03-12-2012, 09:04 AM #1
Murray Chass on the Twins
Here's former New York Times baseball writer Murray Chass gushing over the Twins system in his recent conversation with Terry Ryan, which is interesting because of that. Of course, it wouldn't be a Chass piece without him showing some contempt for the "Moneyball" method:
Terry Ryan is one of the reasons I never liked the book “Moneyball” and have refused to see the movie. I have always felt that the Michael Lewis book glorifies Billy Beane, the Oakland general manager, whom I also like and respect, at Ryan’s expense when in reality Ryan has been at least as successful as Beane, winning despite small payrolls.
The difference between them has been their methods, Beane building the Athletics through statistical analysis and Ryan the old-fashioned way, through scouting. My preference is for scouts, for whom I have great respect, over computers.
03-12-2012, 09:33 AM #2
03-12-2012, 09:41 AM #3
False premise that it is either or. It's a tired, old, argument made by tired old guys who don't like science and college educated people trampling on their nostalgia.
Also, how'd that work out the last few years, with Ryan's drafts? Valencia and who, have come up the last three years and made a difference? If they are so great at drafting, why are only 2 starting pitches draft picks of the Twins? I can't name the last legit MLB starting MIF they drafted and developed, Knoblauch? Where is the league average catcher to back up Mauer? Where is the power hitter to play 1B or DH? Much of what we believe is mythology, plain and simple.Once a person or team has a reputation, it's hard to shake that reputation, despite evidence to the contrary.Win Twins.
03-12-2012, 09:45 AM #4
You're right. It should not be an either or situation. Scouting has clearly predicted quality players, and so has the Sabermetrics. Realistically, they should show you the same things.
I'm a science type guy, so I like seeing evidence behind decisions. That's easily done through stats. But stats aren't always going to show you things that might be important, like a pitcher with mechanics that will lead to injury or a batter with a relatively low bat speed. A team should really strive to be the best at both.
03-12-2012, 09:47 AM #5Much of what we believe is mythology, plain and simple.Once a person or team has a reputation, it's hard to shake that reputation, despite evidence to the contrary.
03-12-2012, 10:17 AM #6
Does Mr. Chass actually believe the A's don't scout anymore and just use statistical analysis?
Our Takes, Your Takes, TwinsTakes
03-12-2012, 10:52 AM #7
03-13-2012, 09:38 AM #8
Gotta point out too...the A's didn't exactly turn into a powerhouse dynasty or anything.
03-13-2012, 10:28 AM #9
Both the Billy Beane As and the Terry Ryan Twins won the same World Championships: Zero.
I dare to say that the Marlins and Diamondbacks have been more successful than either club based on winning it all. The Rays already done more than either the As or the Twins also-----
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
03-13-2012, 10:57 AM #10
How many world series appearances to the Twins have under Ryan? ZERO. Relying purely on scouting while ignoring sabermatics is as silly as ignoring scouting. The best system would seem to be to use a combination. The Twins haven't ignored "numbers" under Ryan/Smith - however, they have constantly focused on the wrong numbers, such as BA, RBI, Wins and Saves.
03-13-2012, 11:51 AM #11
03-13-2012, 11:59 AM #12
In speaking to the Twins person in charge of statistical analysis, I got the impression that there is plenty of research being done that goes beyond the BAs, RBIs, etc, but that the decision-makers are not interested in using the more advanced statistics despite some in the organization using them. Apparently -- and I'm not sharing this just to toot my own horn -- but after the interview I did with Rob Antony two springs ago, he's gone on a mission to educate himself and the baseball ops team on more advanced stats.