Tango Knows its About Winning and Dollars
By Mike Silva ~ March 20th, 2010. Filed under: Mike Silva, Sabermetrics.
The Blue Jays might not have a chance in the American League East this year, but they are putting the pieces in place for the future. I was glad to see Tom Tango hired by Toronto as an advisor. As you already know, Tango is an expert in the field of sabermetrics. Back in December he took some time to answer my questions about sabermetrics, a topic that I have been skeptical about since I started my foray into radio and new media.
What I like about Tango is how open he is to discourse. His also knows his role in baseball is a piece, not the whole, of the puzzle. When speaking to the Toronto Star he wouldn’t take credit alone for Seattle’s 24 game turnaround in 2009 saying “the best you can say is that everyone involved had some value-added and that’s the extent of quantifying my contributions.”
All along I have said each team should employ someone like Tango in their organization. According to the piece, two-thirds of clubs already do, but I have heard there are various levels of engagement on the teams end. Saying you employ something and actually working it into your process are two different things. The real value of advanced, in my opinion, is not so much on the field, but in the business end of the game. Tango says as much when he states his “work contributes far more in terms of evaluating baseball talent in terms of wins and dollars than anything else, (Coaches and GMs) can still use their instincts on things that have no data, but if the information exists, then I make sure they have it, in some digestible form. This way, they can make an informed decision.” Sounds familiar? I have been saying this all along.
I did find laughable the author, Robert Cribb, used Bill James with the 2004 Red Sox as an example of how sabermetrics works. First, you didn’t need advanced statistics to trade for Curt Schilling, nor did it develop the farm system (that was Dan Duquette) which allowed them to make such a trade. Key players such as Johnny Damon, Manny Ramirez, Derek Lowe, and Jason Varitek were acquired during the Duquette regime. The failed theory of James sabermetrics on how “anyone could close in 2003” led to a porous bullpen and the need to sign Keith Foulke in the offseason. Foulke pitching in pain everyday in the playoffs was the stabilizing force in that pen, which I find hard to believe had something to do with James analysis. You could not quantify the big game guts of Foulke and “not anyone” can do that. I hope those who criticize me for my statements acknowledge the fallacy of what Cribb’s said about the 2004 Red Sox with as much fervor.
It’s great to see Tango monetize his passion. This is what all of us should be striving for in the business. It’s exactly the question I had for sabermetricians back in December: Why do this if you can’t make money? If big league teams see monetary savings on their end, you should get a piece as well. The value it can bring to the business side of sports truly will show if Toronto can compete with their small revenue market in the flawed MLB economic system. As for “on the field”, I encourage managers to incorporate analysis into their daily reading, but its good coaching, scouting, and player development people that I want at the front line.
March 21st, 2010 at 10:01 am
Mike who are you quoting with “anyone could close in 2003”?
March 21st, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Yeah. Joey’s right to ask. I don’t think Bill James ever said that “anyone” could close.
And if you actually followed the 2003 Red Sox, you’d see that Grady Little never actually ran that bullpen as a closer by committee. He simply had serial closers. For a few weeks it’d be one guy. Then for a few weeks it’d be another, etc… But he always had one guy who was doing the closing.
I’m not sure how this misconception is still going but that’s all it is, a misconception.
March 21st, 2010 at 12:06 pm
I never said James said “anyone can close”, but that is the basis of his theory? Anyone can pitch in the ninth inning?
He basis the ninth on runs ahead, not factoring in his data is predicated on closers. Ask the Mets if anyone can pitch the ninth inning in 2008?
March 21st, 2010 at 12:43 pm
No, the basis of his theory is that it is best to use your best reliever when the game is on the line, which is at least as likely to be in, say, a tie game in the eight than it is to be with a lead in the ninth.
You never said that James said that “anyone can close,” but the implication was that somebody connected with the Red Sox said it, and that was a false implication.
March 21st, 2010 at 2:51 pm
The failed theory of James sabermetrics on how “anyone could close in 2003”
I never said James said “anyone can close”
Your particular brand of chutzpah is beyond imagination.
March 21st, 2010 at 6:57 pm
And I think the real theory is that pitching in the 9th inning isn’t any different than pitching in the 5th, rather than “anyone can close”. That isn’t true anymore than “anyone can start”. But that doesn’t mean there’s a special skill to pitching in the last inning of a ballgame (which is not to say that there isn’t – not the argument I’m trying to start here)
March 21st, 2010 at 7:27 pm
“Why do this if you can’t make money?” Gosh, why do people hike the Appalachian Trail, grow flowers in their gardens, walk the dog every day? Not everything in life is about making money, Mike. Some people simply enjoy studying baseball and sharing their findings. For some of us, baseball, including but not limited to its statistical element, has an elegance that is satisfying in itself, and seeking to better understand, and explain, its complexities is its own reward.