The GM/Manager Relationship

[klaiggeb]

Rog -- Let me ask you this then. Why is it that recently retired catcher David Ross says that if he were just coming up, he would ask the analytics department just how they would go about getting him out? Personally I would ask all the pitchers and coaches on my team as well.

***boly says***

I repeat what I said above; there IS a place for analytics...it can't and shouldn't be the be all and end all that stats geeks have made it.

[rog]

.it can't and shouldn't be the be all and end all that stats geeks have made it.


Rog -- You may be paying attention to the wrong stats geeks. I haven't come across any who feel that way. Boagie has indicated his distaste for the arrogance of Brian Kenny of the MLB Network. I have found, particularly recently, that Kenny is actually pretty good at poking fun at himself and at taking it.

Certainly MLB doesn't look at analytics as a be-all, end-all, but it is increasing analytics in its mix with scouting. One thing we are learning is that analytics are becoming more sophisticated by leaps and bounds and are becoming more tied in with scouting.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4944/gm-manager-relationship?page=2#ixzz5aH6Dhajm

[klaiggeb]

None of them, and that includes you, but THAT'S the way it comes across.

Consider what you've said multiple times, and what you've done multiple times.

"Where's your proof?"

And I'll paraphrase for the 2nd part from above, "I've provided the numbers that justify my position."



When you evaluate potential player you NEVER talk about mechanics, be it a hitter or pitcher.

You never discuss bat speed, bat angle through the hitting zone or ANYTHING a NON, totally analytics guy would look at.

Everything about you guys starts and ends with numbers.

Your argument is that numbers can be quantified, and you've never listened when we tried to talk about team chemistry and other intangibles because they couldn't be numerically measured.

Thus my statement that analytics people think numbers are the be all and end all.

[rog]

When you evaluate potential player you NEVER talk about mechanics, be it a hitter or pitcher.

You never discuss bat speed, bat angle through the hitting zone or ANYTHING a NON, totally analytics guy would look at.


Rog -- Interesting about mechanics. I'm way behind you there, although I've also learned some from you and other sources as we've gone along. I recall asking about what changes Brandon Crawford had made in his swing when he began to generate increased power in 2015. I had read an article in Fan Graphs that addressed that point.

I asked here if anyone had noticed what those changes were, and no one had. I then posted the article, which gave a pretty clear before and after example of the changes. So, yeah, despite what Randy says, I can learn about mechanics. I don't expect to have your depth, Boly, but I wonder how far behind the other guys I am. Probably some, but I don't recall seeing anything from them with the possible exception of Don.

I was disappointed that no one knew until I pointed it out what the changes what they were and would have liked to have had them pointed out here. It was a pretty significant change, and the results were significant.

But, no, I don't know all that much about mechanics. I DO know the GAME though, particularly strategy. But also some things about fielding and base running. Boagie has posted a couple of things here that he believed I didn't know, and I was shocked at how rudimentary they were.

When we discuss plays or strategies, my explanation is usually as detailed as any, and on strategies in particular, I can cover a lot of pros and cons. I can often go quite in depth on strategies and sometimes get upset with what might be considered surface examinations.

Especially since I supposed can't learn the game. And I guess technically that's right. I can't learn it because I already have. But that doesn't mean I can't and don't learn more. And not just about the numbers.

Let's take the arm for instance. Boly and Randy have pitched, so naturally there are specifics I may not be aware of. But I likely know as much about the ARM as anyone here. Because I study things -- not just numbers as everyone seems to think.

As for team chemistry, I've listened carefully. I believe it's you guys who don't listen. When I said on many occasions that I began studying team chemistry in 1975, no one here seemed to listen or at least believe it. What I have continually said is that we can't quantify it, so we don't know how much difference it makes. It likely makes much more difference in some situations than others, or perhaps that is a way of saying that some teams have a lot more chemistry -- good or bad -- than others.

I've actually come across a couple of articles that attempted to quantify chemistry. That's a very tough thing to do, but there are attempts being made. I just came across the second one this week. I've seen pretty good quantifications of how certain basketball players help their team by doing the so-called "dirty work." It isn't just setting a screen; it's also the timing involved. Help defense is highly important, and that's a team effort, not simply a one-man play.

I don't think numbers are a be-all, end-all. When it comes to measuring things accurately though, it's hard to do so without numbers. The numbers enable us to not only say a hitter is a good hitter, but to quantify his strengths and weaknesses. Teams are now measuring how effective the various pitches a pitcher throws are following for example a high fastball. The same thing can be shown for batters. The same thing can be shown for patterns, not simply one pitch after the other.

We used to be able to say for instance that a low, outside curve ball is effective after a high, inside fastball. Analytics allow us to know HOW successful the outside curve ball is when used after a high, inside fastball. And they allow us to know how how successful the other pitches are, as well.

A pitcher's success can be measured by pitch count. It can be measured by inning. It can be measured by the number of times through the lineup. The metrics make for a lot less guessing. The metrics can help an evaluation be more rifle-like and less like a shotgun.

When we get into stretching pitchers out, we now know for instance that a pitcher who throws a complete game is more than 3 1/2 times more likely to go on the DL in that season than a pitcher who doesn't. We also know the effect carries over into later years. This, according to the Yankees team physician.

That doesn't mean a pitcher can't be stretched out. MLB is doing a program that compiles all injuries to pitchers, going as far down as high school. The more they know -- from mechanics to how pitch counts and how pitchers are "brought up" -- the better they can manage arms for productivity and prevention.

The Yankees' doctor says that pitchers and their arms are basically always on a cliff. They fall off when they are injured. He is trying to help catch pitchers before they fall.

I like Boly's idea of stretching pitchers out. But if such a program is entered into without a lot of knowledge, it can do more harm than good. I suggested using it for pitchers that seem to be most qualified to stretch out. I was thinking by body type, mechanics and other factors. The more that can be known in advance and along the way, the better the chances the program will have.

Maybe just semantics, but my argument isn't simply that numbers can be quantified. Numbers themselves are quantifiers. The eye test tells us that elephants and giraffes are large. The numbers tell us HOW large they are -- and which are larger or smaller than others.

Numbers are by no means the be-all, end-all. What they are however is objective, and they provide a higher level of accuracy. The problem isn't that the numbers lie; it's that sometimes they are ignored or misinterpreted.

Analytics far beyond anything I have been involved with are being used daily by the 30 teams. They haven't replaced scouting, and they certainly haven't replaced player development. What they have done though is complement those two areas, particularly scouting. The maor league teams don't think analytics is a be-all, end-all any more than scouting is. They are wise enough to realize that the combination of both is better than either alone.

Your statement that everything about "us guys" starts and ends with numbers simply isn't true -- any more than that with the exception of Randy, you guys don't start and end without numbers. But the analytic guys are far more open to everything baseball than you guys are to numbers.

You guys should really open your minds to the numbers. An excellent example, Boly, is that I agree with you that at least some pitchers would benefit from being extended further. I've learned a lot about the arm, even just this week. I think the experiment would be fraught with danger, but I'd certainly give it a try --or at least research as much as I could to determine whether the try is worth the risk.

Meanwhile you aren't the least bit open to the, er, opener -- even though it's worked so far (in a very small sample. I'm not pounding the idea that an opener should be used every game by every team down your throat. What I'm so adament about is that you keep your mind open to giving it a try. In the brief trial it's had thus far, it's been successful.

That doesn't prove it's right, and it certainly doesn't prove it's right for every situation. But the evidence thus far is postitive -- making it highly foolish to simply ignore it.

You've mentioned that you're a dinosaur, Boly. I'm suggesting you work to not be one -- or at least as much of a dinosaur as you have been thus far. You have admitted what happened to the dinosaurs. And you are right that eventually each of us too will die, just as the dinosaurs did. But that doesn't mean open-mindedness has to die. And let's pray that it never does.