The all inclusive "2015 Predictions" thread

[Kimmi]

Neuroscouting? -- I.e. The flavor of the day. It is a way for baseball executives to try to differentiate themselves from the pack while playing barely .500 ball and missing the playoffs. In my 30 years of business I have seen many new Wharton/Harvard MBA business analytics and management tools with catchy names and acronyms come and go.

 

They almost never improve performance or efficiency, except on a very temporary basis. The only people who profit from these ideas are the consultants who sell it to the exceutives. The consultants, not coincidently, are the same people that publish books on this stuff, and the books are profitable solely because they have a captive market -- their MBA students. It's mumbo jumbo.

 

 

Neuroscouting is not meant to improve performance or efficiency, although it has in some cases, with limited success. It's meant as a scouting tool to help project the success of prospects.

 

Mumbo jumbo all you want, but there is not enough data out there for you to know whether it is an effective tool or not. Besides, as SK mentioned, it's more information. The more information you can gather about a player, the better.

[a700hitter]

Neuroscouting is not meant to improve performance or efficiency, although it has in some cases, with limited success. It's meant as a scouting tool to help project the success of prospects.

 

Mumbo jumbo all you want, but there is not enough data out there for you to know whether it is an effective tool or not. Besides, as SK mentioned, it's more information. The more information you can gather about a player, the better.

 

It's a scouting tool meant to improve the performance of the scouting. Without researching this, I will bet that it came from some elite MBA program. As I said, I have seen these ideas come and go. Some of these fads can last for a long time, but they have little lasting positive impact on business.

 

My personal favorite was when my Company hired a Corporate Ethicist (from Harvard I think) to give affirmation to a group of executives who had made some very poor business decisions. The ethicist (paid around $500k in the mid 1990's for this project) concluded that despite the fact that management's decisions had very negatively impacted the bottom line of the business they had acted in an ethically impeccable manner. Nonsensical rationalization is what the report was.

Edited February 20, 2015 by a700hitter

[Kimmi]

It's a scouting tool meant to improve the performance of the scouting. Without researching this, I will bet that it came from some elite MBA program. As I said, I have seen these ideas come and go. Some of these fads can last for a long time, but they have little lasting positive impact on business.

 

My personal favorite was when my Company hired a Corporate Ethicist (from Harvard I think) to give affirmation to a group of executives who had made some very poor business decisions. The ethicist (paid around $500k in the mid 1990's for this project) concluded that despite the fact that management's decisions had very negatively impacted the bottom line of the business they had acted in an ethically impeccable manner. Nonsensical rationalization is what the report was.

 

 

People are always looking for ways to improve. Some ideas work, others don't. If a tool like this gives you an edge, even for a short time, why not use it? You don't think improving the assessment of hand/eye coordination and pitch recognition is important? For those of use who understand that we cannot survive on the eye test alone, it's an interesting notion.

[a700hitter]

People are always looking for ways to improve. Some ideas work, others don't. If a tool like this gives you an edge, even for a short time, why not use it? You don't think improving the assessment of hand/eye coordination and pitch recognition is important? For those of use who understand that we cannot survive on the eye test alone, it's an interesting notion.

In my experience, these tools, methods etc. are usually pretty costly. Consultants need to be engaged to train personnel etc. IMO, the money expended on these budget items would be better spent to poach other organizations' top scouts. These flavor of the day MBA ideas end up being copycat-ed by the competition so any edge is very, very short-lived. Businesses should invest in their most basic fundamentals. Never mind providing the scout with state of the art software. Get the best scouts. That's the way to go. That is the out of the box thinking. I have heard "out of the box" thinking preached for years, and then everyone does the same thing as the competition. This "neuroscouting' will be new and innovative for a very short period. No one is advocating that teams just go with an "eye test". In today's high tech world, there are people in nursing homes with cell phones and the internet. Technology is part of our world. What I am advocating is that human talent is more of a lasting advantage than any technological or analytical break through. Let the others waste their money on the trial and error of most of that. You can use it after it has been vetted and established. Some people would think that this is not forward-thinking. I disagree. If you get the best possible human talent at all levels of your organization, they will be able to better differentiate which break throughs are game changers and true advancements as opposed to passing fads. Let others invent the light bulb. I'd rather have the best organization for manufacturing it after it is invented. But that's just me... someone who has very successfully survived in business and seen many many of these things come and go. Edited February 20, 2015 by a700hitter

[sk7326]

In my experience, these tools, methods etc. are usually pretty costly. Consultants need to be engaged to train personnel etc. IMO, the money expended on these budget items would be better spent to poach other organizations' top scouts. These flavor of the day MBA ideas end up being copycat-ed by the competition so any edge is very, very short-lived. Businesses should invest in their most basic fundamentals. Never mind providing the scout with state of the art software. Get the best scouts. That's the way to go. That is the out of the box thinking. I have heard "out of the box" thinking preached for years, and then everyone does the same thing as the competition. This "neuroscouting' will be new and innovative for a very short period. No one is advocating that teams just go with an "eye test". In today's high tech world, there are people in nursing homes with cell phones and the internet. Technology is part of our world. What I am advocating is that human talent is more of a lasting advantage than any technological or analytical break through. Let the others waste their money on the trial and error of most of that. You can use it after it has been vetted and established. Some people would think that this is not forward-thinking. I disagree. If you get the best possible human talent at all levels of your organization, they will be able to better differentiate which break throughs are game changers and true advancements as opposed to passing fads. Let others invent the light bulb. I'd rather have the best organization for manufacturing it after it is invented. But that's just me... someone who has very successfully survived in business and seen many many of these things come and go.

 

I don't think there is a magic bullet here. The adoption of new fangled stuff varies by org, and by where you are in the competitive space. (hell, that's what Moneyball was about) How do you create edges in a competitive space when you have disadvantages in other places.

 

Scouting is interesting - hire the best scouts is fair, but scouting itself has evolved because of the new fangled stuff - so positioning scouting as "other" than the analytical breakthrough is creating a false dichotomy.

[a700hitter]

I don't think there is a magic bullet here. The adoption of new fangled stuff varies by org, and by where you are in the competitive space. (hell, that's what Moneyball was about) How do you create edges in a competitive space when you have disadvantages in other places.

 

Scouting is interesting - hire the best scouts is fair, but scouting itself has evolved because of the new fangled stuff - so positioning scouting as "other" than the analytical breakthrough is creating a false dichotomy.

Eventually most teams have employed some version of moneyball. It really didn't take long. As for scouting evolving, I would disagree. The skillsets to play the game remain unchanged. Scouts have broader reach using technology and there are more readily available stats on more players so they can better utilize their time. The technology and availability of stats I would say have helped scouts be more efficient with their time, but the fundamentals of the job remain unchanged.

[iortiz]

Neuroscouting? -- I.e. The flavor of the day. It is a way for baseball executives to try to differentiate themselves from the pack while playing barely .500 ball and missing the playoffs. In my 30 years of business I have seen many new Wharton/Harvard MBA business analytics and management tools with catchy names and acronyms come and go.

 

They almost never improve performance or efficiency, except on a very temporary basis. The only people who profit from these ideas are the consultants who sell it to the exceutives. The consultants, not coincidently, are the same people that publish books on this stuff, and the books are profitable solely because they have a captive market -- their MBA students. It's mumbo jumbo.

Some of those management tools usually are rest on world-class Enterprise Application Software (ex. Business Intelligence). In my experience the adoption of those tools usually fail beyond the IT brand/consulting firm mainly because 2 reasons. 1. The tech-implementation doesn't match the business needs. 2. The adoption of new technology and/or KPIs/best business practices do not consider the human/psychological dimensions which are inherent to this kind of projects and most of the times produce a natural resistance to new ways/methods to work. In order to mitigate this problem you have to add a Change Management Service in parallel and by doing this, you try to ensure the the adoption of those tools/IT, otherwise the sensation at the end of the project could end up in frustration as you say.

Edited February 22, 2015 by iortiz

[seabeachfred]

JBJ in a package for Kimbrel could make sense. They don't really need an expensive closer while rebuilding.

 

You know BSN, put another mid-level prospect in the mix and we could possibly swing a deal for Kimbrel. Face it, we have no potential closer to take Koji's place and none of our pitchers fit that role. It might be worth a look.

[seabeachfred]

Neuroscouting is not meant to improve performance or efficiency, although it has in some cases, with limited success. It's meant as a scouting tool to help project the success of prospects.

 

Mumbo jumbo all you want, but there is not enough data out there for you to know whether it is an effective tool or not. Besides, as SK mentioned, it's more information. The more information you can gather about a player, the better.

 

They say a little knowledge is dangerous Kimmi----but a lot of it could be a disaster, baseball wise. I remember very very well how Red Sox PI"s, scouts, pundits, etc, scouted and re-scouted Carl Crawford before we signed him and all lauded to the heights what a hard worker he was, how dedicated a player he was, what determination to excel he had. What happened? They couldn't find through all that scouting that he was a miserable fit to play in a market like Boston. It may work at times but it is not an end all and sometimes it can be a major disaster.

[Spudboy]

They say a little knowledge is dangerous Kimmi----but a lot of it could be a disaster, baseball wise. I remember very very well how Red Sox PI"s, scouts, pundits, etc, scouted and re-scouted Carl Crawford before we signed him and all lauded to the heights what a hard worker he was, how dedicated a player he was, what determination to excel he had. What happened? They couldn't find through all that scouting that he was a miserable fit to play in a market like Boston. It may work at times but it is not an end all and sometimes it can be a major disaster.

 

Mistakes happen Fred.

[Kimmi]

In my experience, these tools, methods etc. are usually pretty costly. Consultants need to be engaged to train personnel etc. IMO, the money expended on these budget items would be better spent to poach other organizations' top scouts. These flavor of the day MBA ideas end up being copycat-ed by the competition so any edge is very, very short-lived. Businesses should invest in their most basic fundamentals. Never mind providing the scout with state of the art software. Get the best scouts. That's the way to go. That is the out of the box thinking. I have heard "out of the box" thinking preached for years, and then everyone does the same thing as the competition. This "neuroscouting' will be new and innovative for a very short period. No one is advocating that teams just go with an "eye test". In today's high tech world, there are people in nursing homes with cell phones and the internet. Technology is part of our world. What I am advocating is that human talent is more of a lasting advantage than any technological or analytical break through. Let the others waste their money on the trial and error of most of that. You can use it after it has been vetted and established. Some people would think that this is not forward-thinking. I disagree. If you get the best possible human talent at all levels of your organization, they will be able to better differentiate which break throughs are game changers and true advancements as opposed to passing fads. Let others invent the light bulb. I'd rather have the best organization for manufacturing it after it is invented. But that's just me... someone who has very successfully survived in business and seen many many of these things come and go.

 

 

I think all teams already employ who they believe are the best scouts. No one is advocating replacing scouts, or even lessening their roles or their importance. If the technology and the stats can give your team an edge, it would be negligent of any team not to use them. Why are these "flavor of the day" ideas copycat-ed? Because they work. So, if team chooses not to employ them, then that team is at a disadvantage.

 

You really seem to be hung up on the idea that these tools come from MBAs. Just because a person is not a "baseball person" does not mean that he/she can't help a team find ways to improve.

[a700hitter]

I think all teams already employ who they believe are the best scouts.

Every department has a budget for salary and compensation. No team has all the top scouts. If the budget devoted to tech/new fangled corporate business initiatives was redirected to additional scouting budget, they would most certainly be able to upgrade the quality of their scouts.

[a700hitter]

Why are these "flavor of the day" ideas copycat-ed? Because they work. So, if team chooses not to employ them, then that team is at a disadvantage.

 

You really seem to be hung up on the idea that these tools come from MBAs. Just because a person is not a "baseball person" does not mean that he/she can't help a team find ways to improve.

You copycat the ones that work and save your money not doing those that don't work.

[a700hitter]

You really seem to be hung up on the idea that these tools come from MBAs. Just because a person is not a "baseball person" does not mean that he/she can't help a team find ways to improve.

I have seen a lot of ideas implemented at my Company that came from Wharton or Harvard MBA consultants that not only didn't add value to or business but that in many ways were detrimental.

[Spitball]

The analytical advancements in statistical studies have been phenomenal. It is difficult to ignore them. They are not fool proof but impressive enough to warrant note of their significance.

[User Name]

Every department has a budget for salary and compensation. No team has all the top scouts. If the budget devoted to tech/new fangled corporate business initiatives was redirected to additional scouting budget, they would most certainly be able to upgrade the quality of their scouts.

 

How do you know this? This is pure conjecture. You don't know the process they use to hire scouts or essentially anything about the subject.

 

You copycat the ones that work and save your money not doing those that don't work.

 

Correct, yes.

 

I have seen a lot of ideas implemented at my Company that came from Wharton or Harvard MBA consultants that not only didn't add value to or business but that in many ways were detrimental.

 

Your company is not an MLB team, and your experience does not reflect the Operations area of a Major League Baseball team. It's comparing apples to airplanes. It's not even close.

[a700hitter]

The analytical advancements in statistical studies have been phenomenal. It is difficult to ignore them. They are not fool proof but impressive enough to warrant note of their significance.

 

And easily learned and copied so any advantage is short- lived.

[Bellhorn04]

The analytical advancements in statistical studies have been phenomenal. It is difficult to ignore them. They are not fool proof but impressive enough to warrant note of their significance.

 

All I'm really interested in is how this translates to better Red Sox teams.

[Bellhorn04]

One point on which I agree with 700hitter is that the most important metric by far is your W-L record.

[User Name]

One point on which I agree with 700hitter is that the most important metric by far is your W-L record.

 

Does that take away at all from the fact that whatever tools may help you improve your W-L record are tools you should be looking into?

[Bellhorn04]

Does that take away at all from the fact that whatever tools may help you improve your W-L record are tools you should be looking into?

 

No, certainly not. All I really care about is how analytics help the Red Sox. There have been various forms of advanced analytics in play for quite a while now. I'd like to see some evidence of how we have translated analytics into on-field success, or how other teams have.

[Kimmi]

Every department has a budget for salary and compensation. No team has all the top scouts. If the budget devoted to tech/new fangled corporate business initiatives was redirected to additional scouting budget, they would most certainly be able to upgrade the quality of their scouts.

 

 

I think upgrading the quality of scouts at the expense of technology/analytics, would do more harm than good. IMO, most good scouts tend to see the same qualities/talents in players. It's the analytics that give a scout the advantage over another scout, not a better eye.

[Kimmi]

You copycat the ones that work and save your money not doing those that don't work.

 

 

If you wait to see whether an idea works or not, any edge that you might have had is gone. By that time, every team is on board with the idea, and every team is back on an even playing field in regard to that tool.

[Kimmi]

The analytical advancements in statistical studies have been phenomenal. It is difficult to ignore them. They are not fool proof but impressive enough to warrant note of their significance.

 

 

Well said Spitball. I've enjoyed your posts.

[Kimmi]

All I'm really interested in is how this translates to better Red Sox teams.

 

 

That's all I'm saying. It may or may not have much of an impact, but it's something that is certainly worth looking into. And it's something that more and more teams are buying into, so I'm guessing that there is something to it.

[Kimmi]

No, certainly not. All I really care about is how analytics help the Red Sox. There have been various forms of advanced analytics in play for quite a while now. I'd like to see some evidence of how we have translated analytics into on-field success, or how other teams have.

 

 

Nothing is fool-proof as far as translating into on-field success. Even a team of all the best scouts could not assure that. I know some will disagree, but I think the FO's track record speaks for itself. We've been one of the most successful franchises this century, and are set up well to continue being one of the most successful for the foreseeable future.

[Bellhorn04]

One of the reasons 2015 will be so interesting, to me, is that Ben and the FO have done some against-the-grain things and really put themselves out there, so to speak. They cut loose Lackey and Lester and assembled a rotation with some very suspect historical numbers. They spent big on adding offense and went well over the tax threshold even with a cut-rate rotation. Very interesting indeed.

[Bellhorn04]

Nothing is fool-proof as far as translating into on-field success. Even a team of all the best scouts could not assure that. I know some will disagree, but I think the FO's track record speaks for itself. We've been one of the most successful franchises this century, and are set up well to continue being one of the most successful for the foreseeable future.

 

I'm not complaining about our FO at all. They have made me a happy Sox fan.

 

However, we also can't overlook the fact that the team has missed the playoffs 4 of the last 5 years, and turned in 2 of the worst W-L records since the dark days. There are reasons to question whether we've been trending in the right direction.

[sk7326]

Eventually most teams have employed some version of moneyball. It really didn't take long. As for scouting evolving, I would disagree. The skillsets to play the game remain unchanged. Scouts have broader reach using technology and there are more readily available stats on more players so they can better utilize their time. The technology and availability of stats I would say have helped scouts be more efficient with their time, but the fundamentals of the job remain unchanged.

 

Well Moneyball is about process improvement and identifying market inefficiencies. So what was an opportunity in 2001 is clearly not there now. The efficiencies moved to defense - the two World Series combatants were known to be very focused on defensive analytics. The advanced use of shifts is a clear nod towards this stuff.

 

The advances move the way technology moves in business. There are early adopters - which are often teams like the A's or Rays who have no choice but to keep looking to stay ahead of the curve to manage meager resources. Teams like the Yanks and Sox can wait for the more proven stuff. Bigger companies do the same thing - if it ain't broke etc etc etc

 

The skills to play the game in a lot of ways haven't changed - but the skills that orgs value sure as hell has, and analytics have been very much part of it. Obviously a decade ago, the discovery that taking pitches is much more nature than nurture changed an area of emphasis for scouting, that plate discipline is something to look for in high schoolers because it is generally difficult to teach to a meaningful degree. (I've mentioned the glaring exception of someone like Sammy Sosa, but that is very very rate) The sorts of players who make the top of org rankings now has a lot to do with improved knowledge on positional value. Scouting still matters a lot, but what they are looking for has changed. And there is still no substitute for scouting as far as determining makeup and such.

[sk7326]

I'm not complaining about our FO at all. They have made me a happy Sox fan.

 

However, we also can't overlook the fact that the team has missed the playoffs 4 of the last 5 years, and turned in 2 of the worst W-L records since the dark days. There are reasons to question whether we've been trending in the right direction.

 

The two last place seasons warrant skepticism for sure. That is fair. Considering that the team won 179 games in the two other seasons they missed the playoffs it is hard to get THAT fired up about it. Specifically there are legitimate questions about the current regime's ability to handle kids at the major league level. The last two seasons in Cleveland have shown strong evidence that handling young players (or managing a staff doing so) is something Tito is just very good at. The prior GM/Manager seemed to be better at avoiding excessive reactiveness.

 

Put another way - if the Red Sox choose their starting outfield based on spring training stats again I will scream