"not worthy of its own thread" offseason thread

[misterManager]

12:32
cyarbrough: Edmundo Sosa at 12 on the Cards list? Did you see something in the AFL?
12:32
Eric A Longenhagen: He’s a near-ready, stone cold 45 and the best defensive infielder on their 40-man.

Just in case DeJong does flame out, this is good to know. Would have thought Munoz or Mercado was the guy but there are options it seems.

[Fat Strat]

In the three years I’ve been doing this, I’ve written plenty of articles that have praised teams for taking the long view — for trading two wins now for 10 later; for properly understanding their place on the win curve; for locking up young players on the cheap; for getting a good bargain on dollars per win. I’ve written plenty of articles that have praised teams for being very clever.

Too clever by half. It’s possible that some of the slowness of this offseason to date has come from a small handful of teams simply being unwilling to spend and using the powerful legacy of honest-to-God rebuilds in Houston and Chicago to cover for plain and simple grift. But more of it, I think, has come from a sort of mass intellectual narrowing that has captured, to one extent or another, even the 20 or so teams that are, actually, trying to win.

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-opening-bell/

That is one heckuva good article. Could not agree more with it. I was one of the many champions for smarter front officing, scouting, and payroll efficiency over the years, but I have to agree with this guy. I like that baseball has gotten smart, but I would rather have fun. And besides eating a lizard, there's not going to be anything all that fun about Mikolas. Gregerson is going to be slightly less boring than Russ Springer was, and probably not pitch as well.

The Cards clearly won the "intellectual narrowing" that he's talking about this offseason. We're absolute masters at it. But, dumber decisions -- that really aren't all that dumb -- would probably have us right there with the Cubs instead of chasing a Wild Card. And even now, some roster inefficiency could get us a lot closer to being really competitive in the postseason, assuming everything works out. But, Bud Norris is a good deal compared to Wade Davis. And our graphs tell us that signing Mikolas is somewhat more future-friendly than making that trade for Archer that the Rays kept throwing at us, so long as those kids who have never stepped onto an MLB field become what our statistical models say they have a small chance of becoming.

[Jocephus]

it was a refreshing article/perspective. i enjoyed this

But wouldn’t you rather have watched Darvish pitch for your team in 2018 than whoever it is you have as fifth starter now? Sure, he’ll be worse in a few years than he is today. After that he’ll be dead.

[Hoot45]

That is one heckuva good article. Could not agree more with it. I was one of the many champions for smarter front officing, scouting, and payroll efficiency over the years, but I have to agree with this guy. I like that baseball has gotten smart, but I would rather have fun. And besides eating a lizard, there's not going to be anything all that fun about Mikolas. Gregerson is going to be slightly less boring than Russ Springer was, and probably not pitch as well.

The Cards clearly won the "intellectual narrowing" that he's talking about this offseason. We're absolute masters at it. But, dumber decisions -- that really aren't all that dumb -- would probably have us right there with the Cubs instead of chasing a Wild Card. And even now, some roster inefficiency could get us a lot closer to being really competitive in the postseason, assuming everything works out. But, Bud Norris is a good deal compared to Wade Davis. And our graphs tell us that signing Mikolas is somewhat more future-friendly than making that trade for Archer that the Rays kept throwing at us, so long as those kids who have never stepped onto an MLB field become what our statistical models say they have a small chance of becoming.

[Momo]

In the three years I’ve been doing this, I’ve written plenty of articles that have praised teams for taking the long view — for trading two wins now for 10 later; for properly understanding their place on the win curve; for locking up young players on the cheap; for getting a good bargain on dollars per win. I’ve written plenty of articles that have praised teams for being very clever.

Too clever by half. It’s possible that some of the slowness of this offseason to date has come from a small handful of teams simply being unwilling to spend and using the powerful legacy of honest-to-God rebuilds in Houston and Chicago to cover for plain and simple grift. But more of it, I think, has come from a sort of mass intellectual narrowing that has captured, to one extent or another, even the 20 or so teams that are, actually, trying to win.

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-opening-bell/

This is a real good article.

Of course most of the Fangraphs regulars have their panties in a wad, but there's a really interesting thesis behind the article.

Wouldn’t you rather watch Aaron Judge hit the everloving [expletive] out of that glittering ball than watch his balding boss, back in the luxury suite, push some paper around? Don’t you do enough paperwork already? Isn’t it time to ditch the marginal and chase the absolute? It sounds, frankly, a lot more fun than the game we have now.

At what point should you stop chasing marginal win upgrades, and really try to risk something with a big win upgrade? At what point do you stop chasing marginal wins possible in the future, and add wins now? Where's a sweet spot in terms of risk management?

At what point does the chase for market efficiency loop back around and cause massive audience disinterest?

All of those are interesting and important questions that are still related to numbers and market analysis. Granted, I don't know if that new author is capable of doing it, but he is asking hypotheticals that are worth being asked.

[sighyoung]

At what point should you stop chasing marginal win upgrades, and really try to risk something with a big win upgrade? At what point do you stop chasing marginal wins possible in the future, and add wins now? Where's a sweet spot in terms of risk management?

At what point does the chase for market efficiency loop back around and cause massive audience disinterest?

All of those are interesting and important questions that are still related to numbers and market analysis. Granted, I don't know if that new author is capable of doing it, but he is asking hypotheticals that are worth being asked.

This is a very good way to put the problem. I do think that the article is suggesting that this is a feedback loop--that the search for market efficiency is (and will) lead to decisions that run counter to fans' desires, and that will reduce many fans' satisfaction with the game.

I think the answer to your first question--"At what point should you stop chasing marginal win upgrades, and really try to risk something with a big win upgrade?"--resides in the same answer in the article--the general manager. There needs to be a moment in which the GM--not only out of team or owner interest, but self-interest, as well--sees the risk as worth taking. What we're seeing is a degree of risk-aversion, combined with the principal-agent problem: that is, the owner (principal) has delegated authority to the agent (general manager) to make decisions on the former's behalf, and currently, the incremental decision-making taking place in baseball pleases both owners and gm's--but each for different reasons. We need a moment in which the g.m. takes a risk. While some gm's might gamble in the hopes of winning and then moving to another organization, I suspect many (including Mozeliak) really need a star-aligned moment to take that kind of risk.

In a sense, the article is a quasi-Marxist assessment of the current economic climate in baseball. Not in terms of "revolution," but a belief that there is a fundamental economic 'logic' to the decisions being made by front offices in baseball that runs counter to the reasons many of us became fans, and the enjoyment we derive from sports. The writer is suggesting that this logic is the new normal, and is pondering what to do to encourage either different decision-making, or to derive a form of pleasure and fulfillment from the sport that runs counter to the financialization of baseball decision-making today.

[Momo]

That's a great and interesting analysis of the ideas.

There was actually a Fangraphs podcast a few months back where one of the authors (maybe Cameron?) questioned if the sabermetric revolution is over. Obviously, there are more and more numbers and more ways to analyze the game added every year. But now every club is using stats to make at least some larger portion of their decisions. The biggest clubs, who used to be iconic, lumbering hulks of stupidity and inefficiency are now using stats seemingly to a very effective degree. So did we, those of us who were or are enamored by stats, succeed? And where do you go now?

There was also a comment posed in the Fangraphs' article comments a few months back, that I now can't find, that said something similar. Those of us who advocated so heavily for stats did something that made a lot of sense, but did we ever question if the game that we were asking to be created would still be fun to watch?

As a slight aside, the feedback loop problem is an intriguing thing to consider just in the context of the American sports-viewing landscape in 2018. It would be interesting regardless, but it's really interesting right now.

Traditional TV is and has been on the decline. The once seemingly invincible juggernaut of the NFL has been faltering more and more, while others like the NBA have started clawing more viewers for themselves. In this moment of post-CTE, post-anthem debacles NFL, this seems like the time to get your team back into the community, grab some mindshare for yourself and put your foot on the neck of one of your largest corporate rivals.

I don't know how or if you can factor that into market/budgetary analysis, but it does kind of present a slightly compelling reason to try to be playing exciting, competent baseball. Which gets back to the question of stat driven baseball. Have we helped create a version of baseball that is less interesting and compelling to the average viewer? I love baseball, and I'll watch it no matter what. But what about everyone else?

It can't be healthy for the sport and the image of the sport when you've got fairly large free agents unsigned mere weeks before Spring Training begins. Granted, I do still place a healthy and significant amount of blame for the lack of signings on the Players Association itself. But regardless of the exact division of the blame, baseball is in a tight spot at the moment.

And at the end of the day, I agree with the main thrust of that article. Yes, playing for future upgrades and longterm contention is basically always going to be the "smart move." But my time on this planet is limited, and not everyone has time to wait for rebuilds/retoolings to work. And importantly, related to the earlier point, if my time is limited, as is the time of others, I'm not going to waste it watching mediocre or even crappy baseball in the hope that they maybe make the playoffs someday.

[Popeye_Card]

Since 2010, the Giants and Royals have combined to win 4 World Series--two franchises that I doubt many people would have described as overly enlightened/SABR-smart. Two more were won by the Cubs and Astros--big market tankers. Another was won by the Red Sox, a big market big salary team. The final championship was won by the Cardinals, who kinda fluked their way there in the last season with a generationally great player.

I'm not sure I have a real point here. Other than "fun to watch", "smart", and "winning" don't always seem to correlate very well. Winning teams are generally fun to watch, but the formula to get there is a bit foggier than we might think.

[jagtrader]

The Giants are operated like a fantasy baseball team. Which is fun for their fans, I suspect.

[Fat Strat]

Since 2010, the Giants and Royals have combined to win 4 World Series--two franchises that I doubt many people would have described as overly enlightened/SABR-smart. Two more were won by the Cubs and Astros--big market tankers. Another was won by the Red Sox, a big market big salary team. The final championship was won by the Cardinals, who kinda fluked their way there in the last season with a generationally great player.

I'm not sure I have a real point here. Other than "fun to watch", "smart", and "winning" don't always seem to correlate very well. Winning teams are generally fun to watch, but the formula to get there is a bit foggier than we might think.

I'm not sure there really is a formula. Except, that talent plays. Almost all the teams you posted there found a way -- not the same way -- to acquire some awfully talented players. Then some luck happened and hocus-pocus, you're flying another flag. But, it started with talent.

Apply that to where we are and, say, the Mikolas decision. By itself, most of us think it's not a bad lottery ticket on a guy who might become Mike Leake for half the price. Could even be better than that if you squint hard enough. Good decision by itself? Almost certainly. Does it actually put the talent on the field that we're going to need to be highly competitive in the postseason? Almost certainly not. A series of good decisions -- Mikolas, Gregerson, Norris -- all lead to a place where the talent clearly isn't where it needs to be to believe any of that hocus-pocus is possible.

One stupid move -- Arrieta instead of Mikolas; a real closer instead of Gregerson; even creating roster inefficiency with Hosmer or someone -- and you can see how it could happen, maybe, doubtfully, but maybe. That's where the game gets fun again. I would love to be sitting just behind the Cubs today, but with the ability to dream a little on what could be.