Braves and Analytics

[Southcack77]

If your bosses are telling you not to worry about it then how much time are you really going to invest in it?

If I hated my boss as much as subtler implored he hated his?

At 62 still probably not much.

[jpx7]

Yes. I know. It’s called nuance. I’m familiar with it.

Fine. But your posts in this thread seemed to be implying that we either take Snitker's statement as 100% credible, or we be 100% incredulous. That sort of binary is what I'm taking issue with.

[50PoundHead]

While I agree with you on Snitker being a company man, the simple fact that he seems astonished and pleased with how analytics might help is ludicrous.

Analytics are so commonplace in baseball at this point that it’s hard for me to give Snitker so much of a benefit of the doubt. Great coaches/managers are always learning and trying to get better, not waiting to get permission from their FO.

All true. Everyone know I'm not totally sold on analytics uber alles (although they can be extremely helpful, especially the way they can fine tune measurements of on-field performance), but the way Snitker ran Kemp back out to LF in the late innings when the Braves held a lead really makes me wonder how much he actually appreciated both his eyes and analytic evidence. There's really no excuse for some of his boneheaded decisions in line-up construction, relief pitcher usage, and the use of late-game defensive replacements.

[Southcack77]

Fine. But your posts in this thread seemed to be implying that we either take Snitker's statement as 100% credible, or we be 100% incredulous. That sort of binary is what I'm taking issue with.

I don’t see how that was implied at all.

The binary was what I was making fun of.

[jpx7]

All true. Everyone know I'm not totally sold on analytics uber alles (although they can be extremely helpful, especially the way they can fine tune measurements of on-field performance), but the way Snitker ran Kemp back out to LF in the late innings when the Braves held a lead really makes me wonder how much he actually appreciated both his eyes and analytic evidence. There's really no excuse for some of his boneheaded decisions in line-up construction, relief pitcher usage, and the use of late-game defensive replacements.

This is a good point. Speaking only for myself, Snitker's quote doesn't send me from wanting him replaced to wanting him retained for many years beyond the next. I still don't see Snit as the long-term leader of the Braves when they become good. I'm simply saying that—even if it's a cynical PR strategy to show both levels of management are on the same page, and to moreover heap a little blame on the previous regime—Snitker's comments also represent a good sign: that he is adaptable to this new regime, in the near-term, and that the new regime has different priorities for its coaching staff, longer-term.

[jpx7]

I don’t see how that was implied at all.

The binary was what I was making fun of.

So maybe I'm mis-reading your intentions? It happens.

[thethe]

As long as we keep the same approach to drafting and development that we've had in the last three years I'm good with whatever changes.

It's clear the statheads won. Information is integral in any business so I'm glad the braves are embracing this but let's not kid ourselves. The success of a major league team is predicated on the ability to draft/sign amateurs and develop them into stars. I hope AA doesn't make too many tweak to the team put together the last few years.

[Enscheff]

You wouldn't expect a professional baseball person to investigate something that has been a major revolution in the sport for three decades or so until someone comes to him about it two years into his managing career?

That's very understanding of you.

I find it refreshing that Snitker is now given some benefit of the doubt after seeing over the top criticisms about how he was going to kill any chance of winning. Let's stick with this old dog learning new tricks idea.

So which is it? Was the old FO into stats? Or is the new FO not modernizing the team?

You want to be contrarian, so state your point. Which one do you think is true?

[Southcack77]

So which is it? Was the old FO into stats? Or is the new FO not modernizing the team?

You want to be contrarian, so state your point. Which one do you think is true?

My point is that Snitker gave one piece of rather silly lip service to the idea of analytics and half of you did a 180 on him.

I don’t think Snitker mattered much before and I doubt he matters much now.

[Southcack77]

I don’t have anything to say about the old front office except I’m super glad they were deservedly fired.

I have no idea whether the new front office will do better or not.

I’m pretty hopeful they will — though AA was no real analytics guru in Toronto.

i have no complaint so far. They seem to be doing what I hoped and guessed they would.

Waiting for something bold to chew on.

[Enscheff]

I don’t have anything to say about the old front office except I’m super glad they were deservedly fired.

I have no idea whether the new front office will do better or not.

I’m pretty hopeful they will — though AA was no real analytics guru in Toronto.

i have no complaint so far. They seem to be doing what I hoped and guessed they would.

Waiting for something bold to chew on.

Not sure what qualifies as bold to you, but moving all of Kemp’s salary to 2018 and punting on the season so they can bottom out payroll for 2019 is a pretty bold move in my book.

[Southcack77]

Not sure what qualifies as bold to you, but moving all of Kemp’s salary to 2018 and punting on the season so they can bottom out payroll for 2019 is a pretty bold move in my book.

That was something we both expected more or less and that we all knew they would try to accomplish.

I'm very pleased with the execution though and happy that it revealed the rules might be different as far as eating dollars.

Great trade in my book.

[Horsehide Harry]

As long as we keep the same approach to drafting and development that we've had in the last three years I'm good with whatever changes.

It's clear the statheads won. Information is integral in any business so I'm glad the braves are embracing this but let's not kid ourselves. The success of a major league team is predicated on the ability to draft/sign amateurs and develop them into stars. I hope AA doesn't make too many tweak to the team put together the last few years.

I know that you are the proud King of the pozzies and there's nothing wrong with that. You're probably much less subject to getting ulcers.

However, I don't really agree with you here.

Firstly, considering the amount of money spent over the last few years, since the ascension of the HartCoppy regime, the Braves International talent acquisition has been pretty awful, especially if you consider HO as part of that segment. In the Braves top 30 there are 2 International players that the Braves signed, Pache and Derian Cruz. Pache actually appears to be progressing pretty well. Cruz's ranking is based on potential. That's it. Of course, the biggest group of signings was just invalidated by MLB because the FO broke the rules and maybe broke some laws.

Secondly, the Braves current top 30 is pretty much dominated by early round bonus babies. These were players every team would have been interested in drafting to one extent or another if they had been drafting in the Braves position. it's not like the Braves scouting are proving to be significantly smarter than everyone else. The team has just been really horrible so they've drafted high and the scouting department hasn't had any obvious (yet) busts. The best off the radar draft moves right now are probably Minter and Weigel. Scouting hasn't done anything extraordinarily bad or good on domestic drafts IMO.

So, I think AA will probably be on the wait and see side of draft and international scouting.

Where I think there is an obvious area for improvement is minor league development and coaching. Player development has been pretty scattershot. The pitching for instance appears to be told to dial back the stuff in favor of control. We're not seeing any pitching suddenly develop another 3-5 MPH on their FB. In fact, it tends to be the other way. They come in throwing 95 out of HS in all the draft scouting reports then get into minor league games and sit around 90. Some of that is natural. But I think some is coaching and development.

[Southcack77]

I know that you are the proud King of the pozzies and there's nothing wrong with that. You're probably much less subject to getting ulcers.

However, I don't really agree with you here.

Firstly, considering the amount of money spent over the last few years, since the ascension of the HartCoppy regime, the Braves International talent acquisition has been pretty awful, especially if you consider HO as part of that segment. In the Braves top 30 there are 2 International players that the Braves signed, Pache and Derian Cruz. Pache actually appears to be progressing pretty well. Cruz's ranking is based on potential. That's it. Of course, the biggest group of signings was just invalidated by MLB because the FO broke the rules and maybe broke some laws.

Secondly, the Braves current top 30 is pretty much dominated by early round bonus babies. These were players every team would have been interested in drafting to one extent or another if they had been drafting in the Braves position. it's not like the Braves scouting are proving to be significantly smarter than everyone else. The team has just been really horrible so they've drafted high and the scouting department hasn't had any obvious (yet) busts. The best off the radar draft moves right now are probably Minter and Weigel. Scouting hasn't done anything extraordinarily bad or good on domestic drafts IMO.

So, I think AA will probably be on the wait and see side of draft and international scouting.

Where I think there is an obvious area for improvement is minor league development and coaching. Player development has been pretty scattershot. The pitching for instance appears to be told to dial back the stuff in favor of control. We're not seeing any pitching suddenly develop another 3-5 MPH on their FB. In fact, it tends to be the other way. They come in throwing 95 out of HS in all the draft scouting reports then get into minor league games and sit around 90. Some of that is natural. But I think some is coaching and development.

the obvious response to the international signing question is that all of the players they signed remain extremely young. Ronald Acuna wasn't the #1 prospect in baseball at 16, 17, or 18 or 19. He wasn't a top 50 prospect until this past year.

You should expect international signings to pan out less frequently than domestic drafts because you are theoretically drafting young players who in many cases have faced lesser competition and have farther to go in terms of cultural assimilation and often times physical development. Still, they are a big source of potential and you can't neglect it.

For the record, I still think they have international prospects that might end up bearing some fruit that you did not mention. Contreras at C. A couple of OFs, a 3B/1B.

[Horsehide Harry]

the obvious response to the international signing question is that all of the players they signed remain extremely young. Ronald Acuna wasn't the #1 prospect in baseball at 16, 17, or 18 or 19. He wasn't a top 50 prospect until this past year.

You should expect international signings to pan out less frequently than domestic drafts because you are theoretically drafting young players who in many cases have faced lesser competition and have farther to go in terms of cultural assimilation and often times physical development. Still, they are a big source of potential and you can't neglect it.

For the record, I still think they have international prospects that might end up bearing some fruit that you did not mention. Contreras at C. A couple of OFs, a 3B/1B.

Quite possible.

However, one thing I didn't mention that plays into my thinking is how poorly the released International guys have done on the free market since being released. Those guys have made some cash but it hasn't been any kind of feeding frenzy.

That tells me that the scouts who advocated the signings likely missed pretty badly on most.

I'm not saying the Braves young talent scouting is bad or good. To me it looks a little average at this point especially considering the fact of the position afforded by being a rebuilding team.

[Enscheff]

Quite possible.

However, one thing I didn't mention that plays into my thinking is how poorly the released International guys have done on the free market since being released. Those guys have made some cash but it hasn't been any kind of feeding frenzy.

That tells me that the scouts who advocated the signings likely missed pretty badly on most.

I'm not saying the Braves young talent scouting is bad or good. To me it looks a little average at this point especially considering the fact of the position afforded by being a rebuilding team.

This idea that teams with strong analytics departments will somehow be weak in scouting amateurs is mindnumbingly stupid. That argument is the last desperate attempt to throw the scout heads contingent a bone before they are completely obsolete.

The teams with huge analytics groups are the smartest teams in the sport. They all have very strong player development, and they don’t give up anything by relying heavily on data.

[Horsehide Harry]

This idea that teams with strong analytics departments will somehow be weak in scouting amateurs is mindnumbingly stupid. That argument is the last desperate attempt to throw the scout heads contingent a bone before they are completely obsolete.

The teams with huge analytics groups are the smartest teams in the sport. They all have very strong player development, and they don’t give up anything by relying heavily on data.

Not sure where you are going with this.

I certainly am not saying anything regarding analytics vs scouting. I was commenting on thethe's sentiment that the Braves scouting was somehow a superior force to be reckoned with. It doesn't appear to me that there is clear evidence of that.

To me, I think you need a strong analytics group working hand in hand with great scouts working hand in hand with great teachers of the game (minor league coaches). I think we are a long way from having enough data on HS and college players, not to mention international players, for analytics to play a dominating role in the initial choice of young talent. Hell, until recent times you had no way to know how old an international player really was.

But I think smart teams will use analytics to teach and position players in the minor leagues in the future. Let's say you've got a young short stop who statistically has trouble going to his right and his arm consistently shows good velocity and accuracy. Analytics might tell a teacher (coach) earlier that the players future is at 3B instead of spending 2-3 more years trying to learn short. Or analytics might help a young pitcher refine his release point, etc.

I don't think it's an either/or. I think it's an ALL.

[Enscheff]

Not sure where you are going with this.

I certainly am not saying anything regarding analytics vs scouting. I was commenting on thethe's sentiment that the Braves scouting was somehow a superior force to be reckoned with. It doesn't appear to me that there is clear evidence of that.

To me, I think you need a strong analytics group working hand in hand with great scouts working hand in hand with great teachers of the game (minor league coaches). I think we are a long way from having enough data on HS and college players, not to mention international players, for analytics to play a dominating role in the initial choice of young talent. Hell, until recent times you had no way to know how old an international player really was.

But I think smart teams will use analytics to teach and position players in the minor leagues in the future. Let's say you've got a young short stop who statistically has trouble going to his left and his arm consistently shows good velocity and accuracy. Analytics might tell a teacher (coach) earlier that the players future is at 3B instead of spending 2-3 more years trying to learn short. Or analytics might help a young pitcher refine his release point, etc.

I don't think it's an either/or. I think it's an ALL.

You aren’t one of the people I was accusing of taking that stance. I was largely agreeing with you, and pointing out how dumb the “analytics are fine as long as they don’t mess up the scouting department” argument we’ve seen around here lately.

As if the smart teams relying on analytics have somehow become poor at scouting and developing players...when they are all at least as good as the Braves, and most are markedly better.

[DirkPiggler]

This idea that teams with strong analytics departments will somehow be weak in scouting amateurs is mindnumbingly stupid. That argument is the last desperate attempt to throw the scout heads contingent a bone before they are completely obsolete.

The teams with huge analytics groups are the smartest teams in the sport. They all have very strong player development, and they don’t give up anything by relying heavily on data.

Exactly right. It's not a zero sum game - a competent front office isn't strong on analytics at the expense of scouting, or vice-versa.