Orioles Analytics Before Elias

[weams]

 

[ChosenOne21]

This isn't the shortest Orioles books ever written thread

[DrungoHazewood]

1) Sure, it would have been nice to have a +20 CFer instead of an average-at-best CFer.

2) Pillar isn't nearly as good in his 30s as he was at his peak.  Unsurprisingly.

3) It can be challenging to communicate to established players (or even younger players) that they have shortcomings that may result in them being used in ways they're unaccustomed to. 

4) It's not surprising that a veteran manager would want to control the comms with his own player, instead of having 2nd- and 3rd-tier front office types bypassing him.

5) #4 is why you need a manager who's willing to fully accept new ideas and new information, and is why older managers sometimes go stale.  You could write volumes about managers getting fired for doing things that were commonplace a generation prior.

[weams]

3 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

1) Sure, it would have been nice to have a +20 CFer instead of an average-at-best CFer.

2) Pillar isn't nearly as good in his 30s as he was at his peak.  Unsurprisingly.

3) It can be challenging to communicate to established players (or even younger players) that they have shortcomings that may result in them being used in ways they're unaccustomed to. 

4) It's not surprising that a veteran manager would want to control the comms with his own player, instead of having 2nd- and 3rd-tier front office types bypassing him.

5) #4 is why you need a manager who's willing to fully accept new ideas and new information, and is why older managers sometimes go stale.  You could write volumes about managers getting fired for doing things that were commonplace a generation prior.

Excellent summary. 

[mdbdotcom]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

1) Sure, it would have been nice to have a +20 CFer instead of an average-at-best CFer.

2) Pillar isn't nearly as good in his 30s as he was at his peak.  Unsurprisingly.

3) It can be challenging to communicate to established players (or even younger players) that they have shortcomings that may result in them being used in ways they're unaccustomed to. 

4) It's not surprising that a veteran manager would want to control the comms with his own player, instead of having 2nd- and 3rd-tier front office types bypassing him.

5) #4 is why you need a manager who's willing to fully accept new ideas and new information, and is why older managers sometimes go stale.  You could write volumes about managers getting fired for doing things that were commonplace a generation prior.

Today's coaches need to add to their duties serving as interpreters for the analytics department so information is communicated to players in ways the players understand and that make the information actionable.

[Redskins Rick]

This was how stats was interpreted.

[jsbearr]

1 hour ago, mdbdotcom said:

Today's coaches need to add to their duties serving as interpreters for the analytics department so information is communicated to players in ways the players understand and that make the information actionable.

Yes and no.

Your better constructed franchises directly incorporate their data analysts into the day-to-day activities.  Coaches certainly provide a construct within the clubhouse, but they also can rely on those analysts to be able to directly interact with them and their players.  Those analysts need to be able to communicate to everyone what they are doing and everyone needs to ensure they are all on the same page for that player's objectives.

For the manager to act as the conduit would really hamper the manager in what his duties are and makes him an agent for data utilization in a way that probably underserves that analytical process.

[weams]

11 minutes ago, jsbearr said:

Yes and no.

Your better constructed franchises directly incorporate their data analysts into the day-to-day activities.  Coaches certainly provide a construct within the clubhouse, but they also can rely on those analysts to be able to directly interact with them and their players.  Those analysts need to be able to communicate to everyone what they are doing and everyone needs to ensure they are all on the same page for that player's objectives.

For the manager to act as the conduit would really hamper the manager in what his duties are and makes him an agent for data utilization in a way that probably underserves that analytical process.

The author, himself.

Thank you.

 

[Moose Milligan]

Stephen Hawking was great because he was a genius, but he was also great cause he could explain his stuff to everyday people.

 

[eddie83]

Pretty sure I recall Tony saying that   Sara Gelles was not respected. Then a great organization like the Astros hires her.

The more time away from the Buck-DD years the more I appreciate what Dan had to deal with. I think Buck was great at running the team but he was too involved and hard headed. It had to be incredibly frustrating for Dan to deal with. 

[OFFNY]

19 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

 

Stephen Hawking was great because he was a genius, but he was also great because he could explain his stuff to everyday people.

 

o

 

 

o

[DrungoHazewood]

2 hours ago, mdbdotcom said:

Today's coaches need to add to their duties serving as interpreters for the analytics department so information is communicated to players in ways the players understand and that make the information actionable.

That triggered a thought... are there disadvantages to being a player from somewhere like the Dominican Republic who not only is a native Spanish speaker but also stopped their education at the age of 15 or 16?  It's hard enough for MIT- or Stanford-educated front office types to communicate analytical information to a kid who spent three years at Florida State and grew up speaking English.  The coaches need to be fluent in double translation. 

It's probably a little like plugging a paragraph into Google translate, turning it into Norwegian, and then into Urdu.  Occasionally the result might make sense.

[mdbdotcom]

17 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

That triggered a thought... are there disadvantages to being a player from somewhere like the Dominican Republic who not only is a native Spanish speaker but also stopped their education at the age of 15 or 16?  It's hard enough for MIT- or Stanford-educated front office types to communicate analytical information to a kid who spent three years at Florida State and grew up speaking English.  The coaches need to be fluent in double translation. 

It's probably a little like plugging a paragraph into Google translate, turning it into Norwegian, and then into Urdu.  Occasionally the result might make sense.

I think the combination of having a relationship with the player, video and a translator helps it all come together.

[jsbearr]

35 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

That triggered a thought... are there disadvantages to being a player from somewhere like the Dominican Republic who not only is a native Spanish speaker but also stopped their education at the age of 15 or 16?  It's hard enough for MIT- or Stanford-educated front office types to communicate analytical information to a kid who spent three years at Florida State and grew up speaking English.  The coaches need to be fluent in double translation. 

It's probably a little like plugging a paragraph into Google translate, turning it into Norwegian, and then into Urdu.  Occasionally the result might make sense.

My experience is that if you have trouble explaining things to someone with an equivalent 6th grade competency that you will not be doing much analysis work. So many folks want these positions that you often can insist on basic communication competency. It is fairly common for an advanced analytics group to send their analysts out to their minor league programs. The minor leaguers need to be more involved and analysts cut their teeth better at the level, it seems. Everything is flattening and moving away from a heavily controlled silo design. I imagine many teams still worry, but that is where things have moved.

[atomic]

2 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

Stephen Hawking was great because he was a genius, but he was also great cause he could explain his stuff to everyday people.

 

Funny I read some of his lectures lately. His speeches seem to be at such a low level that they didn't provide much useful information.