There’s a lot of discussion about defense and defensive statistics coming into vogue, especially with Peter Gammons stating that teams are realizing that the negatives of defense take away from even big positives on offense. Manny Ramirez, he’s looking at you. Adam Dunn? You too.
But while people are crowing about Zone Rating or even Dave Pinto’s Probabilistic Model, they’re missing something. If you think teams don’t read the studies and stats out here, you’re wrong. They’ve done that for years. What most people don’t realize is that while there’s some great minds writing about baseball, there’s some great minds inside the game too. There are the names you know — Eddie Epstein, Ben Baumer, Keith Woolner — and more names that you don’t.
There have been occasions where I’ve been privy to some of that work that’s going on in front offices and it simply blows away things you’d call the state of the art in sabermetrics. Not a little ahead — a lot. Some of it leaks out, some doesn’t. Some is absolutely horrible too, while some is ignored. Just don’t think that teams are using the same things you are. Anyone that thinks that, isn’t thinking.
I was always curious about the relative quality of teams' proprietary information vs. the advanced stats at BP et al. that are out there for anyone with a yearly subscription.
Based on my experience with many in the financial world, it's my opinion that "insiders" have much more, and *seemingly* better, information (advanced computer modeling, etc.)- but that this really doesn't give them much of an advantage over a smart person with a Wall Street Journal subscription and time to do basic research on companies (or some would say over a chimp and a dartboard).
I've always suspected that it was similar in the baseball world, too. But, Will, I trust your opinion in this case. But can you give an example of something insiders have better data on than the informed outsiders?
Scotty -- I'm not enough of a stat guy to comment on why, if I was allowed to. The things I was shown -- which I'm sure wasn't the "good stuff" -- were done on condition of secrecy. The best I saw was a graph of defense, rather than a number, but I really can't say much more about it without violating trust.
I think you're right - it's both the data and the interpretation, but it's also the execution.
I think Will is probably talking about a graph of a team's park and how much area they have covered with their defense compared to other teams/average defenders, along with a multitude of information about the individual players that you can see. Would be interesting to see stuff like that. Just looking at numbers would not give you as much information on where teams can improve.
I wonder exactly how uniform this kind of work is, though.
As a fan of one of the teams that is generally considered one of the more anti-sabermetric----the Giants----I'd love to find out how you regard them with this stuff. Perhaps a ranking?
For instance, when I see that the Giants are in a bidding war for Rafael Furcal with the A's, I am naturally more encouraged than when I find out that the Giants are competing with the Dodgers over Juan Pierre.
It would be great to see how founded I am my assessments of these rumors.
I think the most pertinent follow-up question is to what extent is that work being utilized? I've known a number of organizations that do great work internally which never works its way in to the calculus of upper management because they either don't understand it or don't want to take the time.
I don't doubt that great work is being done. I just wonder how many GMs truly integrate it in to their decision making process.
This is the big question. When you're a guy like people here, someone that reads three or four different sabermetrically oriented websites everyday during the off-season, it's hard to remember that there are front offices that are ultimately making decision in the same ways that they did 30 years ago. Sure, almost every office has stat guys now that are tracking things, but whether that data is getting utilized [correct use of that word] in decision making is another issue. The easiest way to see that sabermetrics still has a long way to go in baseball decision making is that there's not a single field manager in baseball that uses sabermetrics in his fielding decisions.
Your post just said, "There are some smart people in baseball, TRUST me. I can't say anymore, but it would BLOW YOUR MIND."
My guess is that the "insider metrics" are only incrementally better than the metrics we have access to. And until I see substantial information convincing me otherwise combined with teams no longer doing things like signing Barry Zito to a huge contract or trading Jose Ceda for Kevin Gregg, my mind won't change on the matter.
Again, I don't mean to offend. I'm just skeptical that the information front offices have is *that* far ahead of the information people like BP readers have. But I do think it would be pretty cool if I was wrong...
Will said only that there are "some" smart people in baseball. That is undoubtedly true. Equally true is that there are morons like Sabean, Hendry, Bowden, Bavasi (RIP), etc. (and of course their clubs' owners) whose limited intellects proscribe effective use and analysis of data.
My guess is the data to which Will refers is produced by no more than 5, maybe 6, teams.
I think you've also got to consider that information is what is in question, not decision-making. I have no doubt that the metrics available to even the less statistically-inclined front offices is very impressive, where we see one-sided trades and bad contracts are a matter of the powers that be misinterpreting or ignoring that data.
I don't think Will is posturing that every move a team makes is based on their unique system of statistics and information, more that there are more numbers and charts that we do not have their specific info provided to us. Also, although I hold the upmost respect to the BP Staff, teams do not necessarily always (or in most cases, ever) share their statistic-oriented mindset, which makes the game, and specifically, the market more interesting.
as someone with a little bit of insight into this (maybe not as much as will), the proprietary stuff that one team i know about has access to is far more in-depth than stuff that's available to the rest of us, even on pay sites such as BP. i don't necessarily know how much more useful this information is (or even if the team in question takes it into account or whether the other teams have similar stuff). but my mind was blown away by what i saw. for example, the analysis of an individual player and what he did on the field on every pitch and play over the course of his entire (not insubstantial career), taking into account contexts that i wouldn't even have conceived of, was something that i simply don't think an amateur "seamhead" would be able to do one of, let alone what i believe were hundreds of similar analyses in their database. one guy wouldn't have the manpower, the technology, access to the same information and, perhaps most importantly, the time to do what i saw with the same quality.
OK, you're saying they have access to DATA that outsiders (or even other teams) don't have. That makes perfect sense -- but that's not 'work', to an analyst. Work is what turns data into information into knowledge. Knowing how to mine and refine actionable knowledge out of masses of raw data is what makes a good analyst. Other things being equal, it's certainly true that mo' better data will support mo' better models and inferences -- but other things generally aren't equal.
Now that Dan Fox won't be calculating Simple Fielding Runs for the public any more, will someone else at BP take up his methods and run with them?
Ameer, I totally agree. 100%. I will always believe that a good roto player, with excellent people skills and a great team of scouts, could be a good MLB GM.
The evidence of the stupidity out there is irrefutable.
Look at the contracts of Barry Zito, Juan Pierre and Castillo.
Guys like Ned Coletti and Omar Minaya were in the right places at the right times.
When is BP going to start using an advanced defensive metric that uses actual play-by-play data like Dewan's plus/minus system and MGL's UZR? For the high subscription price here, there should be something better than FRAA.
While I do agree -- this is cheaper than or similarly priced to any other specialist magazine subscription -- I do think that there could stand to be a few more advances. Sortable player stats, for example, and, yes, expanded fielding data.
Now, I'm saying that for the price we pay we DESERVE these things, just that it'd be nice.
I wish more Met fans knew about the statistics arising out of Ben Baumer's work. Unfortunately, there are times when the Mets front office ignores his work, i.e. constantly pursuing Raul Ibanez. Also, Adam Fisher is the co-'stat' guy with Ben Baumer. They both work under John Ricco, who is essentially the 'stat'-head coordinator. That makes up one division of the Mets front office. The other divisions include: Tony Bernazard, VP of player development and Sandy Johnson, VP of scouting. All report to Omar Minaya. Generally, if the four heads vote 3-1 on a deal, Minaya goes ahead with the deal. On occasion, Minaya has been known to not pursue a deal when he was the lone dissenter.
I always look at GMs in terms of fantasy managers you have in your league. Pretty much every team has super smart guys in the front office working on this stuff but if the GM (or owner...) has a "man crush" on a player and believes in them no matter the evidence or rational sense they are going to do it same as the other guys in your league.
The smarter ones listen more and get it right more often than not but like any fantasy manager can tell you no matter how smart you are it can all go horribly wrong
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.
I have been arguing how UNIMPORTANT ADAM DUNN is! His batting average, strike outs and bad defense! I'm glad others look at defense the same way I do! STRAT-O-MATIC had it right for over 30 years!
33 comments have been left for this post.
Is this state of the statistical knowledge what keeps the Rangers from ever having good pitching or defense?
They must be one ofthe absolutely horrible ones.