The Twins Have Ground to Make Up in Baseball Analytics

[Cody Christie]

Image courtesy of © Jeffrey Becker-Imagn Images

The Twins have plenty of areas to address this offseason. After reducing payroll and moving on from several key figures in baseball operations, the organization needs to find ways to improve its roster without spending like baseball's biggest-market teams. One potential area for improvement might not involve signing a single player.

Analytics departments have become an increasingly important part of modern baseball operations. Teams use their staffs to evaluate players, develop pitching strategies, improve player performance, and help make decisions throughout the organization. The best departments combine traditional baseball knowledge with data analysis, engineering, research and development, and quantitative sports science.

A recent look at MLB analytics staffing shows a notable trend among the teams remaining in the postseason. Several clubs have invested heavily in these departments, while Minnesota sits below the league average. The Twins cannot expect to solve every problem by hiring more analysts, but this is an area where additional investment could help the organization make up ground.

The Postseason Teams Invest in Analytics

The Milwaukee Brewers have built one of baseball's largest analytics departments, with 46 employees. That total ranks second in MLB, trailing only the Philadelphia Phillies, who lead the league with 51. The Tampa Bay Rays have 39 employees, while the Cleveland Guardians have 30. All four organizations sit above the league average of 28.5 analytics employees.

These departments include more than employees whose job titles contain the word analyst. Baseball analytics and research-and-development personnel work alongside engineers, department leaders, embedded analysts, and quantitative sports scientists. Each role can contribute to a team's ability to evaluate information and translate it into practical decisions on the field.

The staffing numbers do not prove that a team will win more games simply because it employs more analysts. For instance, the Blue Jays, Tigers, and Mets all rank among MLB’s top-10 in analytics staff, but that trio all missed the playoffs. A larger department can still make mistakes, and a smaller department can be effective when its personnel are talented and its processes are sound. Still, the numbers show that several successful organizations have made analytics a significant part of their baseball operations infrastructure.

Minnesota currently has 27 employees in its analytics department, ranking 17th in baseball. That puts the Twins below the league average of 28.5. The final three teams remaining in the postseason average 38.3 analytics employees, a difference of more than 11 employees per organization.

That gap is worth examining. Minnesota does not necessarily need to match the Phillies' 51 employees, but the Twins should consider whether their current staffing level gives them the resources needed to compete with organizations that have made analytics a major priority.

Minnesota Has Cut Back in Other Areas

The analytics discussion comes at a time when the Twins have made difficult decisions about spending across baseball operations. Minnesota has operated with a reduced payroll compared with recent seasons, and its approach to roster construction has increasingly emphasized finding value rather than paying for established talent.

Those financial decisions affect more than the players on the field. Baseball operations departments need the resources to evaluate trade targets, identify undervalued free agents, develop prospects, improve player performance, and make decisions about the roster's long-term direction. When an organization reduces spending, it needs to be careful not to weaken the infrastructure that helps it spend wisely.

The Twins have experienced significant changes in their baseball operations leadership, including the departure of Derek Falvey and a transition to a new decision-making structure. When he was hired, Falvey was tasked with building Minnesota’s analytics department. Leadership changes can create opportunities to rethink how the organization operates, but they also make it important to maintain the people and processes that help turn information into better decisions.

Analytics cannot replace good scouting, strong player development, or experienced baseball leadership. It should complement those areas. A larger analytics department could give Minnesota more capacity to investigate questions that currently compete for limited staff time, work more closely with coaches and players, and build better systems for evaluating talent.

That last point matters for a team operating with financial constraints. The Twins need to find players who outperform their contracts, identify weaknesses before they become expensive problems, and develop internal options rather than relying on the free-agent market to fill every roster hole.

An effective analytics department can help with all three tasks. It cannot guarantee that every acquisition works or every prospect develops, but it can give the organization more information and better tools when making decisions.

A More Affordable Way to Close the Gap

One of the most compelling arguments for investing in analytics is the relative cost. Adding several analytics employees would cost money, but it would not necessarily require the same financial commitment as improving the major-league roster through free agency.

Consider the cost of adding a middle reliever. Even a modest free-agent contract can cost a team several million dollars for one season. That player might provide valuable innings, but there is no guarantee he will perform as expected. A few additional analytics employees could cost less than that single roster addition, depending on their roles and experience, while contributing to decisions that affect multiple players and potentially several seasons.

The value is not simply about finding the next inexpensive reliever. An expanded department could help the Twins evaluate bullpen options, identify pitchers whose underlying numbers suggest untapped potential, and develop more individualized approaches to pitch selection and workload management. Those same resources could help the organization evaluate hitters, improve defensive positioning, and support player development throughout the minor leagues.

Analytics staff members also do not need to produce an immediate return in the form of wins. Their work can influence decisions across the organization, from amateur scouting and international acquisitions to major-league roster construction. That creates the potential for a broader return than spending a similar amount on one player.

Of course, hiring additional employees does not automatically make an organization smarter. Minnesota would need to identify the areas where its current department lacks capacity, recruit people with the right expertise, and make sure its analysts work closely with scouts, coaches, and players. Adding staff without a clear plan would simply increase expenses.

The Twins should also avoid treating analytics headcount as a competition in which the team with the most employees automatically wins. The quality of the staff, the information available to it, and the organization's willingness to act on its findings matter more than the raw total.

Still, a department with 27 employees operating below the league average may have opportunities to expand its capabilities. Minnesota does not need to double its staff overnight. Targeted additions in research and development, engineering, or quantitative sports science could address specific needs without creating an enormous new expense.

Like payroll, analytics staffing is one input in a much larger equation. Coaching, scouting, player development, front-office leadership, and the players themselves still matter more collectively than any single department's headcount. A well-funded analytics operation cannot overcome poor decisions across the rest of the organization.

But the opposite is also true. A team with a limited payroll needs every advantage it can find. If Minnesota intends to compete with organizations that consistently identify undervalued players and maximize their existing talent, it should make sure its own baseball operations staff has the resources to do that work.

The Brewers, Rays, and Guardians offer useful examples of organizations that have invested in analytics while operating under different financial circumstances than baseball's wealthiest clubs. Their staffing numbers do not explain their entire success, but they reinforce the idea that teams can invest in their infrastructure even when they cannot spend without limits on the major-league roster.

The Twins have ground to make up. Their 27 analytics employees put them below the league average, while the final three postseason teams average 38.3. Closing that gap would not guarantee Minnesota a postseason run, but it could improve the organization's ability to make better decisions with the resources it has.

If the Twins are serious about building a sustainable contender, expanding their analytics department deserves a place in the offseason conversation. Spending millions on one more reliever might help solve a single roster problem. Investing in the right people behind the scenes could help the organization solve problems across the entire roster.

For a team looking to maximize every dollar, that is an opportunity worth exploring.

---

Should the Twins invest more in their analytics department? Leave a comment and start the discussion. 

View full article

[DJL44]

It isn’t about people, it is about what the analysts are doing and whether that analysis adds value.

[Linus]

I would also add that all the data is important and certainly more data and more accurate data is better. However, at some point someone in a leadership position takes that data and makes a decision. The quality of the decision making is key in my view. 

[thelanges5]

Quality over quantity.