Author Topic: "Solving the Yankee Equation, One Number at a Time"  (Read 1020 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline welch

  • Posts: 16298
  • The Sweetest Right Handed Swing in 1950s Baseball
"Solving the Yankee Equation, One Number at a Time"
« Topic Start: September 11, 2016, 11:16:32 PM »

By BILLY WITZ
JULY 25, 2016

Quote
As the Yankees confront a major retooling, [Michael] Fishman, an assistant general manager who oversees one of baseball’s largest analytics staffs, will have a prominent voice — either in the coming days if they shed some of their more coveted assets, like reliever Aroldis Chapman, or after the season, when they can go about reinvesting the more than $53 million in salary that will be coming off their books.

“You want to make the best, most informed decision you can, so the deeper you can dig on something the better,” Cashman said.

When the Yankees hired Fishman in 2005, two years after the publication of “Moneyball” and four years after he graduated summa cum laude from Yale with a bachelor’s degree in mathematics, he was their analytics department.

It has since grown to include seven analysts, five system developers and several interns who work under him. Seven former interns have landed analytics jobs with other teams, Fishman said.

Baseball’s analytics boom is hardly a secret. The Oakland Athletics, the Tampa Bay Rays and the Pittsburgh Pirates have been the subject of books detailing how losing teams with low payrolls used data to build winners. The Boston Red Sox long ago hired Bill James, the godfather of modern sports statistical analysis, and executives like the Houston Astros’ Jeff Luhnow and the Los Angeles Dodgers’ Andrew Friedman have been closely identified with the use of analytics in multiple organizations.

Yet the transformation of the Yankees, rarely known for being discreet about anything, has taken place with little fanfare. Still, when ESPN last year rated every team in the four major professional sports leagues on their commitment to analytics, the Yankees were ranked sixth among 122 teams.

“The perceived motivation for analytics for teams like Tampa is they didn’t have a lot of money to spend, and they were looking for the diamonds in the rough,” said Ben Baumer, an assistant professor of statistical and data sciences at Smith College who previously worked in analytics for the Mets and who wrote the ESPN article. “That wasn’t the Yankees’ problem.”

But, Baumer added: “I don’t know if this is true anymore.”

Though the Yankees still are profligate spenders — their $226 million payroll is second behind the Los Angeles Dodgers’ — baseball’s revenue-sharing program has helped level the playing field in recent years. So, too, have the reams of data that are now available thanks to sophisticated cameras that can track minutiae like the spin rate on a curveball.

“People off the field can have a legitimate impact on the field,” Yankees third baseman Chase Headley said. “Whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing I don’t know, but that’s where we’re at: Either you embrace it, or you’re not going to be around, because that’s the way the game is going.”

The Yankees’ turn toward analytics has taken many forms. They have used pitch-framing data to evaluate catchers, coveting ones who excel at getting borderline pitches called strikes. They have been among baseball’s most shift-happy teams, placing fielders where their statistical models say balls are most likely to be hit — not just by a particular hitter, but in a particular count.

<snip>

Full story at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/sports/baseball/michael-fishman-solving-the-yankee-equation.html?ref=baseball

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 39410
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: "Solving the Yankee Equation, One Number at a Time"
« Reply #1: September 12, 2016, 09:26:32 AM »
Thanks Welch.  I'm thinking part of the NYY motivation and a behind the scene issue was their failure to get expected performances out of the aging free agents they were bringing in.  Neither CC's nor A-Rod's extensions worked out for the team in terms of performance (A-Rod I think might have been better than CC's but was too long), Tex was a disappointment, Ellsbury looks like not such a hot deal, etc... Meanwhile, they did come up with some good signings, like Headley and Miller, so I think they gradually started trusting analytical projections more than past high profile performance.

Offline NJ Ave

  • Posts: 3485
Re: "Solving the Yankee Equation, One Number at a Time"
« Reply #2: September 12, 2016, 11:19:55 AM »
Tex was a disappointment, Ellsbury looks like not such a hot deal, etc...

Tex was a little underrated as far as I'm concerned. 4 years @ 3.8 WAR or better in 8, and another at 3.4. 3 lost years, but what do you really expect from someone in their age 33-36 seasons?  He had as many seasons 3.8 WAR or better in the 8 years with the Yankees as he had in the previous 7. Granted his peak was lower, but again, what do you expect from someone you sign for 8 years starting at age 29?

Ellsbury looks like he'll be a much worse signing in my opinion, unless he bounces back in his mid-30s.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 39410
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: "Solving the Yankee Equation, One Number at a Time"
« Reply #3: September 12, 2016, 02:06:21 PM »
The thing about Tex was he was signed to a superstar contract and he produced like . . .  :w: erth?  We have a bit of "whose WAR is it, anyway?" when talking Tex at the NYY.  fWAR has him, in descending order of WAR, at 5.1, 4.3, 3.4, 2.9, 2.8, 1.0, -0.1, and -1.3.  Werth had two very good years with the Nats at 5.0 and 4.7, but also 2.3, 1.3 (2016), and 0.7, and -0.3.  Equal peak, better trough, but fewer middling years.

7/$126MM > 8/$180MM, I/M/O.  In terms of WAR, Werth has been $108 MM for 13.7 WAR (~8MM per win), while Tex has been $180 for 18.1 WAR (~$10MM per win).

Offline BrandonK

  • Posts: 8182
  • #LOLNats
Re: "Solving the Yankee Equation, One Number at a Time"
« Reply #4: September 12, 2016, 02:14:05 PM »
Werth has been :w: erth it, especially if he's decent next year.

Offline Mathguy

  • Posts: 9162
  • Floyd - Truely Man's best Friend
    • Outer Banks Beach House
Re: "Solving the Yankee Equation, One Number at a Time"
« Reply #5: September 12, 2016, 04:05:07 PM »
So who is Tex, what position does he play, and where did he come from ?

Offline Ali the Baseball Cat

  • Posts: 17657
  • babble on
Re: "Solving the Yankee Equation, One Number at a Time"
« Reply #6: September 12, 2016, 04:10:34 PM »
So who is Tex, what position does he play, and where did he come from ?

We almost signed him.  Glad that worked out for the best.

Offline BrandonK

  • Posts: 8182
  • #LOLNats
Re: "Solving the Yankee Equation, One Number at a Time"
« Reply #7: September 12, 2016, 04:18:21 PM »
We almost signed him.  Glad that worked out for the best.
(Image removed from quote.)

Probably wouldn't have given Face all that money, so...

Offline NJ Ave

  • Posts: 3485
Re: "Solving the Yankee Equation, One Number at a Time"
« Reply #8: September 12, 2016, 04:26:30 PM »
The thing about Tex was he was signed to a superstar contract and he produced like . . .  :w: erth?  We have a bit of "whose WAR is it, anyway?" when talking Tex at the NYY.  fWAR has him, in descending order of WAR, at 5.1, 4.3, 3.4, 2.9, 2.8, 1.0, -0.1, and -1.3.  Werth had two very good years with the Nats at 5.0 and 4.7, but also 2.3, 1.3 (2016), and 0.7, and -0.3.  Equal peak, better trough, but fewer middling years.

7/$126MM > 8/$180MM, I/M/O.  In terms of WAR, Werth has been $108 MM for 13.7 WAR (~8MM per win), while Tex has been $180 for 18.1 WAR (~$10MM per win).

I don't disagree, but don't you think the Yankees care less about $/win and more about total WAR? So I think they'd be happier with Tex giving them "decent or better" production 5 of 8 years, than with someone who cost a little less but produced less for them.

Might only apply to 3-5 teams in the majors.

I just think the Yankees would rather fill a lineup spot with a $25 million 3 WAR player than a $10 million 1.5 WAR player, even if the 1.5 WAR player is more efficient spending.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 63106
  • THE SUMMONER OF THE REVERSE JINX
Re: "Solving the Yankee Equation, One Number at a Time"
« Reply #9: September 15, 2016, 10:23:08 AM »
I don't disagree, but don't you think the Yankees care less about $/win and more about total WAR? So I think they'd be happier with Tex giving them "decent or better" production 5 of 8 years, than with someone who cost a little less but produced less for them.

Might only apply to 3-5 teams in the majors.

I just think the Yankees would rather fill a lineup spot with a $25 million 3 WAR player than a $10 million 1.5 WAR player, even if the 1.5 WAR player is more efficient spending.
If money isn't an object, shouldn't you get the 3 WAR player?

Offline BrandonK

  • Posts: 8182
  • #LOLNats
If money isn't an object, shouldn't you get the 3 WAR player?

That's what he said?