I'm always hesitant to get too high on my horse about this issue, because the chasm between reality and perception is just so far apart. We're reading tea leaves here, people. I'll give an example. If the Twins wanted to end this sort of article for good, the solution would be fairly easy - just go out and hire a high profile guy from Baseball Prospectus to serve as a consultant to their analytics area. Instantly the perception would change. There would be a flood of stories about the Twins figuring things out. Better yet, hire that person as a spokesperson for what they're trying to accomplish, giving very little information but toeing the sabrmetric line on how important strikeouts are or how fx data can be used or catcher framing or the next hot topic. But it wouldn't necessarily change anything but the perception. And my second point.... As I read this, I wondered if most of the teams mentioned - the Rays, Indians, Pirates, A's - also had something else in common: they went through a dry spell. And in each case, it lasted a lot longer than three years. And that includes the Twins back when they were getting rave reviews a half dozen years ago; they had success after a long dry spell too. Perhaps success in MLB is just plain cyclical, and after a decade of success, there is going to be a dry spell while an organization reloads. That doesn't mean they shouldn't investigate ways to improve like Mackey is suggesting. They should. That's part of what losing teams should be doing that makes them better. But I'm hesitant to attach too much importance to visible hires of sabrmetric darlings.