Managing More Than Just Numbers on the Page
By Mike Silva ~ May 26th, 2009. Filed under: Mike Silva.
The most amazing debate I have seen since entering the world of independent media is the one being waged by those who believe baseball is simply run by numbers. It’s the proverbial tail that wags the dog mentality that quite simply puts numbers out of context.
Over the weekend the New York Newsday ran two interesting pieces. The first was Dave Lennon’s up close look at how Jerry Manuel uses his gut and instincts to complement his numbers crunching. Gary Carter also addressed a similar issue over at his Newsday blog.
Manuel discussed some of his recent decisions that caused many to scratch their head. The two that stand out are Omir Santos pinch hitting for Ramon Castro and Angel Pagan for Daniel Murphy in San Francisco. In both cases Manuel based his decision how he “reads individuals, the piece of data that you can’t always find in statistics, the matchup log, or a videotape. Manuel’s decision making happens during batting practice that day and continues throughout the game into the situations just mentioned. As the season progresses he starts to have the right feel for what his player’s capabilities are. In other words he puts them in positions where they can be successful. Some of it, like left/right matchups, makes sense to use, but there will be others, like the Murphy decision, that was based more on internal knowledge and observations.
Gary Carter spoke more about the stats that he values such as batting average, home runs, RBIs and strikeout-to-walk ratio. He also uses his gut to make decisions on who is will succeed best in a given spot. He also believes a team needs different types of leaders, but usually one or two stand out.
I am not saying throw out the numbers. No one is a bigger critic of those that fail to see the value of using numbers to make decisions. Just look at Willie Randolph and how he would constantly use relievers like Scott Schoeneweis in situations where he was clearly overmatched by a right handed batter. The key is to understand that numbers give you a basis of where to start your decision making. It doesn’t fuel the absolute end result. If it was that easy than me, or any of our loyal readers and listeners, could manage a professional ballclub.
The honeymoon is over with Jerry Manuel. He is on the job a year and nothing less than a playoff appearance will be acceptable with this demanding fan base. After reading columns like the above you should feel confident that this is a man that has a very key ingredient: ability to understand the human side of the game. There are reasons why Moneyball has yet to win a championship. Its managers like Ozzie Guillen, Joe Torre, Terry Francona, and Charlie Manuel that have shown it takes more than knowing the numbers to guide a group to victory. You need to know how to read situations, communicate, and put people in positions where they are most successful. That is why Jerry Manuel is still the right person for this team.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Well in retrospect, it appears that Manuel’s call with Santos was correct…That short stroke may not have worked against Lindstrom, and his 98+ MPH heater, but it certainly got the job done against Paps..
May 26th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
“There are reasons why Moneyball has yet to win a championship.” The Red Sox have relied heavily on statistics/sabermetrics (a.k.a. moneyball). This ulitimately led to them winning the world series twice this decade.
May 26th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Moface
Although Boston has used aspects of Moneyball I don’t think they are a full fledge Moneyball team like Oakland. That was more where I was going
A stolen base, gasp, was the main reason they beat the Yanks in 2004.
I think there is merit to Moneyball, but balance is more what I look for in the general organization direction and thinking
May 26th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Silva have you even read “Moneyball”? I’d bet money you haven’t.
People that are vehemently anti-sabermetrics (such as yourself) are either too dumb or too lazy to learn about them. Hopefully you’re lazy.
Mofact is right – the Red Sox are an organization that values high-level statistical analysis for personnel decisions. To write that they aren’t a “full fledge” Moneyball team is ignorant.
Lastly, the two moves that you cite by Manuel (Pagan-for-Murphy and Santos-for-Castro) ended rather poorly. And yet you cite them as if they are a feather in Manuel’s intuitive cap. That’s some poor writing man. Turn off the talk radio and read Rob Neyer or Joe Posnanski for a change.
May 26th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Have you even read “Moneyball”? I’ll bet money you haven’t.
People that are vehemently anti-sabermetrics (such as yourself) are either too dumb or too lazy to learn about them. Hopefully you’re lazy.
Mofact is right – the Red Sox are an organization that values high-level statistical analysis for personnel decisions. To write that they aren’t a “full fledge” Moneyball team is ignorant.
Lastly, the two moves that you cite by Manuel (Pagan-for-Murphy and Santos-for-Castro) ended rather poorly. And yet you cite them as if they are a feather in Manuel’s intuitive cap.
May 26th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Mike, have you read “Moneyball?”
The Red Sox are an organization that values sabermetric analysis to make personnel decisions. Yes, they are not the A’s, but that doesn’t mean they don’t follow high level stat analysis.
Said it before, but c’mon dude – turn off the talk radio and read Neyer, Posnanski or Keith Law for a change. You just might learn something.
May 26th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Mike, have you read Moneyball?
The Red Sox are an organization that values sabermetric analysis to make personnel decisions. Yes, they are not the A’s, but that doesn’t mean they don’t follow high level stat analysis.
Said it before, but c’mon dude – turn off the talk radio and read Neyer, Posnanski or Keith Law for a change. You just might learn something.
May 26th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
The signing of JD Drew was based on sabermetrics/moneyball. The Red Sox loved JD Drew’s OPS. Even for the 2004 team, David Ortiz can be considered an acquisition that resembled an Oakland FO move. Ortiz in 2002 slugged .500 with an IsoP of .228. In 2001, Ortiz had an OBP of .324 but his IsoD was .100. His slugging was .474 and his IsoP was .241. The previous year, his OBP was .364 with IsoD of .082. Obviously the Red Sox FO saw something in Ortiz and picked him up on a bargain.
I’m not saying that “grit”, “guts”, “feel”, and all the intangiables didn’t play a part for the Red Sox’s success(very little in my opinion), but to say that no team relying on moneyball has won a world series is inaccurate because the Red Sox have demonstrated success by utilizing this strategy for player acquistions (and having the second highest payroll in baseball certainly has helped them).
May 26th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Moface is right Mike – the Sox are an organization that utilizes advanced statistical analysis. The fact that Moneyball wasn’t written about them doesn’t change this fact. And nevertheless, the A’s do not rely solely on spreadsheets to make their personnel decisions despite what you have portrayed in this post.
Legit question Mike – have you read Moneyball?
August 7th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Moneyball doesn’t mean the Oakland Athletics. It centers around the Athletics because billy beane was the first person to use this strategy to find diamonds in the rough. The reason it uses the A’s as the example for the book is because they found a way to be consistently competitive with hardly any money available at all. The Red Sox as mentioned in the post above, use the same types of SABR stats to find their players. The difference being….The Red Sox have money to spend….and lots of it. It is becoming harder and harder for the A’s to be competitive because many teams are using that same philosophy now and the difference between those teams and the A’s is that most of those teams have more money to pay “sleeper” players and prospects.