Just in case you thought there was one correct way to successfully integrate analytics into running a baseball team, that's apparently not the case. A couple of days ago, I was reading a terrific piece in The Athletic by Brittany Ghiroli and Eno Sarris about how teams were using the position of quality control or quality assurance coach to maximize their use of data:
Data is everywhere in baseball now. Since it’s so ubiquitous, you’d think there would be little advantage when it comes to the numbers that fuel game-day preparation. But many believe there still is an edge in data and it has to do with a job, or more specifically a job title, that is now spreading across the sport: the quality assurance coach. The tale of this title, which first arrived in Tampa Bay 13 years ago this week, tells us a little about how the data edge in the game today comes from the how and the who and the when, as much as the what.
Simplistically speaking, the QA coach is tasked with making sure the right data is getting to the right people on the team, so that they are ready to make the right decisions during the game.
The Mets were one of the teams that utilized this position last year, as former player Brian Schneider held down the job. But today, I'm reading in the New York Post that the Mets have eliminated this position and have reassigned Schneider to a different job within the organization. The Mets are working hard to beef up their Research and Development after hiring Ben Zauzmer from the Dodgers organization. Unlike many other teams who utilize a QA coach to make sure that all of the advanced data is properly integrated by the coaching staff, the Mets are choosing a different path:
The Mets have eliminated the quality control coach position ... leaving a direct line of communication between the analysts and coaching staff. [Current manager Luis] Rojas served as the quality control coach in 2019, distilling analytical information for the rest of the coaching staff.
"We feel pretty comfortable that our analysts and strategists are going to be talking to our coaches," Rojas said Wednesday. "Right now the digestion of the information is clear. Our coaches learn a lot about the usage of systems and some of the formulas out there, so there is the straight line of communication and now that we have expanded and have more manpower you can see it working already."
Mike Puma, the author of the piece, didn't offer further details or insight into why the Mets decided to buck the trend by eliminating the position. I'm pretty sure that it's not that they don't care whether the right information is being given to the right people and being implemented correctly. I would imagine there is still someone responsible for making sure all of the data is being integrated successfully, but, at least for the Mets, that person will no longer be a coach.
Over recent years, as it became clearer how important integrating advanced analytics into the day to day running of a successful baseball club truly was, I would look at what the best clubs were doing and wonder what a difference it would make if the Mets ever decided to wake up and follow suit. I find it really interesting that now they are finally are owned by someone willing to make investments in that area, they're choosing to buck a trend used by some very successful organizations in implementing that data. Then again, there's really not one correct way to do something.
In Puma's article in the Post, he also cites manager Luis Rojas on the Mets' desire to improve their own baserunning. A significant part of the reason the Mets struggled to score runs despite generally excellent offensive numbers was poor baserunning, and this has been somewhat of a trend for them in recent years. What often sticks out when we think of bad baserunning is watching runners getting thrown out trying to take an extra base. There's certainly been some of that, but I often found myself frustrated last year watching the Mets being timid on the basepaths. Properly aggressive teams will get some players thrown out at times. It's always a balance. You want to avoid the really dumb mental errors, but playing it too safe costs runs and lets opposing pitchers off the hook.
Baserunning was just one of the reasons the Mets underperformed last year. Granted, their pitching was awful enough to sink them, anyway, but the Mets could have made it interesting at the end of the season simply by winning a few more games. The Mets finished the abbreviated season at 26-34. This included dropping their last 3 games to the Nationals. The Brewers made the expanded playoffs with a 29-31 record. It wouldn't have taken much for the Mets to have snatched that last wildcard spot for themselves. They probably wouldn't have done much in the playoffs, but it still would have been nice to see them there for however long.
The Mets' real problem is too many management Casanovas want to skip the first data and go right after extra bases
ReplyDeleteThe problem with their baserunning is that they were a slow team.
ReplyDeleteSpeed also ties closely to defense, too.
I don't think it's a coaching or attitude issue so much as a speed problem.
Jimmy