed
It just makes me sick when I hear the nonsense of how promising the team was when NH took over.
If only Nutting would have kept the team together and added a piece or two, it was a playoff team.
Garbage. They were aging, flawed players. It wasn’t happening.
They were aging, flawed players.
If you want to get a good idea of what NH inherited, imagine a team made up of the players he traded away, plus the few he still has. That team would have been every bit as bad as the one the Pirates fielded this year, even with Bautista and his fluke HR total, PLUS the farm system would be significantly worse. That’s why I get impatient with Dejan’s argument that you can’t look at what those players are doing now (except, of course, that it’s OK to carry on and on and on about Bautista’s season—funny how the ratio of Bautista references to Bay/McLouth references went from about 1/1,000,000 to 1,000/1 over the course of the season). Looking at what those guys are doing now gives you a clear picture of what NH inherited, because it was what HE was looking at if he didn’t trade those guys.
DK
Yeah, I agree. DK, of course, suggests that he could have traded those guys for better players.
Yes, I suspect a deal or two could have turned out better.
But we weren’t trading Adam LaRoche for Pujols.
At best, Neal could have done modestly better in the Bay and McLouth deals.
And in the McLouth deal, he did well to just get that contract off the books. That being said, I wish I knew which prospects were on the table.
DK has reported that only Hansen and Heyward were off limits.
But yes, those players would now be in significant decline and frequently on the DL.
In fairness ...
I have criticized a few other deals, such as Gorzo.
But he largely traded garbage for slightly more promising garbage.
Let's break this down by offense/pitching
For all the offense’s lack of depth, they ended up being quite good offensively in 2008. The current crop will be lucky to achieve that with four decent players and nothing coming behind them.
The pitching staff was unimpressive, but so are the guys in Altoona, at least by comparison. Like Snell, Bryan Morris is starting to be regarded as a reliever. Unlike Snell, he hasn’t had much success as a starter, even in the minors. No one besides fans here seem to think anything of Wilson (wild) or Locke (lacking major league stuff though with an abundance of minor league polish). Owens is surely not a better prospect than Duke and Maholm.
I get the excitement over Taillon, Allie, Heredia. I really do. But the excitement is caused by the universal high regard at the time of the acquisition, not by going on to have years or careers that exceeded the general popular opinion at the time of the acquisition. Hence, the feather goes in the cap of FC, not NH. The same is true for Alvarez.
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 14, 2010 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions
Let's answer a few questions
1. What talent evaluators are now considering Morris a reliever?
2. Do you have any scouts who agree with your assessment on the AA team?
3. Or is it just your opinion masquerading as fact?
Alright
1. From something posted here: http://onlybucs.net/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=434dcdf9cd005c97bff8eb9eb782d500&topic=8064.0
“Morris leaves his fastball up in the zone at times, and some scouts believe he profiles better as a closer. In short relief stints late in the season, he reached 96 mph with his fastball, 88 mph with his slider and 85 mph with his curve.
“He didn’t show me the feel and command, the ability to soften up his stuff to be a starter,” one NL scout said. “But he isn’t totally a thrower either. He’s just so electric out of the bullpen, I could see that being the path he winds up taking.”
2. See above link for broader BA discussion on Altoona’s pitchers (Morris better as a closer, Wilson wild, Locke lacking a plus anything, etc.).
3. All of everything is (someone’s) opinion, but it is pretty apparent that BA’s writers for both the FSL and EL seemed to hold lower opinions of Locke, Morris, Wilson, and Marte than most posters on here (or at onlybucs).
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 14, 2010 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Okay
Your link is a post of responses to player rankings.
A ranking system that is quite flawed, as people here noted.
Second, “some scouts.” What does that mean?
Moreover, it’s a praise of how good of stuff Morris has as a reliever. I don’t see anything saying he can’t start.
Third, the Locke lacking plus stuff has been demonstrated as one person’s opinion. Others say he has Lester stuff.
Seriously ...
take away the top few names and it’s putrid, hideous, you choose the adjective.
Are you drinking?
“Besides all that, the pipeline in 2006/2007, as viewed in 2006/2007, was way, way more stocked than it is now, as viewed by any realistic lens.”
Have you looked at their prospects? Except for the top few, it is the worst I’ve ever seen. Ever.
Seriously, my 10-year-old son could have done better than DL by drafting from Baseball America rankings.
It was pathetic.
Nice post Charlie.
I deal with probabilistic models all the time (both in my professional life and as an amateur poker player), so this is naturally how I think about the world, including baseball issues. As such it makes it difficult for me to communicate in other forums with members who either can’t or don’t recognize the legitimacy of this position.
I’ve generally (though not exclusively) defended Neal Huntington’s trades, as I thought they made sense at the time with the information available at that time. By the same token, I did not give Huntington excessive praise for the Garrett Jones acquisition when he exploded onto the scene a year ago. The idea to sign Jones was reasonable, so NH gets a little bit of credit there, but I don’t give him excessive bonus points for Jones’ strong rookie performance (which not even NH predicted) just as I don’t give excessive penalties for sensible trades that ended up not working out for a combination of thousands of reasons.
If we used our magical quantum time machine to replay the same season 1 million times, we would get a whole range of outcomes (FYI with the Pirates winning the World Series in a couple of them). I want the GM who will succeed in the most of those millions, not the one who happened to do well in the 1 that we observed. That is of course more difficult to evaluate though, and with time the accumulation of results can sometimes act as a reasonable proxy for the process.
The question is when you play the season a million times how many times will the M's suck
Was this year an “oh well” outlier or what will happen a great majority of the time?
Is anyone arguing against a good process anywhere?
Bad processes become good processes when you win
At the end of the day, if the team wins, the definition of a “good process” will change.
Bad processes become good processes when you win
I can’t agree with this, sorry. Buying a lottery ticket a day isn’t a sound strategy for generating retirement income, even if you do happen to beat the kajillion-to-one odds and win the PowerBall.
by Vlad on Oct 13, 2010 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
This.
Over and over again, this. I think there will be those that disagree with this though, and I think there might simply be an unbreakable impasse if that’s the case.
I’m not arguing the lottery. I’ll counter you with different example: think of how en vogue defenses have changed over the last 20 years in the NFL. In the early 90s, everyone played a 3-4. Then teams started having success with a 4-3 and then that became the “best” defense. Then people started embracing the Tampa 2 as the best process for a winning defense. Now we’re back to the 3-4.
I guess the point of my post is that we shouldn’t be embracing the “process” we should embrace the results of that process. People will gravitate toward whatever process wins. Ultimately, a number of different processes can be successful, so saying “Eh, we lost, but the process was great” makes no sense.
That's quite different for two reasons...
As time progresses and the game evolves, the “best process” can change. Rules change, offensive coordinators change, etc.
Furthermore, our ability to judge what is the best process is of course imperfect, so as we get better at evaluating then our conclusions might change accordingly.
So whether or not teams were winning with the various defensive schemes, the actual best process might have changed and/or we might have gotten better at judging what the best process is. Of course I would guess the main driver in coaches actually choosing to implement other processes is because of their short-term results, but that doesn’t mean they were right for doing so.
as time progresses and the game evolves, the best process can change
So are you saying that the same isn’t true for baseball?
I think you are reinforcing my point. Best processes change and evolve — often quickly. You also can’t measure “best process” so even if you have the best intentions, you may not be right.
That’s why I think it’s silly to embrace Neal Huntington’s processes as a validation of his GM abilities.
95, 99, 105. Those are the numbers that matter.
I'm not saying baseball is immune...
But I don’t think the change is so radical for an MLB GM. Yeah quirky things like whether or not OBP is currently undervalued will change, but the sound underlying philosophies hold up pretty well over time.
Also, it’s rather silly to focus so much on “95, 99, 105” EVEN IF you deny my premise to focus on processes. Given the starting point, I don’t think any GM was going to make us successful in 2008 and likely 2009 (and if they had, we would likely have no farm system to speak of today (pretty much the case in 2007)). So even if you want to ignore the process, why bother even mentioning 2008 and 2009?
We're heading down the path of a tired topic
I don’t want to get us into a “Should the Pirates have won more games in 2008?” debate. That will only lead us into a “Littlefield ruined the franchise” discussion. We’ve been there, done that.
I have posted elsewhere on this thread that I can accept (though not agree) with the “Neal needs more time” argument. If that is your point, so be it. I can understand that point.
But, ultimately, a GM is judged on his record and the 95, 99, 105 losses must EVENTUALLY be taken into account. Perhaps now is not the time (that’s a different debate), but I think we can all agree that if we continue to experience 100 losses +/- 5, then the “process” can kiss our collective hairy asses.
If the process is good...
and I believe it is, then we are unlikely to continue experiencing 100 loss seasons. It’s possible a sound process could do that, but the more likely explanation at that point is that our assessment of the process is flawed.
Also, it’s probably true that a GM is judged by his record, but that doesn’t mean it’s how he should be judged. I think really there are 3 main points to acknowledge:
- A GM’s job is to help the MLB club win long term; we all agree on that I think.
- The best GM is the one who has the best process for helping us achieve that goal; I think we all probably agree there.
- The GM with the best process for helping us achieve that goal might nonetheless fail to achieve it over a finite period for a number of reasons. This is probably the only real point of dissent, but I really don’t see what is controversial at all about it. We see it numerous times in other fields: great poker players lose hands and tournaments, smart financial analysts have bad months, etc. What makes baseball immune?
The process is part of the issue. But you also need talent evaluation and player development to get results.
by Adam Reynolds on Oct 13, 2010 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Not true
There is no correlation to the process being good and the team winning. Charlie, indirectly, makes that point in the piece above. As he points out, there are variables that are outside of a manager’s control. So, if you are embracing the process as a panecea to success, you’ll be foiled by unknown variables.
I ultimately want to judge a GM on his wins and losses, and that may mean his ability to successfully execute a process and ANTICIPATE impactful variables.
There is no correlation to the process being good and the team winning.
Can’t agree with that either, sorry. The correlation between current process and current results isn’t very strong, but the correlation between current process and future results is much stronger. Over time, a good process will tend to produce better results than a bad one (though anomalies are always possible).
Again, how do you measure a process?
The reason why I think there is no correlation is because we can’t measure what a “good process” is! Seriously, I’ve been asking that and I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me how you measure a process (other than in wins and losses).
For you to say that there is a direct correlation between a good process and wins, you will need to explain how you measure a good process.
Otherwise, all you’re doing is pointing in hindsight and saying “well, that team won 90 games, they had a good process” and “that team lost 90 games, they had a bad process”.
Seriously, how do you measure a process?
I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me how you measure a process
Does the rationale behind the process have a solid logical chain (true premises, valid structure, etc.)? Is it designed to achieve clearly stated goals/objectives? Have other teams who followed similar processes in the recent past gotten favorable results? Are the people in charge of implementing the process well-suited to the tasks they have been assigned?
If you can answer “yes” to all four of those questions, it’s probably a good process.
I guess the point of my post is that we shouldn’t be embracing the "process" we should embrace the results of that process. People will gravitate toward whatever process wins. Ultimately, a number of different processes can be successful, so saying "Eh, we lost, but the process was great" makes no sense.
We’re trying to generate future success here, and as they say in all those mutual fund commercials on TV, past performance is no guarantee of future success. You need to look at the reasons for that success (i.e. the process) and determine whether it’s likely to continue to be successful or not.
If you consider results but not process, you invest all your money with Madoff. He got great results, right up until the feds kicked down his door.
That is an utterly horrible analogy
First, the “past performance” language is legalese. Really? Have the Pirates become so irrelevant that we now need to dump disclaimers into their seasons in 6 point type?
Second, you will get no argument from me that we are trying to generate future success here. But the definition of that success is in the win/loss record, not in some hollow pat-on-the-back that we did it the right way. No matter how much you or me or anyone else believes in the process, if the process leads us to more records like 95, 99 and 105 losses, then either the process sucked or GM executing the process sucked.
Just because it's "legalese" doesn't mean that it's not true.
When you pick stocks (or funds, options, commodities, whatever), you don’t stop your research and buy/sell after you see the current price and whether it’s up or down. You determine why the stock (or fund, option, commodity, whatever) is up or down, and then figure out what you should do from there.
Process matters.
If my portfolio consistently losses money, I don’t give a damn how good the fund manager’s strategy is, I’m dumping him/the stock/the mutual fund.
If you "don't care how good the fund manager's strategy" is...
…then you’re not going to make much money as an investor, because you won’t be able to tell the managers who are smart from the ones who are just lucky.
This.
Identifying luck vs. intelligence is 100% of the game for upper management. This even applies to hitters, but with the advances of BABIP for hitters and FIP for pitchers, ‘luck’ is starting to become more quantifiable in that respect. Team presidents don’t have it that easy when it comes to evaluating GMs.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
The problem with the analogy
Is that Madoff didn’t get great results. He committed fraud and didn’t reveal the actual results.
Major league wins and losses are real results, and we can’t be defrauded by looking at them as an indicator of what’s going on. We can much more easily be defrauded or deceived into believing that a consistent influx of mid-ceiling, mid-minor talent reflects a sound “process” that will one day produce results.
by RafaelBelliup on Oct 13, 2010 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions
He did get great "results".
The papers that he filed indicated that everybody was making tons of money. Only after you looked at his process did you realize that he was running a Ponzi scheme, and that his alleged profits weren’t sustainable.
We can be “defrauded” by looking only at pure wins and losses if we don’t consider the actual health and age and talent level of the players who generated those wins and losses, in order to generate an accurate forecast of what they’re likely to do next year.
Exactly
Look, I don’t want to get dragged into debating an analogy — if the analogy needs to be debated, then it isn’t a good analogy in the first place.
Rafael says it right: Major league wins and losses are real results and we can’t be defrauded by looking at them as an indicator of what’s going on.
95, 99, 105. If believe NH needs more time and we need more than 3 seasons to make a judgement on him, so be it. I can accept that argument. I feel like I’ve seen everything I need to see to pass judgement, but if you feel otherwise I can appreciat that. But how many more ~100 loss seasons do you need to see before you lose faith in the process or the processors?
How many seasons did Branch Rickey need
To rebuild the Pirates of the early 50s?
Remember, we’re talking about the greatest baseball executive of all time, here.
How long did it take?
Rafael says it right: Major league wins and losses are real results and we can’t be defrauded by looking at them as an indicator of what’s going on.
The 2003 Royals finished the year at 83-79, a considerable improvement on their prior season’s record of 62-100. If we look only at wins and losses, as you suggest, they would have seemed to be a team on their way up. If, however, we look at the team’s process, we quickly realize that their front office didn’t know what it was doing, that their record was built on lucky run distribution and career seasons from unlikely players, that the farm system was a shambles, and that they were nowhere near a .500 team in terms of actual quality. For the purposes of forecasting future results, those wins were just as fraudulent as Madoff’s track record.
In 2004, the Royals lost 104 games. Who could have known!?!
Funny, because the 2003 Royals were the spiritual successor to the 2010 Mariners. The Royals focused entirely on results and ignored process, and reached the incorrect conclusion that they were now a contender, the exact same mistake that the Mariners made.
Forgetting the statistical concept of regression to the mean ...
which explains a lot of both teams’ improvements.
WTM and Vlad
Not saying you forgot the concept.
I think the team’s leadership forgot it.
2010 Mariners thought that Chone Figgins and Ichiro were going to be constantly on base. Management forgot that they needed someone to drive them in. Figgins turned out to be a disappointment, and Griffey basically should of retired last year. But you have to give it to them, only the stupid Mariners would give up Cliff Lee.
By the way, you Pirate fans will love Taillon. Saw him play down here in TX, he totally dominated my son’s HS school in the playoffs (3 of the kids are going to Rice to play ball so that will tell you how good a team they were). But like Cliff Lee, you have have a team behind you to win and thus his didn’t hit that well.
Thanks for the report on Taillon.
Always nice to hear first-hand accounts.
Hope things go well with your boy.
here's a good process
every time albert pujols comes to bat, bring in whichever starter isn’t pitching today and bean him in the head. get him out of the game, and who cares if they throw out a pitcher that wasn’t supposed to go today anyway. without albert, the cardinals are easier to beat and it leads to more wins. solid process, right?
and just in case it's not clear
the sarcasm meter on that post is way through the roof.
“That is of course more difficult to evaluate though”
That is an understatement!
Last time I checked, you only get to play the 162-game 2010 season once. So any suggestions that the highest probable outcome of the season was something other than 105 losses is just a pure guess. So saying that you “want the GM who will succeed in the most of those millions” absolutely cannot be measured. All you can do is look at what was accomplished.
Cameron has been all over the place on “projections” which sometimes are not “predictions” (but really are) and now he actually uses the word “guesses.”
Saying that M’s suckitude was one of possible outcomes doesn’t say anything. The foundation for competitiveness was built on silly assumptions and he ignored them and/or disparaged anyone who challenged him.
I read USSM and fangraphs semi-regularly. I don’t believe him when he said he tried to make it clear that sucking was possible. The entire Earth assumes its a possibility along with winning the WS.
Here is his argument for the FO in the article:
The GM is one of the most respected scouts in the game, and his right hand man is an accountant who went out and hired Tom Tango as one of his first orders of business. Teams that have blended both ways of thinking into their decision-making process have been tremendously successful, and this is the path the Mariners have set themselves upon.
The Seattle front office knows how to evaluate talent, and they know how to value talent. Organizations that do both things well, and are given a payroll of $100 million to boot, win a lot of baseball games.
All teams blend scouting and statistics – all of them! The idea that his right hand man, which is probably hyperbolic, is an accountant doing stats and slid cash to cult hero Tom Tango for… for… who knows, is laughable. Saying that orgs that both evaluate and value talent well win a lot means nothing – NOTHING. It also comes from a guy who has shown disdain at one time or another for almost all of Z’s top draft picks while he was with the Brewers.
Ironically, when Z was first chosen he was derided as a horrible choice by the same people who eventually called him a wizard. He was old, white and yech, a scout. Straw hats and cigars can’t compete with formulas!
As usual, rather than review his own process that led to projections, uh, I mean guesses, he just draws the ultimate wild card explanation, luck. Any variance from his predictions is almost exclusively written off to the vagaries of fortune. Cameron’s version of poker is with a deck missing a couple cards and 2s and 3s are wild.
When it comes to the Mariners...
…Dave Cameron uses arguments the way a drunk uses a lamppost – he’s happy to lean on just about anything temporarily if it’ll keep him from falling on his ass.
He’s right up there with Will Carroll as the most totally useless of the new breed of online baseball writers.
Another embarrassing miss by Cameron last year is calling for Dayton Moore to be fired, a year before Kansas City is being rated the best organization in baseball. Oops!
by Adam Reynolds on Oct 13, 2010 7:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Best organization or best farm system?
2 different things. Moore has done enough really stupid stuff, like trading valuable assets for guys like Yuniesky Betancourt and Mike Jacobs, that firing him is a non-crazy idea regardless of how highly rated the farm system is.
Possibly the best organization outside of the Boston/Yankees/Philly behemoths, IMO. They’ve got a smart FO, pieces in the big league club like Greinke/Butler, plus the Hosmer/Moustakas brigade which’ll add a lot of punch. They look to be in very good shape.
Seattle looks pretty good in the minors, but not quite as good as KC and Jack Z. has been more questionable.
by Adam Reynolds on Oct 13, 2010 9:06 PM EDT up reply actions
KC #4org?
No…I don’t think so. The Royals basically have 4 good players: Grienke, Dejesus, Soria and Butler. Dejesus is an FA after next year, Grienke after the 2012 season. There are some good pieces in the minors, but there should be – their farm system hasn’t produced a regular in years. I would put the behind STL, MIN, CIN, COL, ATL, TB, CWS, SF, TEX, LAA and SD at a minimum.
Actually, I think #4 is a little bit aggressive. Still, I think their minors cache puts them way ahead of the Twins, White Sox, Giants, and Padres.
Updated rankings:
1. Yankees
2. Phillies
3. Red Sox
4. Braves
5. Reds
6. Athletics
7. Royals
A lot of teams have the financial advantage (Mets, Cubs) but don’t use it. Losing Crawford will hurt the Rays because he was their best player (or, conservatively, tied for best w/ Longoria).
by Adam Reynolds on Oct 13, 2010 9:39 PM EDT up reply actions
The problem is that KC’s major league team is still really bad. And by the time that Hosmer, Moustakas and Myers are raking in the majors, Grienke and Dejesus will be gone. Plus, they’re a low-revenue team and Dayton Moore has been completely inept when it comes to acquiring major league players. Much worse than Huntington, who at least makes deals that seem reasonable at the time even if they don’t always work out. For me, they’re somewhere between 15 and 20. The minor leaguers look great, but the rest of the package just isn’t there.
The minors is the single-most important part of the package unless you’re the Yankees. That’s how you get star players at the league-minimum.
I think Greinke will re-sign with KC. How does his anxiety disorder fit with the Yankees? My gut says he’ll sign again. DeJesus is a nice piece, but not crucial or anything, and he will be more than replaced.
15-20 just doesn’t make sense to me. Even the Twins have such little pitching that they are 3-and-out candidates every year. KC has the talent to go deeper for years to come, just like the current Reds except a little further away.
by Adam Reynolds on Oct 13, 2010 10:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes all teams do (and should) blend scouting and statistics...
But some of them are terrible at one or the other. If, for instance, you are using RBI, saves, and pitcher wins as primary factors in awarding contracts, then you are doing a bad job of using statistics. Tango really is the best (or close) there is at using baseball statistics. I don’t just say that because he the folk hero of the sabermetric community…it’s actually the opposite. He got that way because he thinks about the problems in the right way and uses good analytical techniques to tackle those problems. Maybe others out there value what he says simply because he has become a de facto authority, but I consider myself sufficiently knowledgeable to be able to judge his analytical abilities on their merits. Those merits are right up there with any I’ve seen. However, I know neither the degree to which his advice was sought nor the degree to which it was listened. I do know that the M’s had an offense that underperformed their statistical projections by historic margins. That was likely the result of a lot of things, some being luck and some being non-statistical information.
As for the scouting, unfortunately I have to rely on what others say to evaluate somebody’s scouting ability, but it sounds like Jack Z et al know what they are doing in that department. Perhaps they don’t; I don’t know and I fully acknowledge my own ignorance in this matter.
Not being a Mariner’s fan, I say all of this without having critically examined Jack Z’s moves, so I don’t know to what degree the execution has actually matched my understanding of the plan.
The more I hear it, the more the whole thing reminds of religion
Setting aside the fact that wins, rbis and saves are excessively disparaged beyond reason, there is no baseball front office that uses them as a “primary” measure. There may never have been. It reminds me of the myth creation by “believers” about non-believers.
Its funny that you proclaim the author of “The Book” to be an authority, because he’s not a statistician. What is it you think he’s going to tell the Mariners to do?
Perhaps I've Exaggerated a Strawman a bit...
…but have you heard of Dayton Moore? No offense to the guy, but he once said something to the effect of, “my most important sabermetric stats are runs scored and runs driven in.” So I suppose I portrayed a bit of a caricature, but I’m not convinced it’s that far off for some GMs.
Why is it relevant that Tango is not a professional statistician? The majority of the best sabermetricians are not professional statisticians. An understanding of the game (not necessarily derived from playing it) and the ability to ask the right questions in the right way are important. They need to know enough about statistics to get by while recognizing what they don’t know and when to call for help on some of the more academic statistical considerations. I’d say Tango does pretty much exactly this, and indeed one of his co-authors for “The Book” is a professional statistician to help with some of the more hard-core statistics.
As for what he tells them, I can only speculate. I imagine much of his consulting work consists of particular studies that the M’s ask him to run on historical data. I’d also guess he has custom-built some metrics for very specific purposes for the M’s. As I said though, those are complete guesses.
Welcome to tautology club.
Its funny that you proclaim the author of "The Book" to be an authority, because he’s not a statistician.
It’s true that Tango has declined to reveal his name and full background on the internet, a sensible precaution that I follow for many of the same reasons. As such, it’s impossible to verify his credentials in the field, if any.
However, given that he is a person who makes his living by performing sophisticated statistical analyses, in what way is he not a statistician? If you get paid to do the job, then you’re a member of the profession.
The debate over whether the process was good went on over at the SB Cubs blog, regarding Jim Hendry. Was the process sound when they signed Soriano, Fokudome, Lee, Zambrano, etc.? Whether they looked good at the time or not, the whole puzzle paints an awful-looking picture of resource allocation.
Even if they looked good at the time, the combined floppage and squandering their huge financial advantage would probably point to getting some new voices in the Cubs FO right now, after 8-9 years.
While the process is nice, at some point the talent evaluation and player development of the current FO comes into account.
For the Pirates, it was unreasonable to expect a quick fix and the playoffs after just the 3rd year of a total rebuild in a lower market.
Will we be an organization on the rise after the 5th year (2012) of an Actual 5-year plan (whether it be the major-league team doing well or a groundswell in the minors)?
Process
There are many processes within the process, if the success or failure of the process is strickly wins and losses, no more evaluating need be necessary, close up shop and lets go home. IMO the Pirates position as of 2007 dicatated a different process than say an Atlanta or Yankee team. Since baseball is so complicated and players are not machines, success or failure is always measured in the most simplistic ways by the fans, wins and losses! But a time variable is also part of the process, for the Pirates a much longer variable than for most teams.
In the Pirates case they needed a new and better player at every position on the field and a system that would/will supply them with players for years to come, they again are not machines, you can’t go out and by one that you know will even work. So the process involves hit and miss for sure, if we are talking about one player that is expected to produce right now, evaluation is pretty easy, but in the Pirate process, much is involved with future players, those future players complicate everything because they directly affect the won/loss record of the major league team and put the time factor in a time capsule.
IMO Huntington cannot be evaulated at this point in time, the process is no where near completed or even half way completed.
Chuck Noll and the Rooneys had a process, if they would have been evaluated after their first couple of years, they would have all been failures, but they were given a proper amount of time to let their process materialize and it worked, the Pirates need time also.
by leadoff on Oct 13, 2010 2:44 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I didn't realize...
MLB gave out awards for minor league systems. I thought that they gave out things like pennants…and trophies…and rings for actually winning baseball games. And until the Pirates start winning games AT THE MAJOR LEAGUE level…the front office has NOTHING to take credit for.
Good minor league systems...
…are a necessary precursor to pennants, trophies, and rings. You can’t just jump from the stone age to fighter jets. You need to invent fire and the wheel first.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bucs Dugout
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Baltimore’s tradition of fans shouting ‘O!’ during national anthem sparks interleague feud
- Chris Perez follows rant against Cleveland fans with even better rant against Cleveland fans
- Pitcher Clayton Richard gets key pinch single in 13th after coming in 0 for 16
- Livan Hernandez welcomes ball boy to the bigs with shower of sunflower seeds (VIDEO)
- Man beaten by four others in Dodger Stadium parking lot
