2015 SaberSeminar Recap: Part Two

Baseball analytics has become a staple of Major League Baseball over the last decade. The analytics movement can be seen on broadcasts, in newspaper and internet articles and, of course, at the Sabermetrics, Scouting, and the Science of Baseball conference. Jimmy Wulf gives us part two of his 2015 SaberSeminar Recap.

Did you miss the 5th Annual Sabermetrics, Scouting and the Science of Baseball Seminar benefiting the Jimmy Fund? Check out Part One of my non-linear recap, featuring Curt Schilling’s combat boots and Ben Cherington gamely answering questions about losing his job earlier in the week. Now it’s on to Part Two, looking at two panels of scouting & development experts, courtesy of the Boston Red Sox and Kansas City Royals front offices.

Inside The Red Sox

Ben Crockett is Boston’s Director of Player Development, Gus Quattlebaum, the Assistant Director of Professional and International Scouting, and Brian Bannister, a former player and now a Professional Scout and Analyst, touched on numerous topics around the uncertainties in player development during a free-form Q&A with the audience.

One of the first players who put effort into extracting value from analytics, Bannister went on at length about how much debate there is on the subject around baseball. The former Royals pitcher struggled to find a consistent role in the majors, and was asked about the decision-making process for moving a pitching prospect from the rotation to the bullpen.

While it wasn’t always clear whether he was describing his views or a Sox front office philosophy, Bannister argued the right way to go is to keep pitchers as starters for as long as possible, developing pitch diversity. He was convinced that 1- and 2-inning stints simply don’t give prospects the repetitions they need to develop a third or fourth pitch.

Crockett managed to deftly side-step a question on the elephant in the room: Labeling a prospect a reliever potentially costs them tens of millions of dollars in future earnings. However, he noted that when it is framed as ‒ “what’s your best opportunity to get to the big leagues?” ‒ young pitchers generally become more receptive to the switch.

The group also discussed the challenges they’ve faced modernizing the flow of information to and from their scouting & development field operatives. Forget using xFIP, the panelists said the real challenge was turning a bunch of experienced scouts into Excel power users. Quattlebaum believes there are still a lot of inefficiencies in the process and that we’ll see real progress when the whole system transitions fully into the mobile age. Twenty years ago, a scout ate dinner with your parents and the GM got a copy of some notes a week later in the mail. Today, a scout gives you a neuroscouting test on his laptop over coffee. Ten years from now, the scout will give the test on the field with a tablet and the GM will be reading his notes before dinner starts.

The Royals Way

John Williams and Daniel Mack are Directors of Analytics in Kansas City’s front office and were able to provide a different perspective on the mechanics of front-office decision-making from their colleagues with the Red Sox. Williams said his biggest change in moving from an outsider to an industry insider was developing a new appreciation for the human element, seeing players as people, and the need for belief in the person before a team to adds a new player into their clubhouse.

On the outside, he saw the quantitative analysis as definitive. On the inside, now both responsible for that analysis and interacting with the players, he views it as “only the first step for the people making decisions.” They even take the same approach when hiring in the front office, and Williams finds that easy definitions of traditional-versus-scouting GMs do not hold up to scrutiny. “The reality is, it’s a long year for everyone, and skillsets don’t turn into results unless they’re bringing the dedication day after day”.

The pair also provided insights on the Royals climbing from doorstop to division champs. Mack defended the not-sabermetrically-beloved Salvador Perez as invaluable to the younger pitchers on the Kansas City staff, with Williams remembering a time from spring training where Perez showed up at 7 A.M. to pitchers’ fielding drills just to watch and yell encouragement. In the context of both Schilling’s earlier comments about clubhouse leaders and Tom Tippett’s belief that the Christian Vazquez and Ryan Hanigan injuries hamstrung Boston’s 2015 season, it actually becomes very easy to understand why Kansas City has given 107 starts to a player with a .269 on-base percentage (.269!).

They revealed that their level of certainty in signing Kendrys Morales was no more or less than Boston’s when signing Sandoval they had a need, he was among those who fit it, and he was willing to sign in Kansas City. Williams definitely carried some past frustrations in his tone when describing how rarely players on their free agent “target lists” actually end up being a location and money fit.

They also described the challenge of packaging the analysis for coaches and players as a critical one facing them today, with Mack saying “A lot of our job is to take this info and find cogent ways of presenting that to the coaches and players.” Williams added, “If I’m talking to coaches or GMs but saying something that only makes sense to a small group of academics, I’ve failed the people paying me money.”

This translation is on top of collecting and crunching the data in the first place, still a complex and critical obstacle. Because of that, the analysts are in daily communication with the coaching staff, but like the Red Sox do it from the comfort of their computer-laden offices rather than accompanying the team on the road. The Royals analysts stressed the need to contextualize the data. “We’re always evaluating the environment that the game is being played in,” Mack said. “Dynamics and talent level are always changing. Particularly at the amateur level, environment is the most important element for evaluating players.”

Sounds like a bunch of straightforward problems with easy solutions, if you ask me.

Between new technology, uncertain data, and rapidly changing methodologies, both panels repeatedly underscored that, far from being over, baseball’s analytics revolution is in its infancy. On-base percentage, WAR, range factors and pitch framing were the first rounds of a debate that show no signs of ending. To make meaningful use of all the information now becoming available to us, the amount of work undone dwarfs the work completed.

Tomorrow we’ll recap the panels featuring media members Andy McCullough, Jen McCaffrey, Alex Speier, Wendy Thurm and Dave Cameron.

*Click here for Part One, part three, and part four.

Jimmy Wulf has also written about minor league facilities.

Follow Jim on Twitter @JimBoSox9.

Check out Rick Rowand’s take on the Hanley Ramirez situation.

About Jimmy Wulf 10 Articles
Jim is a life-long resident of Fenway's section 27, only leaving his post for a stint of college in Missouri and to experience 2001 and 2004 from enemy territory. Jim prefers to self-identify as an Eckstein-esque undersized gritty second baseman, and is likely to be found on diamonds doing one thing or another whenever he’s not trying to make software products for small businesses.


  1. Nice review. One thing that struck me, and I wish I’d had a chance to ask about it- the Royals and their emphasis on acquiring “athletes”.

    They really stressed that. Really, really stressed it. They seem to want guys who run the 100 in under 10 seconds and can high jump 7′, baseball skills be damned. I think that’s always been the case with them- in the 80’s that paid dividends. In the jacked up roid era, not so much. Interesting that as offense declines, it seems to be an option for a winning strategy.

    It’s also interesting because it seems at odds from the approach of drafting for skill, which nets you guys like Pedroia or Youkikis.

    I wonder how much of that comes from these guys who spoke; the new generation of analysts for that team, and how much of that mindset was just institutional and passed to them.

    If it’s institutional, where did that come from? My guess is the turf?

    • Thanks Matt. They definitely mentioned the damn outfield and that they know they’ll never be able to afford “five Clayton Kershaws”. In the OF at least, they know they need to focus on guys who can cover all that ground. In that context, turning Gordon into a Gold Glove LF is one of the most amazingly successful transitions of all time (Biggio?). Also, they thankfully replaced the turf with grass at Kaufman during the ’94 strike, but the mindset is definitely a holdover from that era. It’s funny how franchises can develop these semi-arbitrary characteristics over time, for good or silly reasons.

  2. Yeah, I knew the turf was gone (I would have guessed 12 or 15 years ago, not 21. Time flies.) But you got what I meant- is that where the mindset originated, and they’ve kept it all this time? Are they perpetually looking for the next Willie Wilson, even though the new guys aren’t old enough to remember him playing? I heard the OF part, but glossed over that a bit, you’re right to emphasize it.

    Good to hear a different point of view- this approach was seen as laughable in the early Moneyball days by, well, pretty much everyone in attendance, right? “We’re not selling jeans” and all of that. These guys just kept rolling with that approach. While there was a long drought, the cycle has come all the way around again.

    Thanks again for the re-caps. I think these are valuable for showing what gets discussed and just how cool this event really is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.