Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account
  • entries
    2
  • comments
    16
  • views
    12,288

Moneyball 2.0


Andy MacPhail

835 views

Twins Video

Everybody who has watched Money Ball, should remember the brainstorming of targeting potential players they could afford. Each had their own idea who they should get. But GM Beane shocked them & vetoed them all with his candidates. What all his candidates had in common was that they were cheap & had high OBP, Analytical OBP revolutionized MLB forever. A cheap high OBP player could replace a more expensive high BA player & be more productive. Because it doesn't matter how you get on base as long as you get on base. But analytics have morphed since into HR focused stats. Most team focuses in how to hit more HRs & chase after expensive non-athletic sluggers. HRs are everything & OBP, hitting clutch, bunting, defense, pitching, intangibles, stealing & taking extra the base are irrelevant. Their idea of winning was to sign, draft & develop such players. 

Contrary to many baseball fans philosophies, HRs do not equal wins, Looking at some MLB teams' HR/ game rankings- MIL is #29, CLE is # 27, TB #22, SD #15. MIL, who had the best MLB winning record was 2nd to the last in HR totals & many who didn't have good HR totals still made the postseason. MLB isn't a HR derby or HR favoring stats-based fantasy baseball, thank God. It's how you play the game. OBP, hitting clutch, bunting, defense, pitching, intangibles, stealing & taking extra the base are important! You still need scouts to evaluate the intangibles. But I say it doesn't matter how many HRs you hit, because it's easier to hit a bunch of HRs when it doesn't matter & strike out when it does; it matters more to be able to hit when it does matter, whether it's a HR or not. Which would you want an expensive poor defensive slugger that strikes out a lot when it matters or a cheap defensive contact player who hits when it does matter? Sadly, many prefer the prior. 

NYY do very well in today's HR analytical mindset. If you hit a lot of HRs, you don't need to have good defense, baserunning, fundamentals, instincts, character & intangibles, and it doesn't matter if you strike out a lot.  If they don't matter then you don't need scouts, good drafting, coach development & player evaluators who enforce these qualities, right? You can get by with just analytics. The focus was to sign the best FA slugger that money can buy. In '19, baseball was enamored with the "Bomba Squad" & it went to MN's head. The "big apple" HR mindset was then able to influence the "minnie apple" to adapt the same. IMO, MN has gone downhill since, making wrong decisions. NYY has dominated MN because they have become a cheap copy of them, NYY are a big market, we are not & NYY are not a great team. IMO, MN is starting to wake up & see the need to break away from this model. They need not only break away but also set a different model. I have advocated for years that MN needs to break away & adapt MIL as their new model.

Brewers are a small market that win; therefore, they never get high draft picks, yet they still come up with great players. How is that possible? That is a question that MN relevantly needed & still need to ask & come up with the answers. Here are some of my observations & what I think some the answers are. 1st, Brewers are the anti-thesis of the present analytical mindset. Analytics are important but I think that they're bias & don't tell the whole story, Brewers know that. They don't focus on big slow defense-deficient sluggers that become Scott Boras clients, They have a cheap athletic pure hitter model who they can easily extend. They also value heart, instinct & character & have scouts who scour nationally & internationally to find such players. They have coaches who see the qualities of each player & maximize those qualities while teaching them true fundamentals. Thus, producing many MLBer who can make an impact. those impact players, who they can't extend, they can trade for future impact players who can replace them. Why does MN bring up so many players that can't make a lasting impact? Why are there so many prospects who could be MLBers, aren't given proper opportunities? 

With a superior player evaluation model, they can draft better & they can trade better too. To go along with that, when they can see a need, they proactively trade for that need instead of hoping & waiting for that trade to fall in their laps & so many times, settle for an inferior player. GM can delegate to others, drafting, players evaluation, development, coach selection, etc but IMO the most important role & obligation of a GM is proactively make trades. Managers are also very important; MIL has a very good manager. What are important characteristics for a great manager? Create good culture? good communications? good feel for the game? give & demand respect? have good philosophies? knows how to manage his pitchers, especially the BP? good instincts? good motivator? have an understanding of analytics? maybe, if he has assistants who do that, maybe not. Here are some that come to mind, maybe you have more.

Now shifting away from hitting to pitching. In the slugging mind set, high strikeouts aren't concerning. OK, so does that mean low strikeouts aren't concerning in pitching? No, in pitching, high strikeouts are everything but in hitting, it's not concerning? In this correlating slugging philosophy that defense isn't important, pitchers are forced to depend entirely on velo & their stuff to get outs via strikeouts. Because groundballs go through the INF like a sieve because the INFers can't field. Another reason to abolish this mindset is to have better defense, especially the INF, DPs & fielding grounders that usually become hits & runs help pitchers. Presently groundball (GB) pitchers are extinct, If a GB pitcher has slick fielding INFers backing them, they can flourish. Big SO pitchers are expensive to sign. soft GB pitchers are cheap. especially under this current popular mindset & normally are healthier. Throwing more GB producing pitches, give pitchers more options where they aren't so dependent on their velo & spin & also saves their arms.

Moneyball 2.0 is how to economize to compete outside the big market. To be productive with low-cost players who get on base (high OBP), hitters who drive them in especially in clutch situation; good scout to find them & good coaches to develop them with better defense & fundamentals. With better defensive INF, make cheap GB pitchers work & expand other pitchers' repertoires that save their arms. & GM & managers who buy into this. I want the Twins to be more like the Brewers & more, not the Yankees. What do you think?

10 Comments


Recommended Comments

Blyleven2011

Posted

I’m right there with you Andy …

i’d also emphasize that when in a clutch situation ( runners on base ) that our twins players need to make more adjustments and bare down in making contact , taking pitches to opposite fields either finds a hole , moves a runner up a base and also for opponents defense is forced to make the play ..

twins usually hit just solo homeruns when it doesn’t matter and strikes out when it does matter …

thanks , we needed this  , there are some fans that are purists …

hopefully we are changing in the right direction  , 2026 season was more exciting than the previous seasons , we were not expected in my opinion to consistently compete or contend for the playoffs , hopefully we have a 2027 to prove we are better moving forward , I do have alittle more optimism going forward without Rocco and falvey being gone …

Andy MacPhail

Posted

3 hours ago, Blyleven2011 said:

I’m right there with you Andy …

i’d also emphasize that when in a clutch situation ( runners on base ) that our twins players need to make more adjustments and bare down in making contact , taking pitches to opposite fields either finds a hole , moves a runner up a base and also for opponents defense is forced to make the play ..

twins usually hit just solo homeruns when it doesn’t matter and strikes out when it does matter …

thanks , we needed this  , there are some fans that are purists …

hopefully we are changing in the right direction  , 2026 season was more exciting than the previous seasons , we were not expected in my opinion to consistently compete or contend for the playoffs , hopefully we have a 2027 to prove we are better moving forward , I do have alittle more optimism going forward without Rocco and falvey being gone …

Amen, Bly! I don't do this to get clicks, I just want people to rethink what they've been told. I appreciate your support.

Blyleven2011

Posted

18 minutes ago, Andy MacPhail said:

Amen, Bly! I don't do this to get clicks, I just want people to rethink what they've been told. I appreciate your support.

Exactly the point …

some fans are okay with mediocre FO and players , as a life long fan it is very hard to accept …

Brandon

Posted

The Twins need to readopt their old pattern and go back to acceptional fielding, good average with lots of doubles, take the extra base, occasional bunting to throw others defenses off.  But this time meale sure they have 9 solid hitters not 7 with two retreads. 

But not follow their old pitching model.  Their new one is better.  

Andy MacPhail

Posted

Before last night's NLCS game, almost every podcaster & broadcaster who I listened to, predicted that LAD with all their big-name bats & pitchers that filled their lineup, rotation & BP, were going to beat MIL & some said easily. Don't get me wrong, LAD do many things right; but MIL has to do them better. Plus MIL has more intangibles in their favor. The Miz didn't have his best stuff but the defense, with DPs & slick plays, their BP & clutch hitting helped to pull out a close game.

I know big sluggers & hurlers are sexy in today's game. For me playing the game right is sexy, From the GM landing a needed trade to a manager knowing how to use his BP to defense turning a slick DP, to a runner turning a double into a triple to a hitter laying down a perfect bunt excites me; hitters striking out, bad defense & pitchers giving up walks & HRs do not. Winning is sexy, losing is not. That's the name of the game.

The Great Hambino

Posted

I know there's this romantic ideal of slap-hitting and drag-bunting your way to a title stemming from - I don't know - nostalgia for How The Game Should Be Played, a reflexive pushback against anything resembling math, the urge to incentivize a more aesthetically-pleasing brand of play, probably other factors.  But it really hasn't yet been proven in practice, at least not in today's game, at the championship level.

So homers don't matter anymore in because some of the top teams this season ranked low in that statistic?  Let's look at some recent history from the World Series champions:

2025 Dodgers: ranked #2 in MLB in home runs

2024 Dodgers: #3

2023 Rangers: #3

2022 Astros: #4

2021 Braves: #3

2020 Dodgers: #1

2019 Nationals: #13, went toe-to-toe HR-wise with the #3 Astros in the World Series (11 homers to 11)

2018 Red Sox: #9

2017 Astros: #2

2016 Cubs: #13, hit 20 homers in the postseason, outhomered their opponent in every round

2015 Royals: #24

So, we have to go back over a decade to find a champion that finished in the bottom half of the league in homers on the year.  The last six champions finished in the top 4.  And since 2015, the only champs to finish outside the top ten did happen to rank in the top 10 in terms of fewest homers allowed (Nats #7, Cubs #5), and those teams stepped their homer games up in the postseason

Now, hitting homers is only half of the power equation since you're only on offense half the time.  Preventing homers is just as important as hitting them.  That's why I noted above that the two teams outside the top 10 in homers were within the top 10 in preventing homers.

Power still plays in the postseason.  You're only facing quality pitching for the most part in the postseason, and it gets harder and harder to hit as the postseason moves on.  If you're going to score without homers, you have to string a lot of baserunners together.  That becomes a taller and taller task as the pitching gets better. 

Even the homer-shy heroes of 2026 have advanced to their current position by winning the homer battle so far.  The Guardians advanced because they kept the White Sox in the park and Jose Ramirez provided the only runs of the decisive Game 5 with a homer.  The Rays relied almost entirely on the homer for two of their three wins over the Yankees (didn't hurt that the Yankees' two biggest home run threats were out our seriously limited).  And what proved to be the difference in last night's Miz/Skubal duel? Brice Turang's homer, the only one of the game

So is this year, with three of the final four ranking in the bottom 10 for homers, an anomaly?  A signal of a true paradigm-shift?  Or are they simply a footnote to be forgotten once the Dodgers (#7 in homers) bludgeon the field like they have the last two years?  I don't know, time will tell.

I'm glad the OP laid this out as they did.  Moneyball is about exploiting market inefficiencies at its core, and these teams very well may have uncovered the next one.  I guess what I'm saying is let's see it actually play out in practice before declaring the homer to be irrelevant.  Let's also discuss analytics for what it is - using information to make informed, calculated decisions - and not what it has been bastardized to become - a catch-all term for anything old-school types don't like

Woof Bronzer

Posted

Nice piece.  To your point about the "HRs are king" mindset....the favorite statistic of the analytics crowd this time of year is "in the playoffs the team that outhomers the other has won x of y games".  Gleeman will tweet this, Smoltz will mention it on the broadcast, writers at Athletic and ESPN will cite it.

What they won't say, for some reason, is that OUTHITTING your opponent is actually more correlated to winning in the playoffs than outhomering them.  (Data shows there are actually about 20 stats that better correlate to winning a game than outhomering your opponent. For some reason we only ever hear about one of them though.)

So far this year:  15-4 if you outhomer your opponent, 19-3 if you outhit them.

And it makes sense:  HRs are hits too!  But when you can also string a few hits together it's just another way to score runs.  In the short sample size that is the playoffs, if you can only score runs 1 way you are a bad weekend away from golf season.  Look at the White Sox, they were unbeatable until they very, very, very much weren't.  They could only score runs one way and it cost them their season.  

Analytics and "Moneyball" was about finding competitive advantages to exploit.  It was supposed to be driven by cold data.  Now it seems like the analytics guys just want to push a certain narrative, like they've cracked the code to baseball that hasn't been cracked in 150 years, and homers are the way.  I don't understand it.  

 

Woof Bronzer

Posted

5 minutes ago, The Great Hambino said:

And what proved to be the difference in last night's Miz/Skubal duel? Brice Turang's homer, the only one of the game

 

That tied the game.  The difference in the game was a chopper up the middle after a walk and a bunt.  

Andy MacPhail

Posted

18 minutes ago, The Great Hambino said:

I know there's this romantic ideal of slap-hitting and drag-bunting your way to a title stemming from - I don't know - nostalgia for How The Game Should Be Played, a reflexive pushback against anything resembling math, the urge to incentivize a more aesthetically-pleasing brand of play, probably other factors.  But it really hasn't yet been proven in practice, at least not in today's game, at the championship level.

So homers don't matter anymore in because some of the top teams this season ranked low in that statistic?  Let's look at some recent history from the World Series champions:

2025 Dodgers: ranked #2 in MLB in home runs

2024 Dodgers: #3

2023 Rangers: #3

2022 Astros: #4

2021 Braves: #3

2020 Dodgers: #1

2019 Nationals: #13, went toe-to-toe HR-wise with the #3 Astros in the World Series (11 homers to 11)

2018 Red Sox: #9

2017 Astros: #2

2016 Cubs: #13, hit 20 homers in the postseason, outhomered their opponent in every round

2015 Royals: #24

So, we have to go back over a decade to find a champion that finished in the bottom half of the league in homers on the year.  The last six champions finished in the top 4.  And since 2015, the only champs to finish outside the top ten did happen to rank in the top 10 in terms of fewest homers allowed (Nats #7, Cubs #5), and those teams stepped their homer games up in the postseason

Now, hitting homers is only half of the power equation since you're only on offense half the time.  Preventing homers is just as important as hitting them.  That's why I noted above that the two teams outside the top 10 in homers were within the top 10 in preventing homers.

Power still plays in the postseason.  You're only facing quality pitching for the most part in the postseason, and it gets harder and harder to hit as the postseason moves on.  If you're going to score without homers, you have to string a lot of baserunners together.  That becomes a taller and taller task as the pitching gets better. 

Even the homer-shy heroes of 2026 have advanced to their current position by winning the homer battle so far.  The Guardians advanced because they kept the White Sox in the park and Jose Ramirez provided the only runs of the decisive Game 5 with a homer.  The Rays relied almost entirely on the homer for two of their three wins over the Yankees (didn't hurt that the Yankees' two biggest home run threats were out our seriously limited).  And what proved to be the difference in last night's Miz/Skubal duel? Brice Turang's homer, the only one of the game

So is this year, with three of the final four ranking in the bottom 10 for homers, an anomaly?  A signal of a true paradigm-shift?  Or are they simply a footnote to be forgotten once the Dodgers (#7 in homers) bludgeon the field like they have the last two years?  I don't know, time will tell.

I'm glad the OP laid this out as they did.  Moneyball is about exploiting market inefficiencies at its core, and these teams very well may have uncovered the next one.  I guess what I'm saying is let's see it actually play out in practice before declaring the homer to be irrelevant.  Let's also discuss analytics for what it is - using information to make informed, calculated decisions - and not what it has been bastardized to become - a catch-all term for anything old-school types don't like

In my statement, I said that LAD does a lot of things right, I imagine all WS champs would have to fall into this category. So that means that they aren't focusing only on HRs which is my main point. I'm not against HRs, but my main point I stress is clutch hitting which could very likely be HRs. & if you look at that list, how many of those teams are big market? How can we go toe to toe with the big guys in a slug fest & hope to win? You can't, The big guys buy up the elite players that the good small teams develop but can't afford. Small teams have to out finesse the big team, after many seasons of building postseason experience, small market, MIL finally have a chance to win it all.

I never said I was against analytics, matter of fact I said I'm for them. But I said most modern hitting analytics is HR bias, you have to take that into consideration & there is a lot more to offense & the game than just HRs, which I hope you can see, Because if we want to compete, we have to exploit these cheaper options which I stated. If we chase only these HR analytics we will remain at best mediocre. You can call me old school, but I assure you, I am not, especially in pitching. Pitching has changed so much & you can't try to fit it into the old standard, you have to adapt. Which is a different subject.

Woof Bronzer

Posted

8 minutes ago, The Great Hambino said:

I know there's this romantic ideal of slap-hitting and drag-bunting your way to a title stemming from - I don't know - nostalgia for How The Game Should Be Played, a reflexive pushback against anything resembling math, the urge to incentivize a more aesthetically-pleasing brand of play, probably other factors.  But it really hasn't yet been proven in practice, at least not in today's game, at the championship level.

So homers don't matter anymore in because some of the top teams this season ranked low in that statistic?  Let's look at some recent history from the World Series champions:

2025 Dodgers: ranked #2 in MLB in home runs

2024 Dodgers: #3

2023 Rangers: #3

2022 Astros: #4

2021 Braves: #3

2020 Dodgers: #1

2019 Nationals: #13, went toe-to-toe HR-wise with the #3 Astros in the World Series (11 homers to 11)

2018 Red Sox: #9

2017 Astros: #2

2016 Cubs: #13, hit 20 homers in the postseason, outhomered their opponent in every round

2015 Royals: #24

So, we have to go back over a decade to find a champion that finished in the bottom half of the league in homers on the year.  The last six champions finished in the top 4.  And since 2015, the only champs to finish outside the top ten did happen to rank in the top 10 in terms of fewest homers allowed (Nats #7, Cubs #5), and those teams stepped their homer games up in the postseason

Now, hitting homers is only half of the power equation since you're only on offense half the time.  Preventing homers is just as important as hitting them.  That's why I noted above that the two teams outside the top 10 in homers were within the top 10 in preventing homers.

Power still plays in the postseason.  You're only facing quality pitching for the most part in the postseason, and it gets harder and harder to hit as the postseason moves on.  If you're going to score without homers, you have to string a lot of baserunners together.  That becomes a taller and taller task as the pitching gets better. 

Even the homer-shy heroes of 2026 have advanced to their current position by winning the homer battle so far.  The Guardians advanced because they kept the White Sox in the park and Jose Ramirez provided the only runs of the decisive Game 5 with a homer.  The Rays relied almost entirely on the homer for two of their three wins over the Yankees (didn't hurt that the Yankees' two biggest home run threats were out our seriously limited).  And what proved to be the difference in last night's Miz/Skubal duel? Brice Turang's homer, the only one of the game

So is this year, with three of the final four ranking in the bottom 10 for homers, an anomaly?  A signal of a true paradigm-shift?  Or are they simply a footnote to be forgotten once the Dodgers (#7 in homers) bludgeon the field like they have the last two years?  I don't know, time will tell.

I'm glad the OP laid this out as they did.  Moneyball is about exploiting market inefficiencies at its core, and these teams very well may have uncovered the next one.  I guess what I'm saying is let's see it actually play out in practice before declaring the homer to be irrelevant.  Let's also discuss analytics for what it is - using information to make informed, calculated decisions - and not what it has been bastardized to become - a catch-all term for anything old-school types don't like

You have perfectly illustrated the mindset I referred to in my post just after yours.  If you are really interested in data and math, surely you would be interested to know that out hitting your opponent has a higher correlation to winning that out homering your opponent.  

2026 playoffs to date:

Outhomer your opponent: 15-4 

Outhit your opponent: 19-3 

2025 playoffs: 

Outhomer your opponent:  31-5

Outhit your opponent:  39-4

To be most successful in the playoffs on offense you need more than one way of generating runs.  

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...