The Red Sox and Analytics

Eric Yu

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2006
151
2145
I'm not sure if this belongs in its own thread, but I was reading Dave Cameron's Fangraphs chat today and he made this comment:


12:16
gump: What’s the current view of Boston’s analytics group? I know when Dombrowski took over several people left for Arizona, and then more left this offseason. Are they still regarded as a good group?

12:16
Dave Cameron: They’ve been behind the curve for a while now.



12:25
gump: Curious as to what you meant by Boston being behind the curve: do you mean the team’s analysis isn’t as advanced as in the past, or that they aren’t being listened to as much as in the past. If it’s the second, care to guess how many playoff apps with no series wins Dombrowski makes before being let go?

12:26
Dave Cameron: Their analytics department has been one of the smallest, most underfunded in baseball for years, even before Dombrowski got there.

12:26
Dave Cameron: When everyone else was staffing up, hiring developers, and modernizing their infrastructure, the Red Sox stayed put and got passed by.



https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/dave-cameron-fangraphs-chat-101117/

While our current kids are pretty cool, this makes me worry about the longer term future. Does Cameron know what he's talking about here?
 

pokey_reese

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 25, 2008
16,245
Boston, MA
I'm not sure if this belongs in its own thread, but I was reading Dave Cameron's Fangraphs chat today and he made this comment:

12:16
gump: What’s the current view of Boston’s analytics group? I know when Dombrowski took over several people left for Arizona, and then more left this offseason. Are they still regarded as a good group?

12:16
Dave Cameron: They’ve been behind the curve for a while now.


12:25
gump: Curious as to what you meant by Boston being behind the curve: do you mean the team’s analysis isn’t as advanced as in the past, or that they aren’t being listened to as much as in the past. If it’s the second, care to guess how many playoff apps with no series wins Dombrowski makes before being let go?

12:26
Dave Cameron: Their analytics department has been one of the smallest, most underfunded in baseball for years, even before Dombrowski got there.

12:26
Dave Cameron: When everyone else was staffing up, hiring developers, and modernizing their infrastructure, the Red Sox stayed put and got passed by.


https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/dave-cameron-fangraphs-chat-101117/

While our current kids are pretty cool, this makes me worry about the longer term future. Does Cameron know what he's talking about here?
While I have no insight into the Red Sox front office, Cameron is well-connected in the field, and for the last year or two Fangraphs has been fairly integrated into the talent search process that some teams are engaged in on the analytics side, posting jobs, placing analysts, etc.. I would assume that while he may not know the details of what the Sox are doing analytically, he probably has a good sense of how large/sophisticated they are relative to other teams based on reputation. No real reason to doubt him.
 

BostonFan23

Randy Hickey
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
1,723

12:26
Dave Cameron: Their analytics department has been one of the smallest, most underfunded in baseball for years, even before Dombrowski got there.

12:26
Dave Cameron: When everyone else was staffing up, hiring developers, and modernizing their infrastructure, the Red Sox stayed put and got passed by.
I'm surprised this didn't spark more discussion. Does the erosion of the front office - both in terms of talent and philosophy - concern anyone else? Are there any indications they could course correct?
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
I'm surprised this didn't spark more discussion. Does the erosion of the front office - both in terms of talent and philosophy - concern anyone else? Are there any indications they could course correct?
That's why a hiring of Ausmus or Gardenhire would scare me. It would signal, IMO, that Dombrowski is intentionally de-emphisizing analytics and not just doing a poor job of keeping up.
 

Eric Yu

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2006
151
2145
I'm surprised this didn't spark more discussion. Does the erosion of the front office - both in terms of talent and philosophy - concern anyone else? Are there any indications they could course correct?
Yeah, it's why I even questioned whether or not Cameron's comments were accurate (despite him being one of the most prominent faces of Fangraphs to me); I've gotten very used to the Red Sox automatically being on the forefront of advanced analytics, and it was pretty shocking to hear that they've regressed relative to the league over a number of years, and not just since Dombrowski took over. I'd have assumed that Cherington would have maintained the same model that'd been working for Theo, but who knows whether or not it is due to Ben just not being Theo or if there was increasing interference from ownership?
 

Todd Benzinger

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2001
4,400
So Ill
Remember all those stories about how John Henry, financial analytics guy as team owner, gave the Sox an edge in taking a moneyball approach? I have no reason to doubt Cameron, but it seems like there must be an interesting story about what's going on if hiring DD was part of a trend toward less emphasis on analytics and not the cause of it. But then again, part of what Cameron seems to be getting at is that analytics are now taken for granted as essential by every FO, so the Sox have lost what was once an "edge" in the area... He does say they've been "passed by" and have "underfunded" analytics. Anyhow, I hope someone looks into this, and we get more than a few cryptic comments in a chat.
 

Kielty's Last Pitch

New Member
Oct 6, 2017
118
Yeah, it's why I even questioned whether or not Cameron's comments were accurate (despite him being one of the most prominent faces of Fangraphs to me); I've gotten very used to the Red Sox automatically being on the forefront of advanced analytics, and it was pretty shocking to hear that they've regressed relative to the league over a number of years, and not just since Dombrowski took over. I'd have assumed that Cherington would have maintained the same model that'd been working for Theo, but who knows whether or not it is due to Ben just not being Theo or if there was increasing interference from ownership?
Most front offices have come to realize it takes more than just advanced analytics. Stats are only as useful as the other facets that complement them.

Billy Beane has gone his entire 20 year tenure as A's GM without a World Series appearance, and made it to the ALCS only once back in 2006 when they got swept. I don't think they'll be filming any Moneyball sequels in the near future.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Most front offices have come to realize it takes more than just advanced analytics. Stats are only as useful as the other facets that complement them.

Billy Beane has gone his entire 20 year tenure as A's GM without a World Series appearance, and made it to the ALCS only once back in 2006 when they got swept. I don't think they'll be filming any Moneyball sequels in the near future.
And yet the Astros (considered one of the best analytics teams around), Yankees (heavy analytics bent), Cubs (Theo's team), and Dodgers (big analytics team) are the last teams standing this year..

Last year it was the Cubs vs the Dodgers also, and on the AL side it was Cleveland (analytics heavy manger in Tito) vs the Blue Jays (Shapiro was a big analytics guy in Cleveland before joining Toronto).

You may be able to point to one tiny payroll team that has struggled to be consistently dominant while being the forefathers of the analytics movement, but pretty much all the evidence in the last few years points to analytics being vital in team success. Hell, even the Diamondbacks, last bastion of old school baseball that it was, has moved hard into the analytics revolution in the last couple of years.

There was no over reliance on it.
 

Kielty's Last Pitch

New Member
Oct 6, 2017
118
And yet the Astros (considered one of the best analytics teams around), Yankees (heavy analytics bent), Cubs (Theo's team), and Dodgers (big analytics team) are the last teams standing this year..

Last year it was the Cubs vs the Dodgers also, and on the AL side it was Cleveland (analytics heavy manger in Tito) vs the Blue Jays (Shapiro was a big analytics guy in Cleveland before joining Toronto).

You may be able to point to one tiny payroll team that has struggled to be consistently dominant while being the forefathers of the analytics movement, but pretty much all the evidence in the last few years points to analytics being vital in team success. Hell, even the Diamondbacks, last bastion of old school baseball that it was, has moved hard into the analytics revolution in the last couple of years.

There was no over reliance on it.
This has been discussed before, but in each of your examples analytics was a complementary contribution to success ... not the primary reason for the success. While it's impossible to quantify exactly how much of an impact advance statistics has on successful teams that utilize them, it's quite easy to identify teams that have failed while using analytics. Just as easy to point out statistics-heavy GM's who failed miserably (ie: DePodesta, Ricciardi, etc).

It's not a coincidence the two biggest payrolls in MLB are among the Final Four. The $357M given by the Yankees to just two players, Tanaka & Sabathia, had a lot more to do with them advancing than anything else (not to mention the highest paid closer in MLB history). Ditto the Dodgers, with the highest payroll in MLB led by the highest paid player in 2017. In fact no less than 7 of the Top Nine highest paid players in MLB this season made it to the Division Series.

But it's not just about money either. Stockpiling top draft picks by losing 288 games over 3 years (Cubs), or in Houston's case 324 games over 3 years, also was a huge factor in their rise to the top.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
This has been discussed before, but in each of your examples analytics was a complementary contribution to success ... not the primary reason for the success. While it's impossible to quantify exactly how much of an impact advance statistics has on successful teams that utilize them, it's quite easy to identify teams that have failed while using analytics. Just as easy to point out statistics-heavy GM's who failed miserably (ie: DePodesta, Ricciardi, etc).

It's not a coincidence the two biggest payrolls in MLB are among the Final Four. The $357M given by the Yankees to just two players, Tanaka & Sabathia, had a lot more to do with them advancing than anything else (not to mention the highest paid closer in MLB history). Ditto the Dodgers, with the highest payroll in MLB led by the highest paid player in 2017. In fact no less than 7 of the Top Nine highest paid players in MLB this season made it to the Division Series.

But it's not just about money either. Stockpiling top draft picks by losing 288 games over 3 years (Cubs), or in Houston's case 324 games over 3 years, also was a huge factor in their rise to the top.
You're missing my point. The inference that Bean and the A's aren't succeeding because they rely too heavy on analytics (which I'm guessing you are assuming from their being first to the party on that) is baseless. There are far more likely factors than their focus on data contributing to their lack of success, which you actually touch on here... primarily payroll.

And no one has ever argued that teams should or did value analytics more than scouting. Henry didn't even do so in his 2016 comments, though I suppose you could read it that way if you were so inclined. He simply said they'd focused on them too much, not that they'd done so to the exclusion of scouting. The closest he came was:

“We were never as far toward analytics as people thought we were,” added Henry. “And even now, I’m an analytics guy, I think we needed more of a balance. I started reaching it last season."
That may imply leaning more heavily toward analytics than scouting, but Farrell was quoted in the same article saying that it's never been one to the exclusion of the other.

Any successful MLB team is going to pump plenty of resources into both analytics and scouting. And if you spend a lot of money on your roster, you're more likely to be competitive so long as you aren't inept in either the analytics or the scouting. So I'm not even sure what you are trying to get at there.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,602
It's not a coincidence the two biggest payrolls in MLB are among the Final Four. The $357M given by the Yankees to just two players, Tanaka & Sabathia, had a lot more to do with them advancing than anything else (not to mention the highest paid closer in MLB history). Ditto the Dodgers, with the highest payroll in MLB led by the highest paid player in 2017. In fact no less than 7 of the Top Nine highest paid players in MLB this season made it to the Division Series.
This is pretty misleading, I think payroll size is the least relevant it's been in a long time (see my sig). Dodgers and Yankees were indeed 1/2 this year coming into the season (with BOS and DET just behind), but 4-7 were Tigers, Blue Jays, Rangers, and GIants, and the Indians/Astros were at 17 and 18, just ahead of the Braves. I think if anything these days payroll size is a bit of a trailing indicator for success, in an era when more and more value comes from players still in their first six years of team control (including for the Dodgers and Yankees).
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,468
This is pretty misleading, I think payroll size is the least relevant it's been in a long time (see my sig). Dodgers and Yankees were indeed 1/2 this year coming into the season (with BOS and DET just behind), but 4-7 were Tigers, Blue Jays, Rangers, and GIants, and the Indians/Astros were at 17 and 18, just ahead of the Braves. I think if anything these days payroll size is a bit of a trailing indicator for success, in an era when more and more value comes from players still in their first six years of team control (including for the Dodgers and Yankees).
It's also just a silly premise to single out "Analytics" as being over-emphasized or over-valued. It's an established part of the modern front office, incorporated on all levels into scouting, game planning, and contract negotiation. It's like saying free agents, or pitchers in general are "complementary" and not the main route to winning. There is no either or choice here. This is not a genie that needs to be put back in a bottle. It's just part of how things are done, with more data and objective information combined with the subjective data that had always been used to make evaluations. There had always been numbers in baseball, they were just easier numbers to come by, like RBI and batting average. Now there is just more data, and the data itself is more complex.
 

Kielty's Last Pitch

New Member
Oct 6, 2017
118
You're missing my point. The inference that Bean and the A's aren't succeeding because they rely too heavy on analytics (which I'm guessing you are assuming from their being first to the party on that) is baseless. There are far more likely factors than their focus on data contributing to their lack of success, which you actually touch on here... primarily payroll.

And no one has ever argued that teams should or did value analytics more than scouting. Henry didn't even do so in his 2016 comments, though I suppose you could read it that way if you were so inclined. He simply said they'd focused on them too much, not that they'd done so to the exclusion of scouting. The closest he came was:



That may imply leaning more heavily toward analytics than scouting, but Farrell was quoted in the same article saying that it's never been one to the exclusion of the other.

Any successful MLB team is going to pump plenty of resources into both analytics and scouting. And if you spend a lot of money on your roster, you're more likely to be competitive so long as you aren't inept in either the analytics or the scouting. So I'm not even sure what you are trying to get at there.
Do you realize that in your prior post you stated Mr. Moneyball's teams haven't won squat in 2 decades because of payroll, while simultaneously pointing at the Yankees as some sort of proof that analytics was the primary reason for their success this season? You can't have it both ways. You can't give all the credit for Yankee success to analytics, while simultaneously putting all the blame for Beane's failures on payroll.

Last year's Indians payroll was virtually the same as Oakland, only $6M difference, and yet they came within one win of a world championship. The year before Houston's payroll was $15M less than Oakland, yet the Astros made it to the ALDS. Pittsburgh's payroll was nearly identical to Oakland, and they made it to the postseason. There's plenty of examples where teams with a payroll similar or lower to Oakland's have had more success than them.

Even when Oakland has managed to make the postseason over the past two decades, their analytics didn't take them very far. Why? Because their players lacked two necessities that can't be found in any statistics, instinct and baseball fundamentals.

Getting back to the point, I respect John Henry and have the utmost confidence that he has a valid reason for cutting back on analytics, and I'm sure it's not for financial reasons. I've already said success requires a blend of analytics and scouting, it sounds now like you agree.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Do you realize that in your prior post you stated Mr. Moneyball's teams haven't won squat in 2 decades because of payroll, while simultaneously pointing at the Yankees as some sort of proof that analytics was the primary reason for their success this season? You can't have it both ways. You can't give all the credit for Yankee success to analytics, while simultaneously putting all the blame for Beane's failures on payroll.
There is only one of us here trying to pin anything on one factor, and it isn't me.

Last year's Indians payroll was virtually the same as Oakland, only $6M difference, and yet they came within one win of a world championship. The year before Houston's payroll was $15M less than Oakland, yet the Astros made it to the ALDS. Pittsburgh's payroll was nearly identical to Oakland, and they made it to the postseason. There's plenty of examples where teams with a payroll similar or lower to Oakland's have had more success than them.
You cited a 20 year sample. How much success have any of those teams had over that span? Pointing to last year's payrolls alone doesn't do much to support your argument with regard to analytics being the problem in Oakland.

Even when Oakland has managed to make the postseason over the past two decades, their analytics didn't take them very far. Why? Because their players lacked two necessities that can't be found in any statistics, instinct and baseball fundamentals.
Go ahead and try to prove that.

Getting back to the point, I respect John Henry and have the utmost confidence that he has a valid reason for cutting back on analytics, and I'm sure it's not for financial reasons. I've already said success requires a blend of analytics and scouting, it sounds now like you agree.
Sure, I agree with that last bit. I just disagree with blaming Oakland's relative struggles over the last 20 years on any one thing, whether it's analytics or some other facet of the game. It's myopic and reductive.
 

absintheofmalaise

too many flowers
Dope
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2005
23,287
The gran facenda
Broke this out.

Tom Tippett, who was the team's director of information services from 2008-2013, left after the 2016 season. He had worked for the Sox for 13 years. He had some interesting comments about working with Theo, Cherington and Dombrowski in this article by Evan Drellich.

“Theo (Epstein) was very analytical,” Tippett said. “Very creative. Always pushing the envelope on new ideas. Open to complicated things. Dave keeps things very simple, and I say that in a good way. I think that’s a virtue. I think sometimes you can make things more complicated than they need to be. Dave is very straightforward. He’s one of the nicest people I’ve ever worked with.

“He’s got a good feel for what needs to be done. He quickly gets to a short list of options for dealing with a problem and then very quickly acts to try to address the problem and deal with it.”

Ben Cherington, meanwhile, was more reserved.

“Ben came up through the scouting and player development ranks, and this wave of young players that we have right now, you know, that was his doing,” Tippett said. “That was clearly his strength. . . . Dave has a smaller inner circle that he works with when he’s making decisions. Under Theo it was not uncommon for 20 people to be in the room, and then when it got to decision time, he would shrink that down to a smaller group.”
According to his bio on LinkedIn, Tippett is working as a consultant for three other MLB teams.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,716
I'm sort of surprised SOSH forgot all about the upgrade from carmine to beacon:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2017/02/22/the-red-sox-are-retiring-carmine-for-new-analytics-machine/z6UlF4IIGzY3Q3lQQIBK2N/story.html

Ben Cherington made the decision in 2015, which is well before DD. Though, I wouldn't be surprised if DD supported the upgrade.

We've been outdated for awhile now.
This article states that DD is on-board with beefing up the department and the are growing:

Dombrowski quickly came to appreciate how that field was changing. He was on board with the planned expansion of the IT staff, which now features five full-time software developers as well as six full-time analysts in baseball operations. A seventh, Bill James, has a broader title of “senior adviser.”

For all of the questions about the Red Sox’ commitment to analytics with the move from Cherington to Dombrowski, and after Henry wondered aloud in early 2016 whether the team had become too wedded to numbers, the team’s investment continues to expand.
It is a group to whom Dombrowski turns for different sorts of insight, whether seeking coaching and player development ideas from director of pitching analysis Brian Bannister and Dave Bush or seeking reports from Scott on questions related to player acquisition, most notably with Chris Sale (comparing Sale’s projected value to that of prospects Yoan Moncada and Michael Kopech) and David Price (examining his potential aging curves in determining fair market value when the lefthander was a free agent).
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,386
I'm sort of surprised SOSH forgot all about the upgrade from carmine to beacon:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2017/02/22/the-red-sox-are-retiring-carmine-for-new-analytics-machine/z6UlF4IIGzY3Q3lQQIBK2N/story.html

Ben Cherington made the decision in 2015, which is well before DD. Though, I wouldn't be surprised if DD supported the upgrade.

We've been outdated for awhile now.
DD not only supported the upgrade but was surprised when he came in that the Sox were "far from" #1 in the analytics area.

The Sox have dramatically upgraded their analytics department this year, and they have gone from a staff of 3-4 to a dozen. Not sure what other teams are doing but at least they have made an effort (plus upgrading from Carmine).

Follow-up information to the Globe article by Tim Britton here: http://www.providencejournal.com/sports/20170322/how-red-sox-revived-their-analytics-department
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,446
Rogers Park
I think part of the question is semantic, in part because it seems like the team's emphasis has been for awhile in thinking about application rather than spinning up ever more numbers (naturally, all of this is based on vague kremlinology).

Is Brian Bannister an analyst, or a coach? Or both? If we were to hire the Bannister of hitting, would that guy be counted in the analytics department? The coaches who do the defensive positioning?

This isn't to say that the Sox are or are not part of the analytical avant garde — I don't know one way or the other. It's to question the framing of the question.
 

BroodsSexton

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2006
12,610
guam
No need to repost the article--sorry. What's interesting is Henry suggests he did a deep dive on the analytics, and seems to have reached the conclusion that they were overrelying upon them. For a guy who made his fortune on analytics and data, it raises the question of what he saw that drew him back from that approach.
 
Last edited:

Kielty's Last Pitch

New Member
Oct 6, 2017
118
There is only one of us here trying to pin anything on one factor, and it isn't me.
You cited a 20 year sample. How much success have any of those teams had over that span? Pointing to last year's payrolls alone doesn't do much to support your argument with regard to analytics being the problem in Oakland.
Go ahead and try to prove that.

Sure, I agree with that last bit. I just disagree with blaming Oakland's relative struggles over the last 20 years on any one thing, whether it's analytics or some other facet of the game. It's myopic and reductive.
Stating that over-reliance on analytics can be detrimental is not pinning anything on one factor. I've repeatedly stated the key to success is a blend of many things, including advanced statistics. But the obsession of some bent on attributing all success over the past 15-20 years to Sabermetrics has crossed the line of absurdity

https://www.pinstripealley.com/yankees-editorials-opinions-analysis/2016/2/28/11128498/yankees-analytics-sabermetrics-scouting-john-henry-brian-cashman

"Red Sox owner John Henry recently raised a lot of eyebrows by suggesting that his team, which famously used sabermetrics to find the likes of David Ortiz, had become too reliant upon analytics. After letting GM Ben Cherington go, they hired former Tigers GM Dave Dombrowski, who was relatively slow to embrace the sabermetrics trend in the Motor City."

Two things from that paragraph worth noting:

1) Most of us view John Henry as a brilliant man. He was praised for his wisdom in bringing in Bill James, Theo and a slew of other advanced metric front office folks. So now all of a sudden Henry is an idiot for scaling back on the reliance of sabermetrics? Really? Nothing is more scary than absence of logic.

2) The claim that sabermetrics had anything to do with Ortiz being signed by Theo is obviously yet another example of trying to give credit where it's not due. We all know Pedro was the driving force behind Ortiz coming to Boston, just like we all know the core of that 2004 team was in place before Theo's arrival. And the acquisition of Schilling, as great a move as it was by Theo (similar to his signing of Lester in Chicago), had nothing to do with advanced metrics. But that doesn't stop some from trying to re-write history.

To answer your question, Oakland is one of only FIVE teams to have not won an LCS game since 1998. Do you have any idea how hard it is to have that little success over a two-decade period? Twenty-Five other teams were able to do what Beane hasn't, win a damn game in the LCS. And plenty of those Twenty-Five teams had payrolls similar to or less than Beane's. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim analytics is the reason for analytic-heavy team success, while simultaneously claiming over-reliance on analytics has nothing to do with failure ... especially two decades of failure by Mr. Moneyball himself.

Chances are you'll discount all evidence I provide of Oakland's lack of instinct and baseball fundamentals, but here's one example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/05/sports/baseball-absorbing-a-blow-and-delivering-one-in-dramatic-fashion.html

"But ultimately, the A's beat themselves earlier in the game, foiling a sparkling outing by starting pitcher Ted Lilly by hurting themselves with four errors and with two critical base-running blunders in the sixth inning, which cost them two runs and epitomized this bizarre game."

Needless to say, Beane's teams haven't exactly been loaded with Altuve-esque players that have great instincts and fundamentals, because there's no advanced metric that can accurately measure such qualities.

You know, long ago I was one of a very few who praised the Original DD for bringing in analytics (look up Mike Gimbel) long before John Henry took over. It's kinda ironic that now some people refuse to acknowledge that analytics can be detrimental if overused or used incorrectly.
 

barbed wire Bob

crippled by fear
SoSH Member
No need to repost the article--sorry. What's interesting is Henry suggests he did a deep dive on the analytics, and seems to have reached the conclusion that they were overrelying upon them. For a guy who made his fortune on analytics and data, it raises the question of what he saw that drew him back from that approach.
I can think of one reason.

 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,133
But the obsession of some bent on attributing all success over the past 15-20 years to Sabermetrics has crossed the line of absurdity
Obsession often crosses the line into absurdity.


So now all of a sudden Henry is an idiot for scaling back on the reliance of sabermetrics? Really? Nothing is more scary than absence of logic.
While the latter is undoubtedly (and obviously) true, I don't think anyone has said the former.

2) The claim that sabermetrics had anything to do with Ortiz being signed by Theo is obviously yet another example of trying to give credit where it's not due. We all know Pedro was the driving force behind Ortiz coming to Boston,
Just because one factor was the "driving force" of an event, doesn't mean some other thing did not have "anything to do" that event. Or do you think that after Theo got the call from Pedro, he simply put a contract to Ortiz into the mail without ever discussing it with anyone else or examining Ortiz's statistical profile?

It's kinda ironic that now some people refuse to acknowledge that analytics can be detrimental if overused or used incorrectly.
Much like pine tar.
 
Last edited:

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Stating that over-reliance on analytics can be detrimental is not pinning anything on one factor. I've repeatedly stated the key to success is a blend of many things, including advanced statistics. But the obsession of some bent on attributing all success over the past 15-20 years to Sabermetrics has crossed the line of absurdity
Have fun with moving those goal posts and the strawmen. I'm out.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,716

Needless to say, Beane's teams haven't exactly been loaded with Altuve-esque players that have great instincts and fundamentals, because there's no advanced metric that can accurately measure such qualities.
I'm not arguing, I'm asking--what "fundamental" are you referring to that ends up having an impact on the game, is not being measured somewhere?

If a player has "instinct and fundamentals" won't they show up in the actual metrics somewhere? His base running instincts that allow him to take extra bases will. His instinctual ability to shade a certain hitter 2 steps to the left will show up in his fielding metrics. If his fundamentals mean he never plays a grounder side saddle, then won't that show up in his numbers somewhere?
 

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
8,694
I can think of one reason.

I can think of another.



I wouldn't shocked one bit to learn that this is another layer of stink left by Lucchino's legacy. Before getting exiled to Pawtucket, LL cost us Theo, Tito, Jon Lester, and he hand picked Valentine. Thanks, Larry.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,078
"Less analytics" could mean less Eric Van and Voros. :D

More seriously, I'm not sure how much the Fangraphs guy actually knows, or how much he's letting his opinion of Dombrowski get in the way of his assessment of the Red Sox analytics department. Maybe the Sox haven't hired as aggressively as some teams (which Cameron may know). But that doesn't necessarily mean the Sox are investing less in analytics as a whole or are behind the curve, which Cameron seems to imply.
 

Kielty's Last Pitch

New Member
Oct 6, 2017
118
Obsession often crosses the line into absurdity.
While the latter is undoubtedly (and obviously) true, I don't think anyone has said the former.
Just because one factor was the "driving force" of an event, doesn't mean some other thing did not have "anything to do" that event. Or do you think that after Theo got the call from Pedro, he simply put a contract to Ortiz into the mail without ever discussing it with anyone else or examining Ortiz's statistical profile?
Much like pine tar.
LOL ... I like the pine tar analogy!

While nobody has called Henry an idiot, plenty here are questioning the wisdom of scaling back on analytics. He must have had good reason, to imply he didn't have good reason is akin to labeling his decision idiotic.

Well let's look at the whole big picture with Ortiz.

He never received an offer from any other team, not even from Sabermetric GMs like Beane.

Theo's first choice for 1B/DH that offseason was Durazo. Unfortunately for Theo, Beane used the same analytics to target Durazo ... and Beane acquired him. BTW - Beane has stated Ortiz was never on his radar.

Then Theo made a trade, based purely on advanced metrics, to acquire Jeremy Giambi.

Brad Fullmer was next on Theo's list, but he stayed with the Angels.

Lee Stevens was another target, but he signed with Tampa.

Theo's next choice was to sign Julio Zuleta.

Time went by, and just like that it was January and Ortiz's phone had yet to ring. Zero interest from Theo after acquiring Giambi and Zuleta (of course Shea was still there, but he was on the way out).

And then this, quoted by Lucchino:
"The biggest priority [of the offseason] was signing Pedro Martinez to a significant extension. We had an open dialogue with Pedro. When David was let go by Minnesota, Pedro called and told us that David was a great guy and he was someone we needed to take a look at. Now, you have to remember, Pedro was our No. 1 offseason priority, and he was asking us the favor of giving David Ortiz a look. It was just an invite to spring training, but if that was going to help us with the negotiations with Pedro, well, we saw that as an easy thing to do. It was a propitious call at a propitious moment. I think the influence of Pedro Martinez in bringing David Ortiz to Boston is one of the most overlooked and under-discussed elements of the whole story."

And then this from Big Papi himself:
"All I know is that one day right in front of me, Pedro called Larry and told him to sign me. Pedro made it happen."

And this from Pedro's and Papi's agent:
"Larry and I were negotiating Pedro's extension. Pedro personally called Larry. I remember Larry saying regarding David, "We can do that." I don't know what happened behind closed doors, but Theo called me and we worked out a deal. You had the star player, the best player on a team approaching the last year of his contract, asking for a favor. Do the favor and what does that really cost you? There was zero economic risk to the Red Sox. If David doesn't make it, he gets released."

Okay, one more interesting quote from Lucchino about the signing of Ortiz:
"There was some disappointment about it, and as I remember, the pushback was coming from Theo. He believed our team was set. I remember him feeling that we already had our DH, and his name was Jeremy Giambi."

Does that answer your question about "Theo getting the call from Pedro?" ;)
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,595
Maine
I can think of one reason.

Was Crawford really an analytics-driven signing? We know that Theo did extensive background work on the guy but he always struck me as an old school scout's wet dream whose value diminished a bit when looking deeply at the numbers. He was never a great hitter (career OPS+ of 107 when he signed) and relied heavily on his speed on the bases and in the field...and they paid him top dollar to play a non-premium defensive position where his speed had limited impact.

This was right around the time Theo was pushing the run prevention model of strong defense and good pitching (2010 featured signing Beltre and Cameron and shifting Ellsbury to LF and an emphasis on defense), so maybe their defensive analytics were showing some sort of hidden value in Crawford. But beyond that, unless the analytics failed because they didn't convince Theo to not pursue Crawford, I don't see him being a poster-child for relying less on analytics.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,133
Does that answer your question about "Theo getting the call from Pedro?" ;)
No.

“It’s ironic,” Martinez recalled. “I told him to come and hang out with me. He was like, ‘Mannnnn,’ and I saw him drop. I go, ‘What happened?’ He said, ‘I just got released.’ I said, ‘Really? Great.’ He goes, ‘What do you mean great?’ I’m like, ‘I’m saying great because I get to take you to Boston.’ And then things started coming together.
“I called Theo, like, three or four times and did not get him. But you know who is responsible also? [Red Sox traveling secretary] Jack McCormick. He answered the phone at about 1:30 in the morning, Eastern time, and he was able to reach out to Theo. That’s how everything happened.”
McCormick remembers the dead-of-night December call.
“I figure if they’re calling at that hour, it’s got to be important,” said McCormick. “I leave my phone on ring. I’ve always made it a habit to answer, because you don’t know what’s on the other end. What if it were something other than that? What if they needed help?
“[Martinez] called me and said, ‘Hey, Jack. David Ortiz, we need him in Boston and he’s a free agent.’ I said, ‘Yeah, I heard about that.’ And then I got off the phone and I waited until the next morning to tell Theo. I didn’t want to call Theo at 1:30.”
McCormick informed Epstein the next day of Martinez’s interest in talking to the GM.
Martinez recalled that he and Cuza (who also represented Martinez) talked by phone with Epstein and, shortly thereafter, Lucchino, at a time when Cuza and Lucchino were in regular contact regarding extension talks.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/ortiz/2016/09/29/who-really-responsible-for-david-ortiz-landing-boston/fDYL9cN39vE4nwa03oUwFK/story.html

And its not like he was some stranger to Epstein either:
Epstein: “I was an Ortiz fan from my time with the Padres tracking the Twins farm system. Our numbers guys liked David’s performance, as he had just hit 20 homers in a partial season with the Twins. Our scouts considered him a good hitter who could get better if he could close up a couple holes in and up. We all thought he was a great fit for Fenway, as he demonstrated a real ability to hit the ball the other way. The doubts centered on his health, his defense and why the Twins were making him available.”
I'm not sure what your point is in all this. I dont think anyone is arguing *for* what you are railing against. Regardless, I'm done. Joe Morgan was right. Baseball was screwed the minute Billy Beane invented the computer.
 

Kielty's Last Pitch

New Member
Oct 6, 2017
118
I'm not sure what your point is in all this
A lot of undeserved credit for past success has been given to analytics. The Ortiz signing is just one example of common misconceptions that favor Sabermetrics, and it's clearly by design that there is so much misinformation slanted in that direction. Theo had no desire to take a flyer on Ortiz and was hellbent on Giambi being the everyday DH, yet to this day he gets "credit" for the Ortiz signing. If not for Pedro, Ortiz likely signs elsewhere and the odds of those 3 championships happening decrease substantially.

By the way, Cameron's comments about Boston's analytics department being so small and underfunded ... interesting how he mentioned the time frame extended prior to Dombrowski, but didn't specify a particular year. Is that because it encompasses 2013?
 

Sox and Rocks

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2013
5,826
Northern Colorado
"Less analytics" could mean less Eric Van and Voros. :D
Exactly. Clearly it all went to hell when Eric Van took his sword and went home (ie, his mom's basement), much like SOSH itself.

I think this manager hire will give us some of the best anecdotal evidence of how much DD and the new leadership values (or doesn't) advanced analytics.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,468
A lot of undeserved credit for past success has been given to analytics. The Ortiz signing is just one example of common misconceptions that favor Sabermetrics, and it's clearly by design that there is so much misinformation slanted in that direction. Theo had no desire to take a flyer on Ortiz and was hellbent on Giambi being the everyday DH, yet to this day he gets "credit" for the Ortiz signing. If not for Pedro, Ortiz likely signs elsewhere and the odds of those 3 championships happening decrease substantially.

By the way, Cameron's comments about Boston's analytics department being so small and underfunded ... interesting how he mentioned the time frame extended prior to Dombrowski, but didn't specify a particular year. Is that because it encompasses 2013?
Whatever methods a decision is made with, the outcome is highly reliant on luck when you only make a few decisions every offseason. So did they get lucky with Ortiz? Sure. Just like they may have been unlucky with some other free agent decisions. This isn't stock trading or playing online poker, the numbers aren't large enough to suss out true event outcome probability.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,030
Florida
"Less analytics" could mean less Eric Van and Voros. :D

More seriously, I'm not sure how much the Fangraphs guy actually knows, or how much he's letting his opinion of Dombrowski get in the way of his assessment of the Red Sox analytics department. Maybe the Sox haven't hired as aggressively as some teams (which Cameron may know). But that doesn't necessarily mean the Sox are investing less in analytics as a whole or are behind the curve, which Cameron seems to imply.
This is my basic line of thought on this too.

I mean who decides and how does such an evaluation even get made on something like this? Is the type of gathered information itself the most important criteria going in to Cameron's own narrative there, or does the total amount of people being employed in the process matter more in that? Tempted to guess the latter there.
 

absintheofmalaise

too many flowers
Dope
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2005
23,287
The gran facenda
That pinstripealley piece is the first time that I've read that the Ortiz signing was due to using advanced metrics. I'm pretty sure that's also true of many others here. Where else have you read that Kielty? I guess what I'm really asking you is why do you keep bringing something up that has been proven numerous times to be a false narrative?

The Sox have always been a mix of scouting and analytics. How much one way or the other is probably very dependent on the number of years the player they were looking at had been in MLB. It hasn't been until recently that minor league parks had the equipment necessary to supply the raw data about mil players. And of course, with players with just a couple of years experience, many times there just weren't enough data points to make an educated projection on a player. A lot of that is now changing with Statcast.
 

barbed wire Bob

crippled by fear
SoSH Member
Was Crawford really an analytics-driven signing? We know that Theo did extensive background work on the guy but he always struck me as an old school scout's wet dream whose value diminished a bit when looking deeply at the numbers. He was never a great hitter (career OPS+ of 107 when he signed) and relied heavily on his speed on the bases and in the field...and they paid him top dollar to play a non-premium defensive position where his speed had limited impact.

This was right around the time Theo was pushing the run prevention model of strong defense and good pitching (2010 featured signing Beltre and Cameron and shifting Ellsbury to LF and an emphasis on defense), so maybe their defensive analytics were showing some sort of hidden value in Crawford. But beyond that, unless the analytics failed because they didn't convince Theo to not pursue Crawford, I don't see him being a poster-child for relying less on analytics.
It's quite probable you're right. I found this article where Epstein says they went against "what he believed to be sound baseball strategy" when they signed both Crawford and Lackey. He also implied the signings were made due to pressure from upper management but he also said Henry was against the signing.

My opinion is that they looked at the data on Crawford with rose colored glasses and convinced themselves that Crawford would be a great fit
 

Kielty's Last Pitch

New Member
Oct 6, 2017
118
Whatever methods a decision is made with, the outcome is highly reliant on luck when you only make a few decisions every offseason. So did they get lucky with Ortiz? Sure. Just like they may have been unlucky with some other free agent decisions. This isn't stock trading or playing online poker, the numbers aren't large enough to suss out true event outcome probability.
Luck is no doubt a factor, and I totally agree the numbers aren't large enough. No team's success is entirely the result of analytics, that's what I'm hoping others can realize. Blaming decreased reliance on analytics for the lack of a championship over the past 4 seasons is a copout.
 

Buck Showalter

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 26, 2002
6,652
Citifield - Queens, NY
Any successful MLB team is going to pump plenty of resources into both analytics and scouting. And if you spend a lot of money on your roster, you're more likely to be competitive so long as you aren't inept in either the analytics or the scouting. So I'm not even sure what you are trying to get at there.
Totally agree.

And my sentiment comes from someone that is not enamored with the analytics or the SABR-approach.

But it's an additional tool that must be utilized to keep the organization from missing out on data that could provide an advantage.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Luck is no doubt a factor, and I totally agree the numbers aren't large enough. No team's success is entirely the result of analytics, that's what I'm hoping others can realize. Blaming decreased reliance on analytics for the lack of a championship over the past 4 seasons is a copout.
Literally no one is arguing this. Not a single person on this board. Please stop abusing that strawman. He's been dead for years now.
 

Kielty's Last Pitch

New Member
Oct 6, 2017
118
That pinstripealley piece is the first time that I've read that the Ortiz signing was due to using advanced metrics. I'm pretty sure that's also true of many others here. Where else have you read that Kielty? I guess what I'm really asking you is why do you keep bringing something up that has been proven numerous times to be a false narrative?
Well actually I brought up the Ortiz signing just once, but followed up with it a few times only because others were lumping it in with the Millar and Mueller signings.

I've read the false narrative about Ortiz many times over the years. It doesn't help when Theo himself keeps crediting analytics for Ortiz.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/theo-epstein-eschews-sabermetrics-for-humanistic-approach/

"In the offseason of 2002, into 2003, the Red Sox needed to improve our offense, and we needed to get on base more. So we could sign Davey Ortiz to a one-year deal, Bill Mueller to a two-year deal, and also sign Kevin Millar, whom no one wanted and was going to Japan, based largely on the numbers, on the things you could learn from the statistical analysis."

Funny how he didn't include Giambi in that list of players. :D

What's even more ironic is what Theo said later in the same article:

‘‘I think the real competitive advantage now is in player development—understanding that your young players are human beings. Understanding them physically, fundamentally, and mentally — investing in them as people — and helping them progress. And there’s no stat for that.’’

I bet a few people here had to take off their glasses and rub their eyes after reading THAT quote. :rolleyes:
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,397
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
Well actually I brought up the Ortiz signing just once, but followed up with it a few times only because others were lumping it in with the Millar and Mueller signings.

I've read the false narrative about Ortiz many times over the years. It doesn't help when Theo himself keeps crediting analytics for Ortiz.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/theo-epstein-eschews-sabermetrics-for-humanistic-approach/

"In the offseason of 2002, into 2003, the Red Sox needed to improve our offense, and we needed to get on base more. So we could sign Davey Ortiz to a one-year deal, Bill Mueller to a two-year deal, and also sign Kevin Millar, whom no one wanted and was going to Japan, based largely on the numbers, on the things you could learn from the statistical analysis."

Funny how he didn't include Giambi in that list of players. :D

What's even more ironic is what Theo said later in the same article:

‘‘I think the real competitive advantage now is in player development—understanding that your young players are human beings. Understanding them physically, fundamentally, and mentally — investing in them as people — and helping them progress. And there’s no stat for that.’’

I bet a few people here had to take off their glasses and rub their eyes after reading THAT quote. :rolleyes:
I fail to see what's so surprising about that quote. Given that most, if not all MLB teams have bought into basic SABR stats, you take your competitive advantages where you find them.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,133
Well actually I brought up the Ortiz signing just once, but followed up with it a few times only because others were lumping it in with the Millar and Mueller signings.

I've read the false narrative about Ortiz many times over the years. It doesn't help when Theo himself keeps crediting analytics for Ortiz.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/theo-epstein-eschews-sabermetrics-for-humanistic-approach/

"In the offseason of 2002, into 2003, the Red Sox needed to improve our offense, and we needed to get on base more. So we could sign Davey Ortiz to a one-year deal, Bill Mueller to a two-year deal, and also sign Kevin Millar, whom no one wanted and was going to Japan, based largely on the numbers, on the things you could learn from the statistical analysis."
Did Theo steal your spouse? Are you a scout? Or Nick Cafardo? Neither the world in general nor your portrayal of people here are anything close to as black-and-white on analytics as you suggest. Not by a longshot.

Epstein: “I was an Ortiz fan from my time with the Padres tracking the Twins farm system. Our numbers guys liked David’s performance, as he had just hit 20 homers in a partial season with the Twins. Our scouts considered him a good hitter who could get better if he could close up a couple holes in and up. We all thought he was a great fit for Fenway, as he demonstrated a real ability to hit the ball the other way. The doubts centered on his health, his defense and why the Twins were making him available.”
 

Yo La Tengo

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
877
This is not exactly on topic, but I found it interesting with regard to analytics/scouting/prep:

Q. Along those lines, do you feel as though you have to be more precise or more fine considering this team just saw you? It's the same team.
DALLAS KEUCHEL: "No, I mean, they showed me some quality takes in Game 1. And very similar to what the Red Sox did. I made no bones about it, the Red Sox are the most knowledgeable group of hitters that I've ever pitched against. That's a compliment to their coaching staff, to their front office, to getting them ready, to the players to having a game plan."

Here's the full transcript:
http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=134968
 

Kielty's Last Pitch

New Member
Oct 6, 2017
118
Did Theo steal your spouse? Are you a scout? Or Nick Cafardo? Neither the world in general nor your portrayal of people here are anything close to as black-and-white on analytics as you suggest. Not by a longshot.
How you made the giant leap into assuming I have some kind of bias against Theo is beyond me. I have stayed on topic, bringing up Theo & Beane & others whom you probably never heard of, only to support my stance. And my stance has always been analytics is a good thing as long as it's not overused or used incorrectly. That's as far from black & white as can be.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,133
How you made the giant leap into assuming I have some kind of bias against Theo is beyond me. I have stayed on topic, bringing up Theo & Beane & others whom you probably never heard of, only to support my stance. And my stance has always been analytics is a good thing as long as it's not overused or used incorrectly. That's as far from black & white as can be.
Yeah. You're probably right. There's probably a whole bunch of folks you brought up that I never heard of. Or there probably isn't even one.

Now I'm really done. Before I get told to be done.
 

Kielty's Last Pitch

New Member
Oct 6, 2017
118
Way to stay focused on the topic. <sigh>

If you care to support your accusation that I'm black-or-white on analytics and people here, I'm all eyes.
 

Kielty's Last Pitch

New Member
Oct 6, 2017
118
Maybe if you weren't so condescending and all-or-nothing with your debates.
A) Please don't get personal, stay on topic.
B) Again, support your accusation of black and white. It's not like I'm going around saying Hanley should be dumped because he's old at 33, now THAT would be an all-or-nothing stance. ;)
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
2) The claim that sabermetrics had anything to do with Ortiz being signed by Theo is obviously yet another example of trying to give credit where it's not due.
The Red Sox signed Ortiz on January 22, 2003. PITCHf/x was first used in the 2006 play-offs, then in most of the parks the next season but it wasn't until 2007 that it was operational in all 30 parks. This meant there were only crude ways to evaluate pitches (from the point of view of batters and the point of view of pitchers) and through new metrics (people began to realize that batting average and fielding average were not the best methods of evaluation). Sabermetrics is named that because the vanguard of new thought was coming from members of the Society for American Baseball Research (SABR...thank you, Bill James). As sabermetrics began to move into MLB, so did SABR members. It was slow at first but as more teams began to adopt the theories, it exploded and techniques such as PITCHf/x and TrackMan and StatCast followed.

You know, long ago I was one of a very few who praised the Original DD for bringing in analytics (look up Mike Gimbel) long before John Henry took over.
Actually, PITCHf/x was tested in a few MLB games in 2005. Somewhere among my things I still have a media pass from the Cardinals when I visited a test at a game during SABR's National Convention (thanks Dr. Alan Nathan). I started going to the Statistical Analysis meetings at SABR conventions back in 1983 along with people like Bill James, Pete Palmer, Sean Forman, and many more. I don't recall Mike Gimbel being the first person every listened to.