The best part of that answer was how the organization had no concept of "top 10" prospect lists.ehaz said:The front office is very high on Eduardo Rodriguez
ScubaSteveAvery said:The best part of that answer was how the organization had no concept of "top 10" prospect lists.
It was a snarky response, but it was clear that they don't keep track of prospects like the nerds do.E5 Yaz said:
Was that as in, "We don't keep track of Top 10 lists"? Because to say they don't keep track of them, or know about them, seems a tad snarky
Snarky? I dare say so.E5 Yaz said:Was that as in, "We don't keep track of Top 10 lists"? Because to say they don't keep track of them, or know about them, seems a tad snarky
I loved his answer on pitch framing -Reverend said:Snarky? I dare say so.
It was actually closer to something like, "How the heck would I know?" Then he asked if there were any other members of the Red Sox present who might know.
Kevin Jewkilis said:I think the most interesting thing Ben said was about the new approach to building the team. 10 years ago, they could easily go out and get all the best talent, but now it's much more evenly distributed. The new goal is to find ways to get the players they can get hit the high end of their projection ranges (something that definitely isn't happening for the team this year). It goes far beyond player acquisition and traditional coaching.
Buzzkill Pauley said:
For those of us who aren't there -- was this comment set in the context of revenue sharing allowing teams to lock up more players for longer, of the overall increasing valuation within front offices of truly valuable skill-sets, or of some other criteria that defines team-building?
Isn't the problem a result of not being able to apply much of the advanced metrics only for a few years back? The data just does not exist beyond certain points.JGray38 said:Something that caught my attention:
Vince Gennaro and Jeff Luhnow both spoke at length about the rapid changing of the nature of the game due to data analysis, and the difficulties in using data to make changes in a game with 100+ years of tradition. Coaching staffs and even players have years of experience in doing things a certain way. Luhnow's example was getting buy-in on defensive shifts, which he wasn't fully able to implement until his 3rd season in Houston...
OttoC said:Isn't the problem a result of not being able to apply much of the advanced metrics only for a few years back? The data just does not exist beyond certain points.
"We really do encourage people to ask questions, but we would appreciate it if you could try not to be a jerk when asking them," (approximation) may well have been THE line of the day that included many a solid contender.Jnai said:I had a fun day 1. =)
Reverend said:
That is a separate problem that is distinct from the issue JGRay is describing that Gennaro was addressing and, for that matter, Farrell addressed last year. That is to say, even in cases where they believe they have enough data such that they know something, they have to work the psychology of the players and develop a culture and an approach to the other personnel, be it players or coaches or whatever, to get buy in. Last year, Farrell mentioned introducing subjects in a gradual way in a dialogue with players that allowed the players to contribute and sometimes think that they had come up with the idea on their own (which they may have, albeit in guided fashion). This is pretty sophisticated pedagogical stuff and a skillset certainly not generally associated with baseball guys and MBA/lawyers.
Gennaro frame it in terms of back in the day people would just listen to the authority and do what they were told whereas now people want to know "Why?", a phenomenon he attributed to a stubborness of a culture that was different from what things were like after WWII--this frame drew some raised eyebrows, from the cheap seats at least.
LahoudOrBillyC said:On defensive shifts. I recently sat with a front office guy from the Astros in Houston -- he is a friend of a friend, he got us the seats, and he came down to say hello. The Astros are a major shift team. The issue he talked about, which might be what Luhnow meant, is that the pitchers get pissed when they give up a hit in a place where a (non-shift) fielder is traditionally positioned. On the other hand, their brain does not as easily see the hits the shift is saving them.
While he was sitting with us, Jake Buchanan (I think) allowed a line smash to Juan Francisco in the (traditional) second base hole that was fielded cleanly and easily by Jose Altuve for a 4-3. The Astros guy immediately said, "someone will be talking to him about that play" as a way of teaching him how he is benefiting.
Jnai said:Incredible photos. Really well done.