Coaching Matters

[alskntwnsfn]

Coaching is a really hard thing to quantify, but I've had a gut feeling for a long time that the hitting and pitching coaching (at least pre-Allen) on this club has been sub-par. With the suspension of highly regarded pitching coach Neil Allen, we have a decent sample size to compare how the pitching staff has performed in Allen's absence. 

 

Basically, the pitching staff has been quite a bit worse in Allen's absence: 

 

Pre-Suspension (4/4-5/25) - 46 games

 

Runs Against Avg: 5.39

Pct. of Games with 3 or fewer runs allowed: 30%

Pct. of Games with 4 or fewer runs allowed: 50%

 

Post-Suspension (5/27-6/22) - 25 games

 

Runs Against Avg: 6.04

Pct. of Games with 3 or fewer runs allowed: 8%
Pct. of Games with 4 or fewer runs allowed: 40%

 

Given that the staff was probably due for some mean-regression improvement. The fact that they've gotten worse is even more disturbing. Heading into the season, this staff wasn't going to be incredible, but they should be able to do much better than a 5.39 runs against average. Instead, they've gotten worse since Allen's suspension. FWIW, last year they gave up 4.32 runs per game, ranking 9th out of 15 AL teams. 

 

Another way to measure coaching effectiveness is to compare players' performance with the Twins to after they left. Here's a list of players who have received significant playing time the last few years, with their performance after they left the club:

 

Aaron Hicks - Twins (2013-2015) OPS+ 81 - Yankees 2016 OPS+ 

Chris Colabello - Twins (2013-2014) OPS+ 80 - Blue Jays (2015-2016) OPS+ 126

Sam Fuld - Twins (2014) OPS+ 106 - Athletics (2014-2016) OPS+ 63

 

We seem to have hit on Grossman, though his preparation habits have been noted and it seems as though his success probably doesn't have as much to do with terrific hitting coaching (but maybe some of it is... I don't know). Danny Valencia has been better since leaving the Twins, but he might be one of those classic late bloomers. The Twins were always high on his ability, he just seemed to struggle in converting that ability to in-game performance, sometimes that takes awhile to translate. 

 

On the pitching side, Hughes and Santana have performed in line with their career average ERA+, while Nolasco has been significantly worse (though that isn't too surprising given he's been hurt and came from the NL). Tommy Milone has been slightly worse in his time with Minnesota compared to when he was with Oakland, though Oakland is a much easier place to pitch with all that foul territory. Correia and Pelfrey have both been worse since leaving the Twins. Liam Hendricks was fantastic for the Jays last year but has struggled in Oakland thus far - his velocity has increased substantially since leaving the Twins.  

 

All in all, it's not as damning as I initially thought outside of Allen's absence. However, a deeper analysis of prospect performance is warranted. It seems as though other teams tend to get better performance from their top prospects earlier than the Twins. It would be interesting to see a comparison of minor league performance to major league performance for top Twins prospects versus other teams. For a club that relies on prospects and doesn't have the ability to stack a roster with high priced free agents, that is probably the most crucial coaching metric to track. 

[Loosey]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

 

[alskntwnsfn]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

 

So coaching has no impact on player performance, regardless of what the data says? I grant you that proving causation would require a much deeper investigation. However, given this team's struggles relative to what was expected, the question of "Is this team's coaching staff doing all they can to maximize the club's performance?" would be at the top of my list if I was in an owner's chair. 

 

We never get any answers about preparation/practice other than "we're working on some things" or at most, "we're trying to get Brian to go the other way more". I dont' know if they necessarily need to publicly state those things, but if I was TR I'd have a long chat with Grossman, Suzuki, and Santana about how their previous clubs got ready to face opponents, versus how the Twins do it. 

 

The cliches are wearing very thin. We want results, or barring that, maybe some more detailed explanations of what the club is doing to prepare.  

[diehardtwinsfan]

If coaching had no impact, then they wouldn't need coaches.  The question isn't the amount of impact but how much and whether some coaches are better than others.  It's a very valid question.  We tend to explain it all as luck, and at times I question that.

[wsnydes]

I'm of the opinion that coaching is overrated at the professional level, but not meaningless.  I often feel that they get too much blame when a team is bad and too much glory when they are good.  Ultimately, it's the players that decide the game on the field.  They're the ones that have to execute better then their opponent.

 

That being said, I think it's incredibly important at younger ages, through college and the minors.  That's where a good coach can really clean off the rough edges and develop a polished player.  That's where they develop the skills they'll need at to succeed at the highest levels.  That renders big league managers and coaches there more for guidance than anything.