Berardino profiles Twins' mysterious stat guy

[drjim]

Twincities.com : Minnesota Twins join 'Moneyball' era behind mystery man

 

Another great article from Mike Berardino on the Twins and statistical analysis. They probably do a lot more with statistical analysis than we would ever know.

 

On a side note there are some really great beat writers covering the Twins at the moment ranging from more old school coverage (at the Strib) to more statistical analysis (1500 ESPN) to great writing in between (Berardino/PPress).

[Nick Nelson]

Lengthy and interesting writeup on Jack Goin and the Twins' stat department in the Pioneer Press, including a nice shout-out to Twins Daily:

 

Minnesota Twins join 'Moneyball' era behind mystery man - TwinCities.com

[drjim]

Good thought, just posted the same article. Well worth a read.

 

My side point is that there really are some solid beat writers covering the Twins right now, from Berardino to the Strib to the guys at 1500 ESPN.

[Ultima Ratio]

One might think that Ryan/Gardy play dumb to 'cybermetrics' to preserve the appearance and other GM's opinion of them as behind the times, and then leveraging that appearance in making deals. Or, maybe the appearance is reality.

[cmathewson]

I like both Berardino and Miller. They go above and beyond. They don't just talk to the same five sources all the time and mail in a column. And they're prolific, when allowed to be.

 

As for the content of the article. Goin is my new hero.

[cmathewson]

One might think that Ryan/Gardy play dumb to 'cybermetrics' to preserve the appearance and other GM's opinion of them as behind the times, and then leveraging that appearance in making deals. Or, maybe the appearance is reality.

 

Reading between the lines of the article, they definitely do not want to publicize just how savvy they are statistically "for competitive reasons".

[Brad Swanson]

Twincities.com : Minnesota Twins join 'Moneyball' era behind mystery man

 

Another great article from Mike Berardino on the Twins and statistical analysis. They probably do a lot more with statistical analysis than we would ever know.

 

On a side note there are some really great beat writers covering the Twins at the moment ranging from more old school coverage (at the Strib) to more statistical analysis (1500 ESPN) to great writing in between (Berardino/PPress).

 

I second this final statement. Brandon Warne was an excellent addition at 1500.

[Willihammer]

I guess its sort of understandable that the guy who assembles low walk, high contact staffs would like WHIP

[cmathewson]

I guess its sort of understandable that the guy who assembles low walk, high contact staffs would like WHIP

 

I tried to argue this on another thread. Thing is, the maths don't really work. High contact does not equal low WHIP. It only does if the pitcher has a low BABIP.

[Willihammer]

But the Twins have been very good as measured by WHIP under Jr's tenure. Problem is that a walk and a hit aren't particularly close to equivalent in terms of run value. As evidenced by the fact that the Twins were 2nd in WHIP from 2000-2010, 1st in walks allowed, but 10th in ERA.

[Kobs]

I tried to argue this on another thread. Thing is, the maths don't really work. High contact does not equal low WHIP. It only does if the pitcher has a low BABIP.

 

A ball hit in play with a high BABIP results in a lower WHIP than a walk does.

[Alex]

Gotta say the PP Twins articles have been excellent lately, and this was another one.

 

I think that the Twins apparent ignorance is actually that. I do think they are keeping some things back as well. The small statistical department and some statements just seem too impossible to be made up and match what they do on the field.

 

Rick Anderson did seem to be clueless about WAR in another article. Is that really possible?

[drivlikejehu]

The Twins are not stat "savvy" by any stretch of the imagination. They have taken some baby steps, but really that's it.

[DaveW]

Rick Anderson did seem to be clueless about WAR in another article. Is that really possible?

WAR for pitchers is pretty pointless to be honest.

 

Either a pitcher is good or he isn't, it's pretty cut and dry. It's not like he is a position player where WAR is taking 3 things (hitting, fielding, base-running into factor) for a pitcher it's just taking into factor "how good of a pitcher is he"

[snepp]

Pointless or not, a field staffer like Anderson isn't going to benefit from something like WAR anyway, even if he did know what it was. Hard to find anything to criticize there.

[old nurse]

The comment on pitch f/x machines in the minors was the part I liked. That would be using technology to better evaluate the players both on your team and the oposition

[Alex]

WAR for pitchers is pretty pointless to be honest.

 

Either a pitcher is good or he isn't, it's pretty cut and dry. It's not like he is a position player where WAR is taking 3 things (hitting, fielding, base-running into factor) for a pitcher it's just taking into factor "how good of a pitcher is he"

 

I wasn't arguing that, but to not know the term even? It would indicate living in a pretty closed bubble to me.

[cmathewson]

I wasn't arguing that, but to not know the term even? It would indicate living in a pretty closed bubble to me.

 

I guarantee you Anderson does the kind of analysis Parker did on Pelfrey this morning, which is going to give his pitcher more stuff to work on than any results-based metrics. Let the FO focus on WAR and the coaches focus on Pitch F/X. As far as I'm concerned, the coaches don't need to clutter their minds with those decisions.

[Alex]

I guarantee you Anderson does the kind of analysis Parker did on Pelfrey this morning, which is going to give his pitcher more stuff to work on than any results-based metrics. Let the FO focus on WAR and the coaches focus on Pitch F/X. As far as I'm concerned, the coaches don't need to clutter their minds with those decisions.

 

If this is your belief, then you have a lower opinion of him than I do for my surprise at the fact that he called it "a new one" when asked about it.

[cmathewson]

If this is your belief, then you have a lower opinion of him than I do for my surprise at the fact that he called it "a new one" when asked about it.

 

Charley Walters: Analytics could have helped my Minnesota Twins career - TwinCities.com

[Alex]

Charley Walters: Analytics could have helped my Minnesota Twins career - TwinCities.com

 

Should have clarified. I meant if you think he has no need to even "clutter" his mind with the idea of what has become a ubiquitous baseball concept even if I can see there is little value in him using it.

 

I was, of course, referring to that article (thanks for linking it) when I referred to being unaware of WAR. That article is as encouraging as it is discouraging with regard to statistics. I was glad to see the use of Pitch FX (and that was actually document awhile ago) but disappointed to see the response to the WAR question and the high value of WHIP (as pointed out above, doesn't always correlate with a successful staff).

[Otto von Ballpark]

There is no reason for Anderson to know WAR. WAR is a cumulative counting stat above a theoretical replacement level. Why the heck would a pitching coach need that? He's coaching players, and at best on the periphery of roster and usage decisions. Even if the front office uses input from Anderson on acquisitions and promotions, they don't need him to quote WAR figures -- they can get that elsewhere. A pitching coach doesn't need WAR at all, and it's frankly ridiculous to pick on him for not knowing it.

 

A manager *might* find it useful, if only because of the defensive component for position players. Hopefully they are looking at some kind of advanced defensive stats, even if it's not in WAR form (probably preferably not in WAR form, WAR is a little too general for a field manager). But primarily WAR and its components are going to be interesting to the front office only (and fans, of course).

[drivlikejehu]

WAR is a fun stat but not really useful for coaches or the front office, which needs more in-depth analysis. But it's a pretty common measure that a lot of baseball fans know about. Someone who is a professional in the sport should probably be aware of things like that even if it isn't a usable tool day-to-day.

[Guest USAFChief]

There is no reason for Anderson to know WAR. WAR is a cumulative counting stat above a theoretical replacement level. Why the heck would a pitching coach need that? He's coaching players, and at best on the periphery of roster and usage decisions. Even if the front office uses input from Anderson on acquisitions and promotions, they don't need him to quote WAR figures -- they can get that elsewhere. A pitching coach doesn't need WAR at all, and it's frankly ridiculous to pick on him for not knowing it.

 

A manager *might* find it useful, if only because of the defensive component for position players. Hopefully they are looking at some kind of advanced defensive stats, even if it's not in WAR form (probably preferably not in WAR form, WAR is a little too general for a field manager). But primarily WAR and its components are going to be interesting to the front office only (and fans, of course).

I don't know what benefit Anderson would get from knowing and understanding WAR either. I happen to think that WAR is fatally flawed in numerous ways, and I hope the front office has evaluated and tossed out WAR, too. BUT...I would like to think that the management of my favorite major league baseball team would have formed their own opinions on pretty much the entire range of information available out there, based on their own or team evaluation. I would like to think that extends to the pitching coach, right on down through the management at every minor league level. It bothers me when something as well known as WAR is a term Rick Anderson is not even familiar with, much less have some sort of reasonably formed opinion on. It reminds me of the Twinkie Town interview a couple years ago where Rob Antony was unfamiliar with the term BABIP. Seriously? To me it seems lazy at best, outright malfeasance at worst. Not staying up with the latest research in any field (and WAR isn't exactly the "latest research") is a recipe for getting lapped by the field.

[Alex]

There is no reason for Anderson to know WAR. WAR is a cumulative counting stat above a theoretical replacement level. Why the heck would a pitching coach need that? He's coaching players, and at best on the periphery of roster and usage decisions. Even if the front office uses input from Anderson on acquisitions and promotions, they don't need him to quote WAR figures -- they can get that elsewhere. A pitching coach doesn't need WAR at all, and it's frankly ridiculous to pick on him for not knowing it.

 

A manager *might* find it useful, if only because of the defensive component for position players. Hopefully they are looking at some kind of advanced defensive stats, even if it's not in WAR form (probably preferably not in WAR form, WAR is a little too general for a field manager). But primarily WAR and its components are going to be interesting to the front office only (and fans, of course).

 

Listen, I'm not "picking" on him. I find it surprising he hadn't heard of it and it tells me that coaches (at least the Twins) live in much more of a bubble than I thought they did. I mean, he hadn't even heard of it, even when you consider last year's MVP discussion? I just find that fascinating that someone so close to baseball wouldn't have heard of it and it gives me a new perspective on what kinds of things they (or at least Rick Anderson) pays attention to.

[Alex]

I don't know what benefit Anderson would get from knowing and understanding WAR either. I happen to think that WAR is fatally flawed in numerous ways, and I hope the front office has evaluated and tossed out WAR, too. BUT...I would like to think that the management of my favorite major league baseball team would have formed their own opinions on pretty much the entire range of information available out there, based on their own or team evaluation. I would like to think that extends to the pitching coach, right on down through the management at every minor league level. It bothers me when something as well known as WAR is a term Rick Anderson is not even familiar with, much less have some sort of reasonably formed opinion on. It reminds me of the Twinkie Town interview a couple years ago where Rob Antony was unfamiliar with the term BABIP. Seriously? To me it seems lazy at best, outright malfeasance at worst. Not staying up with the latest research in any field (and WAR isn't exactly the "latest research") is a recipe for getting lapped by the field.

 

Thanks. You stated this far more clearly than I did.

[LaBombo]

A pitching coach doesn't need WAR at all, and it's frankly ridiculous to pick on him for not knowing it.

Obviously knowledge about a stat like WAR isn't critical to the daily tasks Anderson faces. But the fact that he's never heard of it, well, that's just sad. And it fits the gist of the article, which is that the Twins abhor statistical analysis but won't admit it.

 

Yeah, sure, in a public relations gesture to the girlfriendless fantasy baseball losers who believe in that sort of nonsense, they've promoted a boy from the call center (with a business master's!) to a comically made-up position. In the opening paragraphs we learn that he's a apparently an introvert who is routinely and openly mocked by management.

 

Terry "pretty darn good pitchers" Ryan goes on to fall all over himself defending Goin's crucial yet invisible role in front office decisions. But everything about the article screams that Goin is either unqualified or ineffectual. And holy crap, people are actually buying the inane 'I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you' bs about competitive advantage? Really?

[TheLeviathan]

This is totally reading between the lines but it was hard to tell how seriously they take this guy. I just got a weird "token stat guy" vibe at times. Mauer's lineup position and Gardys comments reassure me a bit but can't shake the vibe.

[drivlikejehu]

There's no "vibe" to read - they pretty much openly mock Goin for just sharing basic knowledge that everyone else in baseball is already comfortable with. I guess it's nice they occasionally listen but the organization is proudly primitive.

[TheLeviathan]

There's no "vibe" to read - they pretty much openly mock Goin for just sharing basic knowledge that everyone else in baseball is already comfortable with. I guess it's nice they occasionally listen but the organization is proudly primitive.

 

i think I'm just in a profound state of denial. I can't bring myself to believe we are that cave-mannish about stats. Deep down though......ugh.