Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account
  • Twins News & Analysis

    The Twins’ Biggest Organizational Weakness Might Be Scouting

    The Brewers and Rays are heading to the World Series with large analytics and scouting departments. Minnesota ranks last in baseball in scouting staff size, highlighting another area where the organization has ground to make up.

    Cody Christie
    Image courtesy of © David Berding-Imagn Images

    Twins Video

    The Milwaukee Brewers and Tampa Bay Rays are already on the verge of wrapping up the World Series, and much of the conversation surrounding their success has focused on analytics. Both organizations have earned reputations for using data to find undervalued players, improve performance, and build competitive rosters without spending like baseball's wealthiest teams.

    There's plenty Minnesota can learn from that approach. However, focusing exclusively on analytics misses a significant part of the equation. The Brewers and Rays have invested heavily in scouting, too, combining modern technology with experienced evaluators who identify talent across baseball.

    That distinction is important for the Twins. The organization already has ground to make up in analytics staffing, and its scouting department is even further behind the rest of the league. If the Twins want to build a sustainable contender, improving their roster construction process requires more than adding another analyst or finding an extra bargain in free agency. It also requires investing in the people who identify the players worth pursuing in the first place.

    The Twins Are Below Average in Analytics

    As discussed previously, Minnesota employs 27 people in its analytics department, ranking 17th among MLB teams. That total falls below the league average of 28.5 employees. The Brewers employ 46 analytics staff members, second-most in baseball behind the Philadelphia Phillies, at 51. The Rays have 39 employees in their department, while the Cleveland Guardians have 30. Those numbers helped bring attention to the analytics resources available to the teams competing deep into October.

    Analytics departments involve much more than statistical analysis. Research and development personnel, systems engineers, department leadership, embedded analysts, and quantitative sports scientists all contribute to an organization's ability to turn information into actionable decisions.

    More employees do not automatically translate into more wins. The quality of the staff, communication between departments, and willingness to implement recommendations are all important. Still, Minnesota should examine whether its current staffing level gives its baseball operations department enough capacity to compete with organizations that invest more heavily in those resources.

    The analytics gap is worth addressing, particularly for an organization that needs to maximize its spending. Better information can help Minnesota identify undervalued players, evaluate potential trades, refine player development, and make smarter decisions about its major league roster.

    However, the latest discussion about the Brewers and Rays provides another important lesson. These organizations are not successful because they have chosen analytics over traditional scouting. They have combined both approaches.

    Minnesota Has Baseball's Smallest Scouting Staff

    The Twins have the smallest scouting department in Major League Baseball, with just 39 total scouts across professional, amateur, and international scouting. The league average is 68 scouts. Minnesota is therefore 29 employees below the average, a significant gap for an organization that needs to identify inexpensive talent and develop its next wave of major league contributors.

    The five largest scouting departments belong to the Yankees with 109 scouts, the Dodgers with 91, the Phillies with 89, the Diamondbacks with 85, and the Rays with 84. The Royals employ 81 scouts, giving them a much larger scouting operation than their division rivals in Minnesota. The Guardians have 53 scouts, while the White Sox have 45. Comparable data was not available for Detroit.

    The Twins are not merely below average in this category. They are operating with the smallest scouting staff in the sport. That matters because scouting responsibilities stretch across several areas. Amateur scouts evaluate players ahead of the MLB Draft, international scouts help identify talent in markets around the world, and professional scouts evaluate players who could become trade targets or free agent acquisitions. Each group can help an organization identify opportunities that other teams overlook.

    A smaller department does not mean Minnesota cannot find talented players. It does, however, raise questions about the organization's ability to maintain coverage across the professional, amateur, and international landscapes. 

    The World Series matchup offers an especially useful comparison. The Rays entered the season with 84 scouts, while the Brewers had 78. Both organizations have maintained substantial scouting operations alongside their analytics departments. Baseball America recently highlighted how both teams continue to value experienced scouts and broad coverage, including professional scouting, as part of their roster building approach.

    Their success is not the product of a secret formula that can be replicated by hiring a few data analysts. It comes from bringing together people with different skills who can identify talent, evaluate opportunities, and help the organization make better decisions.

    Minnesota needs to consider whether 39 scouts provide enough coverage to accomplish those goals. A team trying to find value in trades and free agency should want as many reliable evaluations as possible, particularly when it cannot afford to make repeated mistakes on expensive acquisitions. The Twins do not necessarily need to reach 84 or 78 scouts immediately. But being nearly 30 employees below the league average is a substantial gap that deserves attention.

    A Salary Cap and Floor Won't Level the Playing Field

    The discussion comes at an important time for baseball. MLB owners have proposed a salary cap and floor as part of the next collective bargaining agreement, arguing that restricting the highest payrolls while establishing minimum spending requirements would improve competitive balance. The league's initial proposal set a $245.3 million cap and a $171.2 million floor.

    A salary cap and floor could change how teams allocate their major league payrolls. A floor would require teams spending below the threshold to increase their spending, while a cap would limit how much the highest spending clubs could spend on player payroll. Neither measure, however, would make every organization equally capable of identifying and developing talent.

    A salary cap does not automatically create better scouting departments, more effective player development systems, stronger coaching staffs, or better front office decision makers. A salary floor does not guarantee that a team will spend its money wisely. Teams can meet payroll requirements and still struggle to identify players who fit their needs.

    The Brewers and Rays are reminders that roster construction involves more than the amount spent on major league salaries. Both clubs have built extensive scouting operations and analytics departments that work together to find talent and maximize the value of their players.

    A cap would not necessarily stop Minnesota from investing more heavily in those departments. Those resources serve a different purpose than major league player salaries, even though both require ownership to commit money to baseball operations.

    That should matter to the Twins. If the organization spends less than its competitors in certain areas of baseball operations, limiting another team's player payroll does not automatically eliminate the resulting disadvantage. The issue is not simply how much money a club spends. It is how effectively that club uses its resources.

    Minnesota can benefit from a more restrictive payroll environment, but that cannot replace the need to improve its own infrastructure. If the Twins continue to operate with the smallest scouting staff in baseball, a salary cap will not suddenly make their scouts more productive or give them the same coverage as an organization with twice as many evaluators.

    There is also a broader concern for smaller market teams. The Brewers and Rays have demonstrated that a team can compete without matching the biggest payrolls, but their approach requires consistent work across scouting, analytics, player development, and roster construction. Those investments help create a pipeline of talent that can sustain a competitive roster even when individual players leave through free agency or trades.

    A salary cap may restrict spending disparities on the field. It cannot equalize every organizational advantage that contributes to winning.

    The Twins Need to Invest in Their Infrastructure

    The Twins have several areas to address heading into 2027. The major league roster needs talent, and the organization must determine how much it can spend after several seasons of payroll reductions. However, Minnesota also needs to examine the infrastructure responsible for finding and developing that talent.

    The Twins’ analytics staff is below the league average, and their scouting department is the smallest in baseball. Rather than hiring more people without a plan, Minnesota should identify its biggest coverage gaps and prioritize additions that improve decision-making.

    Professional scouting deserves particular attention. More experienced evaluators could help the Twins identify potential trade targets, waiver claims, and free agents who fit the roster. Amateur and international scouting are equally important, giving the organization more opportunities to discover talent before players reach the major leagues.

    The Brewers and Rays demonstrate that success requires more than analytics. Their extensive scouting operations work alongside analytics, player development, and smart roster construction to create sustainable advantages.

    A salary cap and floor will not erase every organizational disadvantage, just as expanding the analytics department alone will not solve Minnesota’s problems. The Twins need to invest in the people who evaluate talent as well as those who analyze it. With baseball’s smallest scouting staff, that is an obvious place to start.


    Do the Twins need to invest more in their scouting staff? Leave a comment and start the discussion.

    Want more Twins in your Google results? Add us as a preferred source.

    Follow Twins Daily For Minnesota Twins News & Analysis

    Recent Twins Articles

    Recent Twins Videos

    Twins Top Prospects

    Yasser Mercedes

    Cedar Rapids Kernels - A+, OF
    On Thursday in the Fall League, Mercedes went 2-for-4 with his first double and his first homer run of the AFL season.

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Featured Comments

    15 hours ago, HarmonK03 said:

    Falvey left on his own, and he was the one who started to downsize the scouting staff over the last few years.  

    Lol, you think Derek Falvey willingly gave up one of the most exclusive jobs on the planet 2 weeks before the season with likely millions of dollars on his contract knowing he'd probably never get that job again?

    15 hours ago, HarmonK03 said:

    and he was the one who started to downsize the scouting staff over the last few years.  

    So what?  Tommy could hire a dozen scouts today.  He could have hired scouts every single day since he took over as CEO.  But he hasn't, in fact, all he's done is fire more scouts.

    Increasing the scouting staff with diverse thoughts of the scouts should help.  When you have a smaller number, you will most likely have a less diverse thought pattern on players, and less likely to have scouts push back on assumptions.  Everyone has personal thoughts and beliefs about what is best, where issues are, and things like that.  If everyone in the room has same thoughts or beliefs then it is just an echo chamber of everyone agreeing.  That can lead to blind spots for organizations. 

    Just have more is not the answer, having different ideas will lead to discussions about players and that will lead to more informed decisions. 

    30 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

    I have no idea what the issue is. There is a bottleneck and it appears to be at the AAA to Majors crossroads. We don't seem to transition highly ranked farm system to major league value fairly well. 

    If I were to guess and guessing isn't fair to anyone.

    It's the top prospects who make it to the majors or get the opportunity to make it to the majors. Everyone seems to know who the top prospects are so how are the scouts going to be the difference? None or very few are major league ready when drafted but everyone agrees on who they are.

    So if they are not major league ready. You got to get them major league ready so it's the getting them major league ready part that I would look at first and that is where you will find the bottleneck. 

    Just guessing of course. 

    The scouts had pretty good consensus that Brooks Lee was a future third baseman but the Twins decided to play him 300 games at SS and another 50 at 2B before moving him to 3B.

    The scouts were unanimous that Austin Martin wasn’t a SS (and the Blue Jays had already moved him to the outfield) but the Twins played him there for 100 games in the minors. 

    Finally, there is no such thing as a 3-inning piggyback pitcher who plays every 4 games in the majors but the Twins insist on developing all of their pitchers for this non-existent role.

    3 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

    The scouts had pretty good consensus that Brooks Lee was a future third baseman but the Twins decided to play him 300 games at SS and another 50 at 2B before moving him to 3B.

    The scouts were unanimous that Austin Martin wasn’t a SS (and the Blue Jays had already moved him to the outfield) but the Twins played him there for 100 games in the minors. 

    Finally, there is no such thing as a 3-inning piggyback pitcher who plays every 4 games in the majors but the Twins insist on developing all of their pitchers for this non-existent role.

    I agree with the first two paragraphs. 

    The third paragraph. I can't help but wonder why MLB baseball doesn't have anything between 5-6 innings for a starter and 1 inning for a reliever. Anything that black and white with no middle ground is a little to systematic for my tastes.

    Surely there is something in between those two that can be introduced to the game. Weather the experiment is working or not working can also depend on the quality of the test subjects.    

    22 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

    The third paragraph. I can't help but wonder why MLB baseball doesn't have anything between 5-6 innings for a starter and 1 inning for a reliever. Anything that black and white with no middle ground is a little to systematic for my tastes.

    Many teams do openers.  Many teams use relievers more than 1 inning.  It's not black and white at all?

    What benefit is there to train pitchers to go 3-4 innings?  Starters should be your best pitchers, you should want them to go longer.  Relievers often become relievers because they don't have enough variety in their pitches to be a starter, so they can be more effective in short outings.

    Baseball has been around for 150 years.  Over than century and a half every single possible idea to "crack" the code of baseball has been considered and tried, probably multiple times.  The reason that over those 150 years a 3-4 inning pitching role hasn't emerged is probably because it's a bad idea.  Why would any team would want to limit the innings of their best pitchers, while giving longer outings to relievers who are relievers specifically because they can't do longer outings?

    40 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

    Lol, you think Derek Falvey willingly gave up one of the most exclusive jobs on the planet 2 weeks before the season with likely millions of dollars on his contract knowing he'd probably never get that job again?

    So what?  Tommy could hire a dozen scouts today.  He could have hired scouts every single day since he took over as CEO.  But he hasn't, in fact, all he's done is fire more scouts.

    Falvey had the business operations taken away from him and he did not agree with it.  Very few teams have someone over the business and baseball operations.  We don't know if Tom P. did that to force to him out, but by his own words that was a factor in his leaving.

    It's not Tommy's job to hire scouts, that is Zoll, and if he is requesting more hopefully Tommy will authorize the spending.

    Where Tommy has failed is not hiring a competent GM who can manage both upwards and down and set up the baseball operations with a structure that will provide sustainable success.  Zoll is not the one to do this and not much will change until he is gone.

     

    2 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

    Many teams do openers.  Many teams use relievers more than 1 inning.  It's not black and white at all?

    What benefit is there to train pitchers to go 3-4 innings?  Starters should be your best pitchers, you should want them to go longer.  Relievers often become relievers because they don't have enough variety in their pitches to be a starter, so they can be more effective in short outings.

    Baseball has been around for 150 years.  Over than century and a half every single possible idea to "crack" the code of baseball has been considered and tried, probably multiple times.  The reason that over those 150 years a 3-4 inning pitching role hasn't emerged is probably because it's a bad idea.  Why would any team would want to limit the innings of their best pitchers, while giving longer outings to relievers who are relievers specifically because they can't do longer outings?

    It's the opposite of how you are presenting it. You want to get more innings to your best pitchers and a lot of times your best pitchers are your relievers.

    If you have the Miz on your roster. You'll want him to throw 200 Innings if he can. I have no issue with that. 

    If you have Dylan Bundy on your roster... why try to get him 180 innings. If you have Duran on your roster... why limit him to 60, 

    It's about decreasing the amount of innings from your questionable starters by increasing the innings of your lights out relievers. Who are your best pitchers. Figure out how to get them more innings and less to your lesser pitchers. That's hard to do with a systematic assignment of starters go 5 and relievers go 1 regardless of the talent of the participants. Perhaps there is an answer somewhere between the two static worlds.   

    2 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

    It's the opposite of how you are presenting it. You want to get more innings to your best pitchers and a lot of times your best pitchers are your relievers.

    If you have the Miz on your roster. You'll want him to throw 200 Innings if he can. I have no issue with that. 

    If you have Dylan Bundy on your roster... why try to get him 180 innings.

    Your solution to the problem of Dylan Bundys is to take innings away from the Mizerowskis, and eliminate the things that allow Duran to be successful (max velo in short stints).  Basically, you are playing the best pitcher in baseball less, and you are turning Duran into a different, likely worse, pitcher.  

    If you want to address the problem of bad #6,7,8 starters by having THOSE guys throw fewer innings, great. 

    Addressing the problem of bad #6,7,8 starters by deleting the position of starting pitcher from your entire system is nuts to me. 

    You are a sharp fellow who knows ball, I'm just surprised at the take on this.  But, as always, what do I know? I'd address the problem of Dylan Bundys by training starters NOT to exert max velo with every throw, but to take a few ticks off and emphasize location and duration.  Max effort leads to max injuries; if you can minimize injuries to starters #1-5 the impacts of starters #6-8 is minimized.  

    7 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

    Your solution to the problem of Dylan Bundys is to take innings away from the Mizerowskis, and eliminate the things that allow Duran to be successful (max velo in short stints).  Basically, you are playing the best pitcher in baseball less, and you are turning Duran into a different, likely worse, pitcher.  

    If you want to address the problem of bad #6,7,8 starters by having THOSE guys throw fewer innings, great. 

    Addressing the problem of bad #6,7,8 starters by deleting the position of starting pitcher from your entire system is nuts to me. 

    You are a sharp fellow who knows ball, I'm just surprised at the take on this.  But, as always, what do I know? I'd address the problem of Dylan Bundys by training starters NOT to exert max velo with every throw, but to take a few ticks off and emphasize location and duration.  Max effort leads to max injuries; if you can minimize injuries to starters #1-5 the impacts of starters #6-8 is minimized.  

    Most teams don't have four starters. Trying to force 40 percent of your starts and bad starters doesn't work. Yet no team will try something different. I blame stubbornness, not that there isn't another path. 

    41 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

    Your solution to the problem of Dylan Bundys is to take innings away from the Mizerowskis, and eliminate the things that allow Duran to be successful (max velo in short stints).  Basically, you are playing the best pitcher in baseball less, and you are turning Duran into a different, likely worse, pitcher.  

    If you want to address the problem of bad #6,7,8 starters by having THOSE guys throw fewer innings, great. 

    Addressing the problem of bad #6,7,8 starters by deleting the position of starting pitcher from your entire system is nuts to me. 

    You are a sharp fellow who knows ball, I'm just surprised at the take on this.  But, as always, what do I know? I'd address the problem of Dylan Bundys by training starters NOT to exert max velo with every throw, but to take a few ticks off and emphasize location and duration.  Max effort leads to max injuries; if you can minimize injuries to starters #1-5 the impacts of starters #6-8 is minimized.  

    Not all all.

    Miz can throw as many innings as he possibly can. He's one of the best in baseball... you want innings to go to your best pitchers. You don't take innings from the Miz. Don't touch him. Don't reduce him. 

    Dylan Bundy... the way it traditionally works... You have a 5 man rotation and the back end of that rotation will throw 5 innings every 5th day because that is the structure that has been in place since forever.

    Dylan Bundy for example threw 140 innings for the Twins and he produced a 4.89 ERA in 2022. Our bullpen guys in 2022 had Jax throw 72 innings, Duran 67 Innings. Thielbar with 59 innings. Because they are limited to one inning an appearance. 

    These guys were better pitchers than Bundy was but the structure guarantees that he will throw twice as many innings. 

    So... I openly question weather it should a 5 innings for Starters and 1 inning for relievers with nothing in between. I'd rather see a better allocation of innings based on ability. Get your better pitchers more innings. However... that would take invention and it would take a departure from the structure that we are locked into. There has to be something in between these two worlds because there is clearly space in between 1 and 5 innings. Can you get Duran up to 120 and Bundy down to 110? I don't know but it's a thought that would clearly improve overall results if you could.   

    Weather the Twins experiment in this regard is working or not. I like the experiment. 

     

     

    1 hour ago, Riverbrian said:

    Not all all.

    Miz can throw as many innings as he possibly can. He's one of the best in baseball... you want innings to go to your best pitchers. You don't take innings from the Miz. Don't touch him. Don't reduce him. 

    As I understand it the Twins are training every pitcher to go 3-4 innings.  In this strategy pitchers like Miz won't come through our system.  There will be no more aces, just a group of interchangeable, replaceable pitchers who all do the same thing.  

    3 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

    As I understand it the Twins are training every pitcher to go 3-4 innings.  In this strategy pitchers like Miz won't come through our system.  There will be no more aces, just a group of interchangeable, replaceable pitchers who all do the same thing.  

    Not every pitcher... They are selecting some for the experiment. Low number of selectees.

    Off the top of my head. Adams and Ohl come to mind. There are probably a few more but I have hair on the top of my head and it gets in the way.  

    2 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

    Most teams don't have four starters. Trying to force 40 percent of your starts and bad starters doesn't work. Yet no team will try something different. I blame stubbornness, not that there isn't another path. 

    Man, teams try different stuff all the time!  The opener.  Long relievers.  Closers.  Firemen.  LOOGYs.  6 man rotations.  Teams have been trying stuff since the day baseball was invented.  I'm almost certain somebody somewhere tried the "let's have everyone pitch 3 innings before" but we don't hear about it because it didn't work.  

    Trying to solve the problem of bad starters by devaluing all your good ones is just craziness!  Using your math you are sacrificing the 60% good starts to avoid the 40% bad ones.  That doesn't really math to me. 

    Experiment with something on those 40%.  I can see doing a piggyback thing with your 6,7,8 starters.  Great, try it out.  But why would you want or need to do that with a guy who has ace potential?  

    2 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

    Not every pitcher... They are selecting some for the experiment. Low number of selectees.

    If this is the case then we are in agreement my friend.  My understanding was based on an article from a few months ago,   Totally onboard with a selective experimenting.  Here are the quotes that stuck out to me:

    “I think what you ultimately see is you have some of your best starting pitchers sort of piggybacking each other,” said MacPhail.

    “So I think what it ultimately means is you have sort of more of your starter type guys pitching on top of each other more, but ultimately that's sort of one of the benefits as well, is you kind of have two guys going back and forth, giving you a lot of innings, actually more than a starter pro typically would, is the idea and some two of your best pitchers taking over that workload.”

    That sounds different than what you describe.  Though to be honest I'm not even sure what Mr. MacPhail is describing here, it just sounds like having 2 starters do the work of like 1.25 starters, but I assume there's a little more to it than that.  Who knows.  I just want the Twins to develop their best pitchers to pitch as many innings as possible.  

     




    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...